Implicaciones del nuevo paradigma en la gestión

One of the most important and frequently cited conceptualisation of brand equity was put forward by Aaker (1991, p. 15) who defined it as “a set of assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its 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”. Referring to this definition, researchers generally identify two main recipients of brand value, namely: customers (consumer based brand equity) and firms (Financial based brand equity) (Kamakura & Russell, 1993). Financial based brand equity (FBBE) focuses on the financial value of the brand which is measured using factors such as market share (Kapferer, 2008) and brand assets (Feldwick, 1996). In addition to these two perspectives, brand equity is also viewed from the perspective of the value of a brand to other stakeholders (Baalbaki and Guzman, 2016). For instance, the value of a brand to internal (e.g. employees) and external (e.g. channel members) stakeholder groups (Christodoulides et al., 2015) as well as, the value of a brand in predicting consumers’ choice and market share power (sales based brand equity (SBBE)) (Datta, Ailawadi & van Heerde, 2016-in press).

However, the focus of this thesis is on consumer based brand equity, hence, methodologies used by companies based on financial factors and brand attributed sales such as Brand finance, Ersnt & Young and Interbrand are beyond the scope of this research. For instance, Brand Finance (2017, para.1) evaluates brands based on “the net present value of the estimated future cash flows attributable to the Brand.” Furthermore, Interbrand (2015) has a methodology to measure a brand’s cumulative values, comprising of three attributes:

- “The financial performance of the branded products and services. - The role the brand plays in influencing customer choice.

27

- The strength the brand has to command a premium price or secure earnings for the company.” (Interbrand, 2015, methodology, para. 2)

While it is important to measure brand equity from a firm’s point of view, it is crucial to understand the actual driving factors that create financial based brand equity (FBBE) and cash flows (Christodoulides & de Chernatony, 2010). Dyson, Farr and Hollis (1996), Lassar et al. (1995) and Raithel, Taylor & Hock (2016) identified consumer based brand equity (CBBE) as an influential factor that results in a firms’ financial improvements.

Consumer based brand equity (CBBE) focuses on the value of a brand in the minds of consumers. It is regarded as a type of customers’ brand perception and association that drives their behaviour and results in financial value for firms (Anselmsson et al., 2014; 2016). Kim et al. (2003), for example, examined the relationships between luxury hotels’ financial performance and the dimensions of consumer based brand equity and found that there a strong direct link between the two. This relationship stems from the fact as consumers develop direct interactions and experiences with a brand, they become more aware of the brand and form perceptions and images about it (Kim, Kim, & An, 2003). Such perceptions further influence consumers’ purchasing behaviours, which eventually translate into the value of the firm (Aaker, 1996; Dyson, et al., 1996; Kamakura & Rusell, 1991; Lassar et al., 1995; Park & Srinivasan, 1994; Raithel et al., 2016).

The associations and perceptions on brand quality that are formed in consumers’ minds and the level of consumers’ loyalty to a brand, influences their buying behaviour and consequently, firms’s financial performance (Kim et al., 2003; Raithel et al., 2016). In the same vein, it has been proposed that “There is value to the investor, the manufacturer and the retailer only if there is value for the consumer” (Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995, p. 26). Accordingly, this research is concerned with the consumer based brand equity and focuses on the dimensions and

28

associations in consumers’ minds rather than financial performance and market analysis of brands.

It is noteworthy that consumer based brand equity (CBBE) is viewed from two perspectives by branding scholars, namely, the information economics viewpoint (Erdem & Swait, 1998) and memory structure theories in branding (Christodoulides & de Chernatony, 2010). With regards to the former, Erdem and Swait (1998, p.139) identified brand names as signals for economic agents and demonstrated that trustworthy and credible signals help consumers in their decision making by increasing perceived quality, reducing perceived risk, reducing information search costs and increasing consumers’ expected utility. Consequently, they defined brand equity in terms of the value that consumers attribute to a brand signal (Erdem & Swait, 1998). Brands as signals can affect consumers’ decision making due to the “imperfect and asymmetric information” which consumers have about product/service markets (Erdem, Swait, & Valenzuela, 2006). For example, when a risk averse consumer decides whether or not to purchase a risky product, brand signals can help them in assessing quality and therefore, brands function as a source of quality guarantee. In such situations, brands can help consumers to save time and effort (costs) in assessing available products and thus, increase the utility of the brand (Erdem et al., 2006).

