consumerbasedbrandequity-12698667552208-phpapp01

8/3/2019 consumerbasedbrandequity-12698667552208-phpapp01

1/22

Journal of Marketing Management, 2002, 18, 27-48

ISSN1472-1376/2002/1-200027+21 4.00/0 Westburn Publishers Ltd.

Rodolfo Vzquez1,A. Beln del Ro2and Vctor Iglesias3

Consumer-based Brand Equity:Development and Validation of aMeasurement Instrument

University of Oviedo, Spain

This work considers the development and validationof a measurement instrument of brand equity basedon the value ascribed to brands by consumers. Theresults obtained indicate the existence of four basicdimensions of brand utilities: product functionalutility, product symbolic utility, brand namefunctional utility, brand name symbolic utility. Thevarious tests employed show a reasonable degree ofreliability and validity of the proposed scale for thesports shoes sector.

Keywords: brand equity, scale, reliability, validity, structural equationmodels

Introduction

The subject of brand equity has attracted increasing interest in the Marketingliterature over the last decade. Certainly, it has been considered by theMarketing Science Institute as one of its main research lines. Within thistopic, various clearly differentiated work lines have been opened up,resulting in highly diverse definitions of brand equity and in a great varietyof methods and approaches proposed to measure it.

In this way, the content and meaning of brand equity have been thesubject of a far-reaching debate (Barwise 1993; Ambler and Styles 1995;Chaudhuri 1995; Feldwick 1996), although a general theoretical frameworkthat orders and integrates the most relevant contributions has still not beenformulated (Agarwall and Rao 1996; Erdem and Swait 1998). This has givenrise to certain confusion with the term and so far no common viewpoint has

1 Rodolfo Vzquez, PhD. Facultad de Ciencias Economicas Avenida del Cristo s/n,33071 Oviedo. Asturias. Spain.2Correspondence: A. Beln del Ro, PhD., Facultad de Ciencias Economicas, Avenida

del Cristo s/n, 33071 Oviedo. Asturias. Spain., Tel: 34 985 10 28 27 Fax: 34 985 10 3708, e-mail:[email protected] Vctor Iglesias, PhD., Facultad de Ciencias Economicas, Avenida del Cristo s/n,33071 Oviedo. Asturias. Spain


2/22

28 Rodolfo Vzquez, A. Beln del Ro and Vctor Iglesias

emerged as to how brand equity should be conceptualised and measured.Nevertheless, there seems to exist a certain consensus in that the study of

brand equity can be approached from different perspectives, which shouldbe viewed as complementary rather than competing (Irmscher 1993; Amblerand Styles 1995; Czellar 1997; Erdem and Swait 1998). Thus, brand equity has

been interpreted by paying attention to four inter-related viewpoints: thecustomer, the firm owning the brand, the channel distribution and thefinancial markets.

In the field of business management, in order to identify the potentialsources of brand equity, the consumer-based analysis of brand equity provesto be critical. The consumer conditions the value of the brand for the firm inthree ways: directly and also indirectly through the value for the distributorsand for the financial markets (Keller 1993, 1998; Park and Srinivasan 1994).For this reason, based on the works of Kamakura and Russell (1991) andCobb-Walgren et al. (1995), in this study we propose developing ameasurement instrument for the utilities obtained by the consumer from the

brand following its purchase (ex-post utilities). In this way, we will focus onthe concept of consumer-based brand equity defined as follows:

Consumer-based brand equity : the overall utility that the consumerassociates to the use and consumption of the brand; including associationsexpressing both functional and symbolic utilities.

The generic aim is to make a more in-depth study of the nature of the branddimensions capable of generating long-term sustainable commercialadvantages for the firm. Although this study focuses on the ex-post utilities,it must be borne in mind that the brand can also contribute ex-ante utilities tothe consumer (utilities obtained prior to the purchase, e.g. simplifying the

choice, lowering the perceived risk and the costs of the information search).Ex-ante utilities constitute a complementary research line that has beenundertaken in other studies (Erdem and Swait 1998).

