Determinación del número de trabajadores requeridos

The previous section emphasized that there is growing evidence for the applicability of the brand concept in a business-to-business context. Thus, companies should strive to devel- op strong brands in order to be appealing and reach their full potential among their cus- tomers.263 For this purpose, organizations must invest resources in brand building, and appropriate activities that contribute to establishing a strong brand need to be selected and coordinated. Consequently, questions regarding the efficiency and effectivity of re- spective efforts arise. In particular, BAUMGARTH/DOUVEN (2010), O’SULLIVAN/ABELA

(2007), and DOYLE (2000) have pointed to the incessant need to justify investments in brand building measures.264 This holds true especially for the industrial sector, where there have long been doubts about the general relevance of brands.265

263

See BIEDENBACH (2012), p. 15; M’ZUNGU/MERRILEES/MILLER (2010), pp. 607-608; SIMOES/DIBB

(2001), p. 217.

264 _{See O’S}

ULLIVAN/ABELA(2007), pp. 79-81; DOYLE (2000), p. 299.

265

Regarding the management of brand building activities, financial measures such as sales and profit figures that refer to a company’s performance on a general level provide only limited guidance due to their historical orientation, short-term perspective, and lack of di- rect attributability to marketing efforts.266 This criticism led to the development of the brand equity construct as an intangible asset, which is considered a representation of a brand’s success in the market and primary objective for establishing strong brands, thus providing focus and direction to all brand-related activities and decisions.267 In 1991, WINTERS stated that there was no widely accepted definition of brand equity.268 More recently, BIEDENBACH

(2012) and TRAN/COX (2009) conceded that while the number of approaches for specify- ing the constructs has increased, a univocal understanding has still not been achieved.269 However, according to YOO/DONTHU (2001), one important consensus underlying a major- ity of definitions is that brand equity is the incremental value of a product due to the brand name.270 Following the development of different understandings of the construct, two dis- tinct views on brand equity have been established: a financial and a behavioral perspec- tive.271

Historically, companies relied on financial information regarding changes in a brand’s val- ue as a guiding key figure to coordinate their brand building activities.272 In this context, the financial (or firm-based) brand equity perspective focuses mainly on the monetary po- tential that can be derived from a brand:273 “Proponents of the financial perspective define brand equity as the total value of a brand which is a separable asset – when it is sold, or included in a balance sheet.”274 _{In this way, this point of view centers on the premium in}

prices and sales volume commanded by a successful brand. Typical fields of application for a financial-oriented brand equity evaluation are accounting purposes,275 brand transac- tions, fund raising, brand licensing, and loss estimations in cases of brand plagiarism. In this regard, a number of methods have been developed to estimate the monetary asset value of a brand. However, the majority of approaches share a common core in trying to separate the added value of a brand from the value of the subject product or the company itself. Here, three different methods have been the focus: (1) a cost approach assuming that brand equity is the amount of money required to reproduce or replace a certain brand, (2) a market approach considering the price of a brand in an open market transaction, and (3) an income approach understanding brand equity as the net present value of all future

266

See MIZIK/JACOBSON(2008), pp. 15-17.

267

See CHRISTODOULIDES/DE CHERNATONY (2010), p. 43; FISCHER/VÖLCKNER/SATTLER (2010), p. 823; VERBEETEN/VIJN (2010), p. 648. 268 See WINTERS(1991), p. 70. 269 See TRAN/COX (2009), p. 120. 270 See YOO/DONTHU (2001), pp. 2-3. 271

See CHRISTODOULIDES/DE CHERNATONY (2010), p. 46; PAPPU/QUESTER/COOKSEY (2007),

pp. 728-729; LASSAR/MITTAL/SHARMA (1995), p. 12. BIEDENBACH (2012) remarks that there have been attempts to integrate both perspectives. However, several authors point out that these models should be applied with caution as they might lead to a confusion of the sources and out- comes of brand equity. (See BIEDENBACH (2012), pp. 19-20; SALINAS/AMBER (2009), p. 40; RAG- GIO/LEONE (2007), p. 392.) 272 See BIEDENBACH (2012), p. 18. 273 See KAAS (1990), p. 48. 274

ATILGAN/AKSOY/AKINCI (2005), p. 238.

275

See the work of WAGNER/MUSSLER/JAHN (2005), GERPOTT/THOMAS (2004), and GREINERT (2002) for a detailed discussion of accounting standards for brands.

income streams based on the brand.276 Altogether, the brand equity construct is consid- ered mainly an evaluative measure that covers the economic success of a brand as its fi- nal outcome. The value generated for the consumer is not explicitly taken into account. Rather, this aspect is implicitly represented by its outcome, referring to a premium in pric- es and sales volume.277

A behavioral (or customer-based) perspective on brand equity was initially proposed in the 1980s as a result of insights from the fields of information economics and cognitive psy- chology focusing on knowledge structures as representations of brands in individuals’ minds.278 From this point of view, AAKER (1991) specified that brand equity is “(…) a set of

assets and liabilities linked to a brand’s name and symbol that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or that firm’s customers.”279 _Similarly,

underlining customers’ brand knowledge as a core of brand equity, KELLER (1993) re- ferred to brand equity as a result of “(…) the differential effect of brand knowledge on con- sumer response to the marketing of the brand.”280 _{In other words, brand equity is the re-}

sult of different responses to marketing activities for a certain brand, in comparison to identical marketing activities for a fictitious brand, caused by brand-related associations stored in individuals’ memory. Consequently, these classic definitions link companies’ marketing efforts with customers’ responses to these activities and suggest brand equity as a moderator between the two.281 Overall, customer-based brand equity is a diagnostic measure that allows for deriving conclusions on the underlying reasons for a brand’s suc- cess. In this way, appropriate recommendations for brand building activities can be devel- oped.282