From the perspective of memory structure theories, Keller (2003) conceptualises consumer based brand equity from the individual consumer’s point of view and explains that CBBE occurs when an individual has knowledge about the brand. He proposed that the power of the brand resides in the consumer’s mind and the strength of the brand depends on whether they make positive or negative associations to the brand (Keller, 1993). In order to distinguish between brand equity and brand knowledge, Keller (1993) used the associative structure memory model. In this model, human memory is described as “a network consisting of various nodes connected by associative links” (Till and Shimp, 1998, p.68). Accordingly, each node is

29

considered as a source of information to consumers’ minds and activates linked associations when stimulated (Collins & Loftus, 1975). By applying the memory structure and associative models in consumer based brand equity theories, Keller proposed that brand knowledge is formed from nodes and associations linked to the nodes formed by human memory. Each node is established when consumers become aware of a brand (awareness) and form images and associations (i.e. quality, safety etc.) (Keller, 1993).

These associations and images can emerge from consumer’s experiences with brands but also from accompanying marketing activities (Hoeffler and Keller, 2002). However, not all the associations are considered effective for increasing (decreasing) the brand equity, and only “strong, favourable and unique” associations are significant (Keller, 1993). Keller defines consumer based brand equity as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of that brand” (Keller, 1993, p.2). Based on this definition, the associations should be strong enough to make the difference in the marketing of the product. However, the main challenge for marketers is creating the right experiences, feelings, thoughts, perceptions and beliefs toward their brands using their services, products and branding(Hoeffler and Keller, 2002). Keller’s (1993) views on brand equity are similar to Ambler’s (1992) view in the sense that both authors agree that brand equity is formed in the mind of consumers.

Consumer based brand equity (CBBE) refers to the consumers’ perceptions about brands rather than any objective measures, (i.e. when a customer compares brand A with brand B, it is the customer’s perceptions that forms CBBE in his/her mind not the actual objective differences between brands A and B) (Lassar et al., 1995). This is in line with Keller's (2003) view that brand equity is a result of the awareness and associations made in consumers’ minds. Similarly, brand equity is also derived from the value accrued as a result of a brand’s name and other associated physical aspects of the product or service (Kamakura and Russell, 1991; Lassar et

30

al., 1995). Since consumer based brand equity is perceptual, it can be influenced by competitors’ activities (i.e. communications), thus CBBE is more accurately conceptualised as a variable construct (Lassar et al., 1995).

Accordingly, Lassar et al. (1995, p.13) defined consumer based brand equity as “the enhancement in the perceived utility and desirability a brand name confers on a product” and explained that CBBE is the customers’ perceived overall superiority of a given brand name in comparison to other brands. Vazquez et al. (2002, p.28) described CBBE as “the overall utility that the consumer associates with the use and consumption of the brand, including associations expressing both functional and symbolic utilities.” In a similar vein, Kamakura and Russell (1993, p.10) defined brand equity as “the implied utility or value assigned to a brand by consumers.” In addition, Christodoulides and de Chernatony (2010, p.48) defined consumer based brand equity as “a set of perceptions, attitudes, knowledge and behaviours on the part of consumers that results in increased utility and allows a brand to earn greater volume or greater margins than it could without the brand name”.