With this aim in mind, this article is organised into four parts. The nextsection reviews the main contributions regarding brand concept and theutilities the brand provides to the consumer. We go on to propose a numberof dimensions for measuring the value of the brand for the consumer. Then,we describe the process followed in order to develop the measurement scaleand analyse its psychometric properties applying the structural equationmodels methodology. Finally, the managerial implications are discussed.

Consumer-based Brand EquityThe Traditional A pproach v ersus t he Holistic View

Before analysing the different ways in which the brand can contribute


3/22

Consumer-based Brand Equity 29

value to the consumer, it must be considered whether the consumer, in hisperception of the brand characteristics, makes a distinction between thecharacteristics related to the product and those associated to the brand.

This distinction between the product and the brand is supported by thoseauthors who defend the classic definition of the brand as they conceive this

as an addition to the product, which enables its identification (Gardner andLevy 1955; Aaker 1991; McCarthy and Perreault 1991). This is therefore arestrictive definition of the brand that highlights three aspects. First, themanagers choice between selling his products with or without a brand.Second, the essential function of the brand to incorporate a set of intangibleattributes to the product. Third, the academic and business interest ofseparating the products own attributes from the attributes inherent in thebrand.

Alternatively, there exist three reasons justifying why some authors havedefined the brand in holistic terms. First, consumers tend to perceive theproducts from an overall perspective, associating with the brand all the

attributes and satisfactions experienced by the purchase and use of theproduct. Consequently, separating the products attributes from those of thebrand entails a great difficulty due to the strong inter-relation between thetwo (Ambler and Styles 1995, 1997; Styles and Ambler 1995; Ambler 1996;Crainer 1997). In this sense, Murphy (1990) indicates that the individualconsideration of the brand attributes and their later aggregation represents alower perception than that resulting from the overall evaluation of the brand.Second, it must be understood that the creation of a brand is more thandeveloping communication strategies. In this way, it is interesting to adopt awider view of the brand embracing the set of attributes characteristic of thefirms offer (Achenbaum and Bodga 1996). Third, it is convenient to orientbrand extension decisions according to the degree in which the new productcontributes to strengthening the brand, instead of taking such decisionsbased on the degree to which the brand favours the commercialisation of thenew product (Ambler and Styles 1997).

In conclusion, it is coherent to establish a conceptual distinction betweenbrand and product (Kim 1990; Young and Rubicam 1995). Nevertheless, justas the followers of the holistic view uphold, since these notions are closelyrelated, it is feasible that the consumer perceives the product attributes asintegrally associated to the brand attributes. This argument, howevertheoretically compelling, has not been tested in empirical research to date.

The Utilities of the Brand for the Consumer: Definition

The theoretical and empirical literature on customer-perceived brandutilities suggests classifying the utilities according to two basic dimensions:the functional value and the symbolic value. This dichotomic classification of


4/22


the utility provided by the brand has also been revealed in other researchareas, including those related to the needs and motivations for consumptionbehaviour, the individuals attitudes and social psychology (de Chernatonyand McDonald 1996).

In general, the delimitation of what is understood as a functional and a

symbolic utility has been based on the nature of the needs satisfied by thebrand. Just as pointed out by Mittal et al.(1990), the functional value relatesto a persons need to favourably manage ones physical environment,enabling the utilitarian motives to be satisfied. In turn, the symbolic valuerelates to a persons need to favourably manage ones social andpsychological environment - esteem, social and self-fulfilment needs ofMaslow (1970) - allowing the consumer to experience positive emotions andto help communicate to others his link to certain social groups, values andpersonal features.

In addition, the distinguishing character of these two utilities has beenexplained in terms of the aspects of the brand they are derived from. Thus,

the rational approach or the economic model suggests that the functionalvalue corresponds to a cognitive evaluation - reflexive, rational - of theutilitarian contributions of the brand, based on its objective characteristicsand the performance of its physical attributes. On the other hand, thehedonic school holds that the symbolic value has its origin in the emotionalor experiential appraisal of the brand, which is based on more subjective andexpressive aspects, such as the convictions and sensations associated to thebrand, the usage situation, the personality and the life-styles associated withthe typical user of the brand.

