Search results

Brand equity has been a topic of interest in consumer goods markets for many years. Several studies suggest that existing consumer‐based measures of brand equity, which have traditionally been used in the consumer goods markets, can also be used to capture brand equity in the services markets. The purpose of this research is to assess the quality dimension in consumer‐based measurers of brand equity in the context of services and to compare it with consumer goods.

A pilot and a main study were conducted. Nine different brands were tested in a consumer‐based experimental online survey. Each participant was assigned randomly to one brand.

In the consumer goods markets customer service can be considered as a marketing instrument. In the services markets customer service is a part of the perceived quality of a service.

The implication leads to the question whether existing measures of brand equity in consumer goods markets should be used without adaptation in services markets. The findings show that the consumer‐based brand equity should be measured different in these markets. Concerning the differences the findings show also that customer service can be seen as a marketing instrument in consumer goods markets and a part of the perceived service quality in services markets.

There is a lack of research in the difference of measuring brand equity between consumer goods and services. This paper explores this difference of measuring brand equity.

The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between various drivers of consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) for m-payments and to demonstrate practical relevance. The study examined the indirect relationship between m-payment drivers and satisfaction and their subsequent association with brand equity drivers in the context of m-payments.

A survey was administered to a total of 725 respondents. Structural equation modeling, SPSS AMOS and a multi-mediation model using process macros were used to analyze the primary data.

The results of this study corroborate the post-use driver (satisfaction) and trust mediates drivers of m-payments (perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use) with overall brand equity. Satisfaction and trust exert a positive influence on overall brand equity, and this research will help organizations devise strategies to retain consumers, offer loyalty schemes and brand effectively to bundle services.

Novelty was achieved in this study by extending the technology acceptance model to determine the association between m-payment drivers and satisfaction and their subsequent association with overall brand equity, thus providing practical implications.

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.

This research aims to examine the impact of celebrity credibility on consumer‐based equity of the endorsed brand. The mediating role of brand credibility and the moderating role of the type of branding (parent versus sub‐brand) employed by the endorsed brand on the endorser credibility‐brand equity relationship are also to be examined. The endorser credibility‐brand equity relationship was developed using associative learning principles whereas the brand signalling theory is applied to examine the mediating role of brand credibility.

The conceptual framework was tested using a field experiment. Data were collected using a mall‐intercept approach at a shopping centre from a sample of consumers in a metropolitan Australian city. The data were analysed using structural equation modelling.

Results suggest endorser credibility has an indirect impact on brand equity when this relationship is mediated by brand credibility. This mediating relationship was moderated by type of branding. However, the “endorser credibility‐brand credibility” and “endorser credibility‐brand equity” relationships did not vary according to the type of branding employed.

In support of past findings, the present study shows that a celebrity endorser should be one who is perceived as credible based on their attractiveness, expertise and trustworthiness. Moreover, in this research, even a moderately low credibility endorser proved to be able to build the brand.

The present study is one of the first to empirically examine and confirm the impact of endorser credibility on brand credibility and consumer‐based brand equity.

This study aims to use social exchange theory and the principle of reciprocity in proposing a theoretical model to examine the essential but unexplored unique roles of individual customer equity drivers (CEDs) and their contribution to brand loyalty. This study identifies a reciprocity pathway in that brand equity, which mediates the linkage between relationship equity and brand loyalty. This study further posits that the linkage between relationship equity and brand equity is contingent on value equity. The authors then incorporate value equity as a moderator upon which the interrelationships among CEDs and brand loyalty may vary.

A sample consisted of 2,268 shoppers in a metropolitan city in Vietnam.

Relationship equity significantly determines brand loyalty through the moderating effect of value equity and the mediating effect of brand equity. Interestingly, these relationships are diverse across different experiential types of consumers.

This study contributes to a better understanding of why and when value equity, brand equity and relationship equity trigger brand loyalty. Brand equity and value equity are the two underlying mechanisms that establish a moderated mediation model between CEDs and brand loyalty. The findings of this study show that experiential consumers are not created equals. The strength of the relationships between CEDs and brand loyalty differ among the five clusters of experiential consumers.

This study reveals the critical relationships between the three components of customer equity in the supermarket industry. The findings provide concrete direction for managers and marketers to be more effective in allocating resources, tailoring their marketing strategies and, accordingly, promoting brand loyalty of different types of consumers.

This study reveals the underlying modus operandi that explains the reciprocity effects of CEDs and the contingency role of brand experience on the CEDs–loyalty link. This study shows that brand equity fosters and sustains the reciprocity generated when consumers perceive a high level of relationship equity, serving as a mediator between relationship equity and brand loyalty. Importantly, value equity is an important moderator for strengthening this reciprocity effect. Furthermore, this study identifies a typology of experience-focussed consumers and shows that the CEDs–loyalty link significantly varies by these types of experiential appeal that characterise the consumers.