The majority of previous research on CBBE have conceptualised it as a multidimensional construct (Baalbaki and Guzman, 2016; Çifci et al., 2016; Christodoulides et al., 2015; Davcik et al., 2015; Datta et al., 2016- in press; Londono et al., 2016; Tasci, Hahm, & Breiter-Terry, 2016-in press). However, despite the extensive body of research on brand equity, there are still different views on the dimensions of brand equity (Christodoulides et al., 2015; Christodoulides and de Chernatony, 2010; Mackay, 2001b; Veloutsou et al., 2013). Keller (1993) for example, proposed that consumer based brand equity is multidimensional and comprises of two dimensions, namely; brand awareness and image. Aaker (1991) on the other hand, identified brand awareness, perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand associations/differentiations, and other proprietary brand assets such as patents, trademarks, and channel relationships as dimensions of brand equity. While the first four dimensions

31

(namely brand awareness, associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty) deal with consumers knowledge (Christodoulides et al., 2015; Pappu et al., 2005), the fifth dimension (other proprietary brand) deals with the managerial aspects of brand equity. Table 2-1 shows the various dimensions of brand equity as proposed by researchers in their conceptualisations or measurements of this construct.

Aaker’s (1991) proposed definition of consumer based brand equity is considered as one of the most comprehensive definitions by some researchers (Pappu, Quester, & Cooksey, 2005). Scholars such as Cifci et al. (2016), Cobb Walgren et al. (1995), Londono et al. (2016), Yoo and Donthu, (2001; 2002), Yoo et al. (2000), and Washburn & Plank (2002) developed their concept of brand equity in parallel to Aaker’s (1991) and Keller’s (1993) conceptualisations (Pappu et al., 2005).

Research Brand equity definition, Conceptualization / Measurement context Brand equity dimensions Aaker (1991) “a set of assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its 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” (p. 15). The definition is conceptual and no specific context was chosen.

Brand awareness, Brand associations, Brand loyalty, Perceived quality, other priority assets Blackston (1992) Based on the concept of incremental added value, Blackston (1992)

argued that consumers are partners with brands in the creation of values and represents consumers’ ideas that form the CBBE. Therefore, brand equity is formed as a result of the relationship between the consumer and the brand.

Brand relationship

Keller (1993, p.2) “The differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand”.

Brand knowledge (Brand awareness, Brand associations) Cobb-Walgren et al.

(1995)

Three dimensions of brand equity proposed here were the accepted as dimensions by both Keller (1993) and Aaker (1991). Cobb-Walgren et al. (1995) applied the model to measure brand equity indirectly in both products (household cleaners) and Services (Hotels) markets

Brand awareness, Perceived quality, Brand associations

32 Lassar et al. (1995,

p.13)

Defines brand equity as “the enhancement in the perceived utility and desirability a brand name confers on a product” and proposed that consumer based brand equity is the “overall superiority” of a product carrying the brand name in comparison to products with other brands.

Brand Performance, Social image, Commitment, Value, Trustworthiness, Attachment Sharp (1995) Concentrating on services, Sharp (1995) explained that the factors

that influence brand equity are different in product and service markets, due to the nature of the services. Sharp (1995) demonstrated that intangible assets (brand equity dimensions) could increase the value of the market shares. Therefore, they can create value for brands. Company/Brand awareness, Brand image, Relationship with customer/existing customer franchise Berry (2000) CBBE is considered as the consumers’ view about the future

satisfaction derived from using the brand (Berry, 2000). This view is based on claims that the brand makes about itself, other people’s opinion about the brand, and the fulfilment of required service.

Brand awareness, Brand meaning

Yoo et al. (2000) The dimensions proposed in this study are derived from Aaker (1991) conceptualization and tested with undergraduate students in three product markets (Athletic shoes, film for cameras and colour TV sets) in Korea and US. Here, brand awareness and associations are regarded as similar constructs after their survey proved no difference between the two dimensions.