Some research works have jointly used these two criteria - needs satisfiedand aspects considered in the evaluation of the brand - in order to define thefunctional and the symbolic utility (de Chernatony and McWilliam 1989,1990; Mittal et al. 1990). Nevertheless, from the work by Ambler (1997) it isdeduced that these criteria are not completely equivalent. This authorupholds that the brand simplifies the purchasing decision for the consumerin the extent that the associations linked to the brand demystify andsynthesise its functional characteristics. This means that such a utility isderived from the brand image and satisfies the cognitive needs (physical ornot related to the individuals psychological or social environment).

Following on from the above ideas, and in line with the approaches ofKeller (1993, 1998) and of Park and Srinivasan (1994), it can be said that theproduct as well as the brand name are capable of contributing both types ofutilities to the consumer. However, it is reasonable that the functional utility(satisfying the needs of the physical environment) basically proceeds fromthe product whereas the symbolic utility (satisfying the needs of thepsychological and social environment) emanates essentially from the brand


5/22


name. To date, these issues have not been examined in empirical research.

Dimensions of Brand Utilit ies for the Consumer

Despite the fact that from a theoretical viewpoint brand utilities havereceived considerable attention, at the empirical level there exist very few

studies analysing their dimensionality. To this lack of attention in theliterature, it must be added that some authors describe the functions orbenefits that the brand gives the consumer without distinguishing what typeof utility - functional or symbolic - is provided.

In summary, the main contributions regarding the dimensions of brandutilities are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Dimensions of Brand Utility

Construct SourceProduct

functional utility

Sheth et al. (1991); de Chernatony (1993); Mgica and

Yage (1993); Bhat and Reddy (1998); Long andSchiffman (2000)

Choice utility Kapferer and Laurent (1991); Lambin (1991); deChernatony (1993); Mgica and Yage (1993); Ambler(1997); Keller (1998)

Innovation utility de Chernatony (1993); Ambler (1997)Trustworthinessutility

Kapferer and Laurent (1991); Lambin (1991); deChernatony (1993); Ambler (1997); Keller (1998)

Emotional utility Sheth et al. (1991); de Chernatony (1993); Dubois andDuquesne (1995); Ambler (1997). Bhat and Reddy (1998);Long and Schiffman (2000)

Aesthetic utility Wind (1982); Schmitt and Simonson (1997)Novelty utility Kapferer and Laurent (1991); Lambin (1991); Sheth et al.(1991); Long and Schiffman (2000)

Socialidentificationutility

Kapferer and Laurent (1991); Lambin (1991); Sheth et al.(1991); de Chernatony (1993); Dubois and Duquesne(1995); Ambler (1997); Keller (1998); Bhat and Reddy(1998); Long and Schiffman (2000)

Personalidentificationutility

Kapferer and Laurent (1991); Lambin (1991); deChernatony (1993); Mgica and Yage (1993); Duboisand Duquesne (1995); Ambler (1997); Keller (1998)

Proposal of a Measurement Scale of the Brand Utilities for theConsumer

Faced with the multiplicity of variables revealing the value of the brand for


6/22


the consumer, when researching this subject, it is essential to distinguishbetween various levels of analysis. Following this approach, several authorshave emphasised the need to define the concept of brand equity specifyingthe perspective and the area of study considered (Friedrich and Marion 1991;Martin and Brown 1991; Srivastava and Shocker 1991; Irmscher 1993;

