Search results

In the literature on product branding, significant attention is given to brand equity in the consumer context, but relatively little attention is paid to the application of the concept in the business-to-business (B2B) context. Even less research exists on the role of brand equity in the retailing context. Retailers are often seen as irrelevant to the source of brand value, resulting in manufacturers not targeting retailers to help them build stronger brands. Potential occurs, therefore, for some channel conflict to exist between manufacturers and retailers. On the one hand, retailers tend to focus on building their own, private brands to differentiate themselves from other retail competitors and to increase their power in relation to manufacturer brands. At the same time, most retailers still need to create a good image in the consumer marketplace by selling famous, manufacturer-branded products. In other words, retailers often have to sell famous brands even if they would prefer to sell other brands including their own. Manufacturers tend to focus their brand-building efforts on the consumer market to entice consumers to insist that retailers stock their brands, rather than placing any real emphasis on building a strong and positive brand relationship with the retailer directly.

The purpose of this research is to explore how a successful global and a local brand may compete side by side in an existing market place based on consumer‐based brand equity and consumers' status‐seeking motivation for purchasing a global versus local brand.

The data for this research were collected through a self‐administered survey from students in a large Western Australian university.

The results show that a global brand is generally preferred in terms of all the dimensions of consumer‐based brand equity over a local brand. However, a significant interaction emerged between the type of brand and high versus low status‐seeking motivation consumers. A global brand is strongly favoured in terms of awareness, perceived quality and overall brand equity by high status seekers while a local brand seems to enjoy loyalty and overall brand equity among low status seekers. A global brand is also clearly preferred over a local brand along all dimensions of consumer‐based brand equity amongst high status‐seeking consumers. Further, a local brand is clearly preferred in terms of consumer‐based brand equity over the global brand by Australians whereas the global brand remains a clear favourite with non‐Australians.

Findings may not generalize beyond Australian sample and the product category.

This empirical research explores how global and local brands may compete with each other based on their strengths. This research also addresses a theoretical gap identified by Yoo and Donthu.

The present research aims to improve the measurement of consumer‐based brand equity. Current measurement of consumer‐based brand equity suffers from limitations, including: a lack of distinction between the dimensions brand awareness and brand associations, the use of non‐discriminant indicators in the measurement scales and of student samples.

Based on the recommendations of extant research, the scale constructed to measure consumer‐based brand equity in this study included brand personality measures. Brand associations were measured using a different set of items. Unlike many of the previous studies that had used student samples, the present study used a sample of actual consumers from an Australian state capital city. Confirmatory factor analysis employing structural equations modelling was used to measure consumer‐based brand equity in two product categories and across six brands.

Results support the hypothesised four‐dimension model of consumer‐based brand equity across two product categories and six brands. Brand awareness and brand associations were found to be two distinct dimensions of brand equity as conceptualised in the marketing literature. The present study contributes to the understanding of consumer‐based brand equity measurement by examining the dimensionality of this construct.

The principal contribution of the present research is that it provides empirical evidence of the multidimensionality of consumer‐based brand equity, supporting Aaker's and Keller's conceptualisation of brand equity. The present research also enriched consumer‐based brand equity measurement by incorporating the brand personality measures, as recommended by previous researchers. While earlier studies were conducted using US and Korean samples, the present study also used a sample of Australian consumers.

The objective of the present research is to examine the impact of the country of origin of a brand on its consumer‐based equity.

Brand equity was conceptualized in this paper as a combination of brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality and attitudinal brand loyalty. A doubly multivariate design was incorporated in a structured questionnaire to collect data via mall intercepts in an Australian capital city.

Multivariate analysis of variance of the data indicated that consumer‐based brand equity varied according to the country of origin of the brand and product category. This impact of country of origin on brand equity occurred where consumers perceived substantive differences between the countries in terms of their product category‐country associations.

An important direction for future research would be to examine how the consumer‐based equity of a brand would be affected, if the country of origin were changed from a country with weaker association with the product category to a country with strong association with the product category. The results would be useful to MNCs contemplating international manufacturing.

Marketing managers operating in the international context must identify the sources of brand equity, and understand the importance of incorporating country of origin into their brand equity measurement. Further, the results suggest that, when a brand offers a variety of product categories, brand managers should monitor and track the brand's consumer‐based equity for each product category.

The present study is one of the first to empirically examine and confirm the impact of country of origin on the consumer‐based equity of a 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.

The purpose of this paper is to measure consumer‐based brand equity in the supermarket industry and to identify the strategy drivers associated with levels of brand equity for consumers' typically patronized supermarkets.

A nine state survey of consumers was conducted to provide brand equity ratings of 22 national, regional, and specialty supermarket brands.

Factor analysis yields two brand equity outcome dimensions and eight brand equity drivers. A large proportion of consumers clearly have strong feelings about the supermarkets they patronize, and that effort expended in keeping customers, service level, and product quality and assortment appear to be basic requirements for achieving high levels of consumer‐based brand equity. The top supermarket brands typically score highly on at least one other key driver of equity. Supermarket brands that use formal loyalty programs to drive patronage in general have lower levels of customer‐based brand equity.

Selection of designated supermarkets was limited by spatial distribution in the geographic area. The sample is more affluent and educated than the general US population.