Brand loyalty, Perceived quality, Brand (awareness/ associations) de Chernatony et al. (2004)

Using the definition from Srivastava & Shocker (1991, p.5) as “‘a set of associations and behaviours on the part of a brand’s consumers, channel members and parent corporation that enables a brand to earn greater volume or greater margins than it could without the brand name and, in addition, provides a strong, sustainable and differential advantage”, de Chernatony et al. (2004) identified consumer based brand equity dimensions in financial service industries

Brand loyalty, Satisfaction and Brand reputation

Netemeyer et al. (2004)

Four studies carried out to test the validity and reliability of the “core” or “primary” CBBE facets proposed in this research based on Aaker (1996) and Keller (1993). The actual buyers chosen as sample groups and the product markets in which the test carried out included colas, toothpaste, jeans, athletic shoes, fast- foods, camera film, greeting cards, canned soups, pain relievers and breakfast cereals.

Perceived quality, Perceived value for the cost, Uniqueness, Willingness to pay a premium

Burmann et al. (2009)

Burmann et al. (2009) classified brand equity studies into three groups of “knowledge” based, “benefit” based and “preferences” based. They proposed that comprehensive brand equity dimensions must address these three stages. Furthermore, it is suggested that “knowledge” precedes “benefits” and “benefits” precedes “preferences.” This is a conceptualization study and no specific market is chosen.

Brand awareness, Brand benefit clarity, Perceived brand quality, Brand benefit uniqueness, Brand sympathy, Brand trust

33

Nam et al. (2011) Investigated brand equity in the service market (restaurants and tourism) and identified five dimensions of consumer based brand equity. They further suggested that customer satisfaction fully mediates the effect of CBBE dimensions on brand loyalty.

They adopted Brady, Cronin, Fox, and Roehm’s (2008, p.152) definition of brand equity as” Brand equity is a perception of belief that extends beyond mere familiarity to an extent of superiority that is not necessarily tied to specific action. Familiarity does not imply belief in superiority”

Physical quality, Staff behaviour, ideal self- congruence, brand identification, Lifestyle- congruence

Christodoulides et al. (2012)

Used Farquhar’s (1989) definition and Based on Aaker’s (1991) model, they identified new dimensions to measure consumer based brand equity across three European countries.

Awareness, Heritage, uniqueness, reliability, willingness to sacrifice Im et al. (2012) Based their dimensions on Yoo et al. (2000). However, they separated

brand awareness and associations. They also added brand image to their model.

Brand awareness, Image,

Associations, Loyalty Cifci, Ekinci, &

Whyatt, (2014) Çifci et al. (2016)

Extended the dimensions identified by Nam et al. (2011) by adding brand awareness to CBBE model. Additionally, while Nam et al. (2011) distinguished between dimensions of brand equity, satisfaction and loyalty, Cifci et al. (2014; 2016) considered all of them as part of CBBE dimensions.

Brand awareness, physical quality, staff behaviour, ideal self- congruence, brand identification, lifestyle- congruence, brand satisfaction, brand loyalty.

Su (2016) Conceptualised brand equity dimensions based on Keller (1993) and Aaker (1991). However, the author focused only on two aspects of brand associations namely perceived value and brand personality.

Brand awareness, perceived quality, brand personality, perceived value and brand loyalty.

Table 2-1 Brand equity dimensions

While various dimensions of brand equity have been identified by different scholars, the dimensions identified by Aaker (1991) – namely; brand awareness, associations, perceived quality and loyalty – have instructed many studies measuring brand equity such as Buil et al. (2013a), Yoo et al. (2000), Pappu et al. (2005) and Christodoulides et al. (2015). Aaker’s (1991)

34

dimensions are important because some of the scholars who have developed dimensions of brand equity in the online context founded their conceptualizations on Aaker’s (1991) work, such as Dwivedi et al. (2015), Page & Lepkowska-White (2002), Rana et al. (2015), Rios & Riquelme (2008; 2010). Hence, it is necessary to explain these four dimensions of consumer based brand equity before proceeding to review the dimensions of online brand equity. Accordingly, the next subsections would focus on defining and explaining brand awareness, perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand associations.