A comparison of the two perspectives shows that both approaches have an individual field of application. In a study by PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS/SATTLER (2001), five occasions of brand equity evaluations were highlighted by German managers: brand transactions, brand protection, brand management, brand documentation, and brand financing.283 Clearly, financial-oriented brand equity sheds light on the overall success of brand man- agement. However, it does not allow for analyzing the underlying sources of a brand’s dif- ferential effect as it does not reflect upon customers’ knowledge and behavior.284 Thus, a financial view on brand equity seems particularly appropriate for transaction purposes, brand protection, brand documentation, and brand financing. By contrast, SATTLER (2005)

stated that contributions centering on brand building and brand equity drivers are clearly

276

See the work of BRANDES/BIESALSKI (2010), BEKMEIER-FEUERHAHN (1998), SIMON/SULLIVAN

(1992), and FARQUHAR/HAN/IJIRI (1991) for a comprehensive overview of finance-oriented ap- proaches to brand equity.

277

See LASSAR/MITTAL/SHARMA (1995), p. 12. 278

See CHRISTODOULIDES/DE CHERNATONY (2010), p. 48; KELLER/LEHMANN (2006), p. 745. See also Section Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden. for a brief outline of the rep- resentation of brands in individuals’ mind.

279 AAKER (1991), p. 15. 280 See KELLER (1993), p. 8. 281 See BIEDENBACH (2012), p. 19. 282 See ESCH (2008), p. 59. 283

See PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS/SATTLER (2001) for a detailed recapitulation of the study re- sults.

284

dominated by a customer-based understanding of the phenomenon.285 Similarly, KELLER

(1993) stated that behavioral approaches are suggested whenever a strategy-based moti- vation is the underlying reason for studying brand equity.286 Thus, considering the proposi- tions from previous research and the objectives of this work, it seems appropriate to apply a customer-based brand equity perspective. In this way, brand equity is examined as be- ing reflected in the knowledge structures in individuals’ minds, which allows for analyzing the sources of the intangible asset instead of focusing on its outcomes.287

In a business-to-customer context, numerous studies have found evidence for the effects of high levels of customer-based brand equity. Among others, a positive influence has been identified regarding consumers’ preference and purchase intention,288 _market

share,289 consumer perceptions of product quality,290 shareholder value,291 companies’ re- turn on equity,292 firm risk,293 consumers’ evaluations of brand extensions,294 consumer price insensitivity,295 and customers’ general willingness to pay a price premium and resil- ience to product harm crisis.296 Consequently, it is a well-accepted fact that brand equity is of high relevance for the successful management of brands in this setting.297 In corre- spondence with the general skepticism toward the relevance of brands that has long been prevalent in an industrial context,298 there have only been a few contributions that explicitly focus on the effect of high levels of customer-based brand equity. However, a growing number of studies have demonstrated that brand equity leads to similar positive outcomes in a business-to-business as in a business-to-customer setting: Brand equity drives cus- tomers’ willingness to repurchase a brand, pay a price premium, recommend a brand, and consider brand extensions.299 Moreover, high levels of brand equity are associated with higher levels of trust toward the people behind the brand and an increased quality of the relationship between customer and supplier.300 Finally, a strong business-to-business brand may improve a company’s overall market performance.301

For this study, the above considerations suggest primarily that a customer-based brand equity perspective is an appropriate approach to examine how strong brands are built in an office property context. In the next step, an appropriate basis for conceptualizing and measuring the construct must be identified.

285 See SATTLER (2005), p. 4. 286 See KELLER (1993), p. 1. 287 See KAPFERER (1992), p. 291. 288

See CHANG/LIU (2009); COBB-WALGREN/RUBLE/DONTHU (1995).

289

See AGARWAL/RAO (1996).

290

See DODDS/MONROE/GREWAL (1991).

291

See BICK (2009); KERIN/SETHURAMAN (1998).

292

See KIM/KIM/AN (2003).

293

See REGO/BILLET/MORGAN (2009). 294

See AAKER/KELLER (1990); RANGASWAMY/BURKE/OLIVA (1993); BOTTOMLEY/DOYLE (1996).

295

See ERDEM/SWAIT/LOUVIERE (2002).

296

See ANSELMSSON/JOHANSSON/PERSSON (2007); DAWAR/PILLUTLA (2000).

297

See BIEDENBACH/BENGTSSON/WINCENT (2011), p. 1093; PARK (2009), p. 15; KEL-

LER/APÉRIA/GEORGSON (2008), pp. 42-44.

298

See Section Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden..

299

See RAUYRUEN/MILLER/GROTH (2009); BENDIXEN/BUKASA/ABRATT (2004); MICHELL/KING/REAST

(2001); HUTTON (1997).

300

See RAMASESHAN/RABBANEE/HUI (2013); JENSEN/KLASTRUP (2008); ROBERTS/MERRILEES (2007).

301