Feldwick 1996; Czellar 1997; Erdem and Swait 1998; Keller 1998). With thisconsideration, the present research work focuses on analysing the value ofthe brand for the consumer in accordance with the utilities perceived by theconsumer once the purchase has taken place (ex-post utilities of the brand).In particular, the basic aim of this research is to construct a reliable and validmeasurement instrument for consumer-based brand equity that includes thebrand name utilities and the product utilities, and that also compiles thefunctional and symbolic content of each of these utilities. An additional aim,based on this scale, is to answer two questions. Are the brand name and theproduct concepts adequately distinguished in consumers minds? Does theconsumer perceive from both components - brand name and product - the

functional and symbolic utilities?Given the strong inter-relation between the different elements making upthe firms offer, we follow on from the idea that in order to measureconsumer-based brand equity it is necessary to gather information not onlyon the attributes of the brand name but also of the product. We understandby attributes of the product the tangible aspects of the offer, whereas weconsider that the attributes of the brand name represent the associations madeby the consumer with the product due to the fact of being marketed with acertain brand name. According to this approach, and based on the literaturereview, the following dimensions are proposed to create a measure of the ex-post utilities of the brand:

1. Functional utility associated with the product. This refers to theutilities directly linked to the tangible attributes of the offer thatsatisfy the needs of the consumers physical environment, e.g.,comfort, resistance and performance.

2. Symbolic utility associated with the product. We refer here to theutilities obtained. These are also attained from the tangiblecharacteristics of the offer but respond to the needs of thepsychological and social environment, e.g., style, colour and artisticdesign.

3. Functional utility associated with the brand name. These utilities meetthe functional or practical needs of the individual, e.g., guarantee.Although some of them could be linked to certain tangible attributes(e.g. duration) the consumer appreciates such utilities thanks to theidentification of the product with a certain brand name.


7/22


4. Symbolic utility associated with the brand name. Unlike the above,these utilities meet the needs related to the psychological and socialenvironment, e.g. communicating to others desirable impressionsabout oneself and helping the individual to live out his self-concept.

Methodology

Selected Product Class and Brands

For the measurement of the brand utilities, non-specialised sports shoes(suitable for sport and casual wear) were taken as a reference. This marketwas chosen as it presents the following characteristics that enable us toresearch brand utilities without overcomplicating the data collection:

1. This is a product that is usually used in public (conspicuous or visibleconsumer product) and in which fashion together with the technicalaspects - for example, the materials used, the design of the soles or airchambers - have considerable importance in the purchasing decision.In line with the arguments of Jacoby and Olson (1985) and Hogg et al.(1998), these characteristics facilitate the analysis of the brand utilitiesrelated with the consumers social environment and with theguarantee of making the right choice.

2. The consumer has, in general, sufficient knowledge of the mainbrands of sports shoes, given the high figures of advertising andsponsorship investment. Similarly, the existence of a high number ofconsumers also facilitates the information collection.

3. The concentration of almost half the sales of sports goods in onlythree brands (Adidas, Nike and Reebok).

Regarding the selection of the commercial brands studied, we followed therecommendation of Leuthesser et al. (1995) of analysing brands that aresufficiently well-known by the consumer in order to avoid halo effects (theevaluations of individual product attributes are influenced by a personsoverall attitude towards the product being rated) that are artificially induced.For this reason, as a preliminary step to the study, four hundred individualswere personally interviewed, being requested to indicate on a list of twenty-eight brands of sports shoes those they had used and of which they hadsufficient knowledge of their different features. In line with the percentagesattained for the different brands, we decided to focus our research on sixbrands: Adidas (64%), Fila (17%), Kelme (27%), Jhayber (16%), Nike (57%)

and Reebok (65%) .

Data Collection

The information necessary to carry out the empirical study was collected


8/22


through face-to face interviews accompanied by survey questionnaireadministration. The study subjects were confined to individuals who hadbought sports shoes in the last two years and who, in addition, were users ofthe brands being studied.

In order to avoid differences with respect to the population we carried out

a proportionate stratification in terms of age and sex. The subjects wereselected from three cities in North of Spain. A total of 1,054 personalinterviews were conducted, which resulted in 1,000 valid surveys and 1,726brand assessments (each individual was requested to evaluate a maximum oftwo brands).