As retailers search for ways to compete more effectively for consumer dollars and loyalty, they need to explore in more detail the customer‐based brand equity and the drivers of customer equity associated with their retail brands.

This paper is the first to link consumer‐based brand equity and the supermarket branding efforts that drive it for specific retail brands. In an industry with numerous choices in nearly all market areas and low switching costs, successful branding can translate into emotional commitment, shopping loyalty, and even person‐to‐person promotion of the brand to others.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the performance of Aaker’s dominant conceptualization of consumer-based brand equity (brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty) in a multi-national and multi-sector European context and highlights important lessons vis-à-vis the measurement of brand assets across countries.

Cross-category data was collected through a survey over a period of two months from a representative sample of consumers in three European countries (n=1,829), the UK (n=605), Germany (n=600) and Greece (n=624).

The findings suggest that Aaker’s dimensions of consumer-based brand equity cannot be clearly separated. More specifically the dimensions of brand awareness, brand associations and brand loyalty could not be always clearly discriminated in all national contexts.

The paper contributes to the limited amount of cross-national research on brand equity by assessing the most widely used conceptualization of consumer-based brand equity. Contrary to previous research, this study has used data from real consumers who evaluated a range of brands across product categories (including goods, services and internet).

The aim of this study is to test a holistic model that investigates the direct influence of service quality on building consumer based brand equity, along with the mediating role of corporate credibility and perceived value.

A self‐administrated questionnaire was used to collect data from the customers of local and foreign banks in the Islamabad and Rawalpindi regions of Pakistan. The hypothesized relationships were tested using structural equation modeling procedure.

The results suggest that perceived value and corporate credibility fully mediate the relationship between perceived service quality and consumer based brand equity.

This study is managerially important for two reasons. First, it will help managers to focus on a more integrated and holistic approach in building consumer based brand equity of their service firms. Second, it will provide clear guidelines for managers regarding how investments in different aspects of important marketing constructs can influence consumer preferential relations with a brand.

This research is probably the first to investigate a holistic model that explores the causal relationships among service quality, perceived value, corporate credibility and consumer based brand equity of service organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to: distinguish between financial brand equity and perceptual brand equity; distinguish among different stakeholder perspectives on customer-based brand equity, consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) (consumer, customer, employee and resident); contrast the original definitions and measures of CBBE by Aaker and Keller; identify the deviations from the original conceptualizations and measures of CBBE by Aaker and Keller; discuss the evolution of the most commonly used CBBE components; analyze the structural relations of the most common CBBE components and generate conceptual, structural, relational and methodological suggestions for future research.

This critical review conducted a narrative analysis of the perceptual brand equity literature (CBBE) by inventorying about 200 empirical and conceptual CBBE studies in several different contexts. Studies that included CBBE, brand equity, customer-based brand equity and consumer-based brand equity were included in this review. Only 87 representative studies that either conceptually defined or empirically measured CBBE and its components were included in the deep analysis.

The review revealed that the literature is divergent in terms of CBBE components or structural relations among components in any context including tourism and hospitality. Even though about 40 different CBBE components exist in different contexts, the totality of the CBBE literature reflects a consensus on five components of CBBE, brand familiarity/brand awareness, brand image/brand associations, perceived quality, consumer value and brand loyalty, all of which collectively define the total meanings of a brand from consumer/customer perspective.

Keeping these five components intact, this study suggests a concise CBBE definition, conceptual clarifications for these components, a model reflecting their structural relations and a framework of parsimonious measures. The study makes future research recommendations in terms of using uniform CBBE components, measures and relational structure among components, identifying the relationship between CBBE and financial-based brand equity and comparing different stakeholder perspectives on CBBE in future research.

With these observations and suggestions, this critical review provides a guideline for more robust theory development of the CBBE construct. Additionally, it offers a parsimonious and practical CBBE blueprint for the practitioners who include CBBE as a strategic market metric in their marketing and research plans. Furthermore, it suggests standardization in CBBE research to enable systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the CBBE literature in the future. Using standard components, measures and relational models in CBBE research, as was suggested in this study, would allow meta-analysis for a meaningful comparison of results between different brands, products and even industries.

There is a growing interest in brand formation and brand valuation among global firms today, but global marketers typically ignore one of the key factors of brand building – corporation ability association (CAA). This paper aims to explore the structural relationship between CAA and consumer‐based brand equity variables and its product‐market outcomes.

Utilizing Aaker and Keller's theoretical framework of brand equity, this paper develops a brand equity model combining customer‐based brand equity with product‐market outcome approaches. A set of scales are developed and tested on a national sample of Chinese consumers.

The data provide support for ten of the 12 hypotheses. The results indicate that CAA is an important factor in building and preserving brand equity. CAA and brand awareness have impact on quality perception, which has positive impact on brand resonance, brand extensibility, and price flexibility. Brand resonance has positive influence on brand extensibility and the intention to repurchase.

For global marketers operating in China, brand equity is a cultural market‐based asset and global companies must focus on building corporation ability association in China in order to enjoy the substantial competitive and economic advantages provided by brand equity. Theoretically, the proposed brand equity model is an extension of the model proposed by Keller.

For the first time, CAA is integrated into fhe brand equity model. This may provide a theoretical base for further research in the endorsement role of company ability in brand equity building.