This paper aims to compare brand equity strength, i.e. the extent to which brand awareness and brand image contribute to purchase propensity, for different segments of consumers (non-users, light users and heavy users) and two different markets (soft drinks and banking, representing a repertoire and a subscription context, respectively).

This aim is pursued using a scalable customer-based brand equity (CBBE) framework, which captures how brand awareness and brand image, on a continuum of brand knowledge, underpin purchase propensity. The framework constitutes a “tool” for the analysis of brand equity strength, and it is applied, alongside a suite of empirical tests, to a large set of longitudinal consumer survey data collected from the same consumers and for both markets.

There are meaningful differences across the three consumer segments considered, especially in relation to brand image values, which are generally greater for more loyal consumers. Furthermore, the overall strength of brand equity is greater for banking brands compared to soft drinks brands.

This research highlights the practical importance of detecting and managing differences in brand equity strength across consumer segments with dissimilar brand loyalty. It also suggests that there is relatively more value in evaluating and managing the CBBE process in subscription markets, than in repertoire markets.

The contribution of this research to brand equity knowledge is twofold. It addresses concerns in relation to the need to analyze brand equity at a disaggregated level and it sheds light on inconclusive findings in relation to the generalizability of CBBE principles across different types of markets.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the components of consumer‐based brand equity from the perspective of experts in brand management in the UK, Germany and Greece.

Data were collected from semi‐structured interviews with senior brand consultants and managers, five in the UK, five in Germany and five in Greece.

The findings suggested four categories of measures which can be used to define brand equity. These are the consumers' understanding of brand characteristics; consumers' brand evaluation; consumers' affective response towards the brand; and consumers' behaviour towards the brand. Specific dimensions are identified as indicators of each category.

Although the focus of this study is Europe, data were only collected from the UK, Germany and Greece, countries representing three of the five European cultural clusters. The resultant taxonomy adds to the fragmented literature on brand equity measurement by proposing four categories to gauge brand equity.

The suggested taxonomy provides indicators of a framework managers could use when assessing brand equity.

There is little agreement on what constitutes brand equity and therefore measures of brand equity are fragmented. To date, the views of practicing managers have not been taken into account in research. This paper draws on the views of practitioners and academics to suggest a taxonomy of categories of measures for brand equity.

The purpose of this study is to investigate differences in consumer reactions to high- versus low-equity brands in terms of consumer attitude toward the brand, involvement with the brand, company credibility and consumer purchase intentions.

Experimental procedure is conducted to test three hypotheses using 317 consumer participants. The experiment is carried out comparing a high-equity personal computer (PC) brand and a low-equity PC brand involved in product-harm crisis.

The results indicate that, in the case of product-harm crisis, negative consumer perceptions regardless of brand equity level; less negative perceptions for a high-equity brand than for a low-equity brand; and smaller loss in consumer perceptions for a high-equity brand than for a low-equity brand.

The findings highlight the importance of brand equity in crisis management explained by covariation theory of attributions.

Although product-harm crisis is inevitable for many firms, continuous investment in brand equity can mitigate the negative consequences.

Product-harm crisis can pose serious consequences for firms on both financial and intangible dimensions. Given the occurrence of numerous product-harm crises involving both reputable and less known brands, it is important to consider potential influences of brand equity on consumer reactions to such crisis.

This research aims to provide insight on the interactive effects of service quality and e-service quality on perceptions of retailer brand equity and also extend and test the efficacy of Baker ' s service environment typology in both offline and online service experiences.

A within-subjects, simulated shopping experience immerses consumers in both offline and online shopping environments and, subsequently, consumers are surveyed regarding both offline and online quality as well as aggregated evaluations of retailer brand equity.

Results demonstrate that consumer perceptions of offline and online service quality have a positive effect on retailer brand equity and service quality and e-service quality interact, such that e-service quality has a stronger effect on brand equity offline quality is low. The results also support the application of offline service environment frameworks for online retailing.

The results demonstrate the applicability of Baker ' s typology in both online and offline environments and reveal that customer perceptions of offline and online operations can interact to affect global attitudes toward the retailer.

The results suggest that retailers can improve quality perceptions by enhancing both their offline and online service environments and that these quality improvements can result in enhanced consumer perceptions of brand equity.

This study provides a first look at the applicability of offline frameworks for the service environment in an online context. Moreover, the results provide an initial assessment of how consumers update global attitudes toward a brand by consolidating perceptions across both offline and online interactions.

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.