Scale Developm ent: Research Process

The basic steps employed in constructing the scale closely parallelprocedures recommended in Churchill (1979) and Deng and Dart (1994).Figure 1 provides an overview of the steps. This methodology consists ofthree basic tasks. First, the ratification of content validity. Second, thecollection of information by means of a sample. Third, the testing of the

psychometric properties concerning reliability, concept validity (convergentand discriminant) and nomological validity.

Figure 1. Steps Employed in Developing the Consumer-Based Brand

Equity Scale

Firstly, following the literature review, we proceeded to specify the domainand the key factors associated to brand utilities (steps 1 and 2 of the process).

Psychometric

assessment

STEP 1: Literature review andspecifying domain of customer-

based brand equity construct

STEP 2: Identification of 4 criticalfactors making up the construct

domain

STEP 3: Generation of itemsrepresenting the 4 factors:

Revision of proposed scales Focus groups with users Interviews with distributors Specialized journals and

studies on the sector

STEP 4:Scale refinement throughexpert opinions and a pretest

STEP 5: Refine thequestionnaire and data

collection

STEP 6: Assess reliability

STEP 7: Assess contentvalidity:

Convergent validity Discriminant validity

STEP 8: Assess nomologicalvalidity

Content

validity

Sample

data


9/22


Using these factors as a starting point, a pool of items was generated to tapthe utilities that the brand provides the consumer with following thepurchase. Then, we went on to list a series of items that, as a whole, compileall the basic aspects that the proposed dimensions refer to. For this, weresorted to four information sources: 1) examination and adaptation of the

main scales published for the measurement of brand utilities; 2) two focusgroup with sports shoes users; 3) in-depth interviews with variousdistributors in the sector; 4) consulting specialised journals and studiesavailable on the market analysed.

Table 2. Measurement Scale of the Brand Utilities for the Consumer

Dimensions Items

Flexibility P1.1.1Weight (P1.1.2)

(P1.1)Comfort

Size (P1.1.3)Foot Protection-Care P1.2.1Sensation when walking

(P1.2.2)Sole Absorption /perspiration (P1.2.3)(P1.2)Safety

Grip (P1.2.4)

(P1)Productfunctionalutility

(P1.3)Duration

Duration (P1.3.1)

Design/aesthetic line P2.1.1

ProductUtility

(P2) Productsymbolicutility

(P2.1)Aesthetics Colours (P2.1.2)

Brand that continuouslyim roves features

(B1.1.1)

Brand that is trustworthy (B1.1.2)Brand that offers good value-for-money*

(B1.1.3)

(B1)Brand namefunctionalutility

(B1.1)Guarantee

Brand of excellent quality (B1.1.4)Brand in fashion (B2.1.1)Brand used by friends (B2.1.2)Reputed brand (B2.1.3)

(B2.1)Socialidentification Leading brand (B2.1.4)

The use of the brand is a prestigesymbol

(B2.2.1)(B2.2)Status

Brand recommended by famouspeople

(B2.2.2)

Brand you particularly like/findattractive

(B2.3.1)

BrandNameUtility

(B2)Brand namesymbolicutility

(B2.3)Personal

identification Brand in keeping with your life-style (B2.3.2)

Note: * The result obtained in the confirmatory factor analysis recommendeddropping this variable from the scale.


10/22


This list of items was submitted to the opinion of a group of experts insubjects related to the performance qualities of sports shoes and/or to thedesign of measurement scales studying the consumer. Similarly, a pre-testwas carried out in order to detect any necessary changes in the wording ofthe items and the range to be used in order to evaluate these. As a result of

this process, aimed at attaining content validity for the scale, a total of 22items were obtained and can be seen in Table 2. The items were measured onan eleven-point Likert scale (ranging from 0 to 10).

In short, the proposed scale assumes that:

1. The utilities that the brand can contribute to the consumer followingits purchase are composed of four basic dimensions (productfunctional utility, product symbolic utility, brand name functionalutility, brand name symbolic utility);

2. In the sports shoes market, the functional utility of the product ismeasured through eight variables structured into three factors(comfort, safety and duration) and the product symbolic utility is

compiled by two variables;3. The functional utility of the brand name can be evaluated in terms of

four indicators and the brand name symbolic utility by eight itemswith three underlying dimensions (personal identification, socialidentification and status).

