Search results

The study aims to examine the difference of financial-based brand equity of Sharia-compliant and non-Sharia-compliant companies listed in the stock market.

The five-year data were collected from 561 companies listed in the Indonesian stock market (349 Sharia-compliant firms and 212 non-Sharia-compliant firms).

Based on five years of observations, the study shows that Sharia-compliant companies have much higher brand equity than companies that are not Sharia-compliant. However, the study did not find consistent results when the study examined the differences between brand equity in newly listed Sharia-compliant firms in the short run (two-quarters of the observations). In other words, Sharia-compliant status positively impacted a company’s brand equity only in the long run.

The study examines only the brand equity of Sharia- and non-Sharia-compliant companies in the Indonesian stock market.

The study suggests that companies should list their equity in the Islamic stock market as the empirical evidence shows that the companies listed in the Sharia index have much higher brand equity than companies listed in the non-Sharia index, although this impact can only be seen in the long run.

The study integrates finance and marketing perspectives, which are often disconnected in daily business. In addition, the study provides a piece of empirical evidence on the effect of financial decision to be listed in the Islamic stock market on the establishment of brand equity, which represents the long-term intangible assets of the firm in the eyes of the customers.

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.

This paper aims to look into contemporary thinking within the brand equity paradigm, with a view to establishing avenues for further research on the drivers of brand equity formation, enabling a more in-depth understanding of the antecedents of brand equity and its determinants, as well as the development of an improved instrument to measure brand equity. The brand equity paradigm and its importance for marketing theory have been in the research focus for more than two decades. There is no agreement in the literature how to develop a unique measure of brand equity, neither what are the sources, drivers or determinants.

The authors develop the relating conceptual study through the differentiation and integration as specific conceptual goals. The authors present a taxonomic framework of brand equity grounded on a synthesis of contemporary approaches to the theme.

The authors identify gaps in the brand equity literature. The analysis and development of the conceptual study in this paper shall serve as beacons for future research and provide valuable theoretical insights on the determinants of brand equity formation and the development of better brand equity measurement tools.

The authors synthesized contemporary approaches in the field, identified research gaps and proposed open questions that should be tackled, as well as provided avenues for future research. The authors argue that creation of a unifying brand equity theory should be based on three pillars: stakeholder value, marketing assets and brand financial performance outputs.

The purpose of this study is to measure intellectual capital of the firm through the eyes of the consumer by investigating the relationships between financial-based brand equity (FBBE) and consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) and their related constructs.

Fifteen consumer brands were evaluated based on three different perspectives of CBBE, and were then regressed on FBBE. Prior to the regression analysis, the FBBEs of 15 consumer brands were standardized using the total assets and three-year weighted average of their brand equity values.

Findings show that existing CBBE scales and related brand dimensions partially explain FBBE, namely, sustainability and brand experience, and that the product category contributes significantly in explaining FBBE. In addition, brand experience is positively associated with FBBE.

The study only includes brands from the food, electronics and clothing industries.

The study provides guidance to brand managers regarding which brand dimensions directly influence brands’ financial values.

The paper empirically measures consumers’ perceptions of the firm’s intellectual capital by using brand equity.

The current study conceptualizes and empirically tests a new model of market brand equity (MBE). This model, that not just provides an understanding of customer mindsets toward the brand, as most empirical models do, but also measures the marketing benefits of such mindsets. The present study offers two models. One is comprehensive and theoretical while the other is an empirical model. The empirical model is a practical model drawn from the more comprehensive and conceptualized model. The hypothesized empirical MBE model is tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis followed by a formula that offers a method to calculate and rank competitive brands in the market place. The purpose of this paper is to conclude with a discussion of the implications of the model.

The findings of the present research are based on a representative sample of 964 cellular phone users selected randomly from an Israeli internet panel were analyzed. The questions related to the dimensions of the brand equity needed a more intimate relationship of the customers with the brand. Thus, those questions were asked only with regard to the brand that the respondents were mainly using. These questions were concerned with brand knowledge, brand commitment and brand overall attitude. The other questions that the respondents answered were about three other brands on the market. All dimensions, except purchase barriers, were measured on a ten-point scale.

SEM analysis was used to test the hypothesized MBE model as well as alternative models. The results, which supported the hypothesized model, indicated that knowledge has a strong positive effect on image, personality and attitude. Image has a positive effect on attitude, but that of personality was insignificant. Attitude, image and personality have a positive effect on commitment. Commitment affects recommendation strongly and positively. Both commitment and recommendation have a positive and significant effect on potential market share.

The limitations of the current research are that it was not measured over time and that only one product category has been tested. In addition to dealing with these limitations, future research may also add additional marketing performance outcome variables such as the ability to obtain premium prices and to exercise brand power in relation to channels of distribution.

The model presented in this paper provides the marketer with the ability to compare, from a competitive perspective, the relative average in the market place of customer mindset, customer performance and marketing performance. The analysis also reveals whether to invest in strengthening customer mindset or in capturing a greater market share. When the brand leader is far from its followers, an additional analysis may be required and it may be necessary to increase the sensitivity of the analysis by examining separately (without the leading brand) the relative differences between the follower brands. Moreover, the measurement questions should be adjusted to fit different product categories. For example, in testing the MBE in the service industry, “product performance,” which is a component of brand commitment, should be measured by the “quality of service.” But the way of using the model will not change. Another example for future research may be found in sport marketing, such as among football or basketball clubs. In such instances, performance – winning or losing – or even the quality of the players on the team may be considered. It is suggested here that the MBE’s measurement of fast-moving products vs slow moving ones. However, in such cases the model would probably show a significant difference in involvement with the brands of fast-moving products displaying much lower customers’ involvement then brands of slow-moving products.

The empirical model suggested in this study is a new and practical market-based brand equity that uses commitment as the main construct, building brand equity to represent the performance outcome of the customer mindset used in the models noted above. The current study also offers a new practical and useful formula for calculating and ranking MBE.

The purpose of this study is to advance marketers' understanding of customer‐based brand equity (CBBE) within the context of a B2B financial service marketing setting.

Two nation‐wide studies were used to investigate whether brands are in fact differentiated in the minds of the target audience; test two competing explanations of the formation of CBBE using structural equation analyses; and reconcile satisfaction and CBBE theories within a single theoretical model.

The results suggest that these customers do differentiate brands, and that Netemeyer et al.'s model of CBBE is generally supported. In addition, the extended model of CBBE proposed herein explains more variance in loyalty intentions, while simultaneously demonstrating the importance of customer satisfaction in CBBE models, and incorporates customer attitudes into conceptualization of CBBE.

First, the current research focuses specifically on CBBE. Second, the reported MDS results are exploratory in nature and must be interpreted with caution.

The results will help financial service marketers measure CBBE as well as relate brand power to customer satisfaction and customer attitude measurement through implementing the proposed framework in their own competitive setting.

The two nation‐wide studies reported herein enhance our understanding of CBBE and its relationship to customer attitudes and satisfaction research within a single theoretical model, as well as identifying the influential roles of both hedonic and utilitarian forms of brand attitudes in the formation of CBBE.

The author aims to present a model of the brand value drivers, measured by brand equity. The goal of this research is to identify the drivers, and determine how they influence brand equity performance in the researched industry, in order to develop a more effective brand strategy.

The author studied an aggregate dataset for 739 food brands. Six predictors were controlled for (i.e. marketing investments, price, revenue, perceived quality [organic and functional] and brand ownership), while the impact of the brand equity drivers on brand value was estimated. The model was formulated and estimated using a robust OLS procedure. Several data sources have were in this study, such as market-based data from ACNielsen, as well as information and variable constructs using data from the Bureau Van Dijk Electronic Publishing AIDA financial statements database.

Results suggest that marketing investment, price, revenue, brand ownership and perceived quality are highly associated with brand equity, and consequently with a higher brand value in the food industry.

This study has only studied one industry (food), one industry segment (enriched-food) and one country (Italy).

The majority of marketing studies apply a single research approach and measures. This is the first study of brand equity that combines consumer, financial and marketing approaches. The model contributes to theory and practice in terms of suggesting which business drivers create brand value and what type of brand strategy a firm can apply in order to create brand value.

The purpose of this study is to determine whether COVID-19 had an impact on the brand equity of the Top 100 global brands in the Americas, European and Asian regions over the three years of assessment (2020–2022).

A secondary data method (document scanning) was used to gather the study’s data from Brand Finance’s Global 500 annual reports from 2019 to 2022. The data for this study was analysed using the IBM Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0. The data were subjected to a descriptive test and one-way analysis of variance.

The findings showed that most of the Top 100 global brands from the Americas, Europe and Asia experienced little or no impact due to COVID-19. Thus, no significant differences were found to exist among the Top 100 global regional brands due to COVID-19 in the years 2020 and 2021. However, there is a significant difference in 2022 due to its small effect size.

The findings of this paper contribute to brand equity literature and global branding literature in the context of COVID-19. This paper innovatively frames brand equity and provides guidelines to help brands sustain their financial-based brand equity during a worldwide crisis.

The purpose of this research is to empirically test the interrelationship between corporate social performance and financial‐based brand equity. This paper proposes that social performance leads to enhanced brand equity and, conversely, brand equity positively influences social performance. Firm size is hypothesized to play a moderating role in the interrelationship.

This paper uses cross‐sectional, secondary data of global brands. A system of equations is proposed and estimated using seemingly unrelated regression.

Prior social performance has a positive effect on brand equity, but brand equity only impacts future social performance among very large firms. The positive effect of prior social performance on brand equity is amplified in smaller firms.

Managers can increase brand equity by using corporate social responsibility as a strategic tool for positioning differentiation. To maintain competitive parity in social positioning and preserve brand equity, very large firms will likely need to ensure that they achieve comparable social performance as their global peer competitors.

This research offers a new perspective that looks at corporate social responsibility as a source and outcome of brand equity. The paper is the first empirical study that tests the interrelationship between social performance and financial‐based brand equity. The work offers global managers an improved understanding on how social responsibility relates to brand equity.

Understanding the impact of marketing-related investments on market-based assets is a fundamental issue for marketers. In this study we address the relationship between product-related investments and communication-related efforts, with respect to a basic intangible market-based asset: consumer-based dimensions of brand equity. We draw from a longitudinal study of pre-purchase brand attribute data derived from consumer panels, conducted within the context of the U.S. automotive market. Brand equity dimensions are statistically related to marketing investments and contextual factors of “region of origin” and “global brand reach,” employing a seemingly unrelated regression model. The results reveal a positive effect of communication-related investments, as measured by annual advertising expenditures, on all dimensions of brand equity except luxury image. Product-related investments, as indicated by a brand's innovativeness, positively affect brand image but negatively affect perceived economy. Region of origin and global brand reach have mixed effects on the consumer-based dimensions of brand equity.