Table 3. Analysis of Competing Measurement Models

Model S-B2 (d.f) (p) NFI NNFI GFI AGFI CFI RMS EA AIC

One-Factor

3249.38(189) (p


11/22


Table 4. Reliability and Validity of the Eight-Factor MeasurementModel

Discriminant validity

Dimensions Items

Std.Factor

loadings

t-values

Compositereliabilitycoefficient

()Items Correlation

Confidence

interval

(P1.1.1) 0.685 24.679 P11-P12 0.897 0.861 0.933(P1.1.2) 0.639 24.631 P11-P13 0.351 0.281 0.421(P1.1)

Comfort (P1.1.3) 0.694 24.731

0.714

P11-P21 0.519 0.449 0.589

(P1.2.1) 0.756 32.031 0.777 P11-B11 0.674 0.618 0.730(P1.2.2) 0.677 25.939 P11-B21 0.583 0.578 0.710(P1.2.3) 0.657 24.783 P11-B22 0.313 0.527 0.639

(P1.2)Safety

(P1.2.4) 0.641 23.914 P11-B23 0.644 0.243 0.383

(P1.3)Duration

(P1.3.1) 0.952 - 0.906 P12-P13 0.477 0.416 0.537

(P2.1)Aesthetics

(P2.1.1) 0.954 26.328 P12-P21 0.399 0.333 0.465

(P2.1.2) 0.605 22.015

0.771

P12-B11 0.653 0.601 0.705(B1.1.1) 0.650 24.793 P12-B21 0.466 0.490 0.618(B1.1.2) 0.795 33.478 P12-B22 0.279 0.412 0.520(B1.1)

Guarantee (B1.1.4) 0.797 30.8320.793

P12-B23 0.554 0.211 0.347

(B2.1.1) 0.771 33.046 0.837 P13-P21 0.189 0.125 0.253(B2.1.2) 0.600 28.212 P13-B11 0.463 0.398 0.529(B2.1.3) 0.797 30.740 P13-B21 0.184 0.261 0.399

(B2.1)SocialIdentification (B2.1.4) 0.821 35.659 P13-B22 0.057 0.127 0.241

(B2.2.1) 0.717 28.519 0.633 P13-B23 0.330 -0.005

0.119(B2.2) Status

(B2.2.2) 0.643 26.332 P21-B11 0.481 0.417 0.545

(B2.3.1) 0.711 28.247 P21-B21 0.519 0.465 0.601(B2.3)

PersonalIdentification

(B2.3.2) 0.652 27.608 0.635 P21-B22 0.296 0.463 0.575

P21-B23 0.533 0.232 0.360B11-B21 0.800 0.858 0.954B11-B22 0.517 0.764 0.836B11-B23 0.906 0.459 0.575B21-B22 0.675 0.030 0.770B21-B23 0.718 0.652 0.784B22-B23 0.675 0.625 0.725

After testing for a reasonable fit between the proposed eight-factor modeland the data, we went on to estimate the reliability and validity of the scales

used. Following the recommendations of Anderson and Gerbing (1988), inorder to determine the reliability in the measurement of latent variables, for

each of these factors the composite reliability coefficients () were calculated.These results appear in column 5 of Table 4. Taking into account that values


12/22


over 0.6 are considered acceptable (Bagozzi and Yi 1988), the reliability of thescale is verified. That is to say, it can be said that the items proposed toevaluate the brand utilities provide consistent measurements.

For the validity of the scales, for each measurement variable the lambdastandardised parameter that relates this variable to the corresponding

specified factor was measured. In columns 3 and 4 of Table 4, it can beobserved that all the parameters are substantial - that is to say, they aresignificant and reach values over 0.5 - thus guaranteeing the convergentvalidity (Steenkamp and Trijp 1991).

As for the discriminant validity, the confidence interval of all the possiblecorrelations between the eight factors was analysed. Just as can be seen in thelast column of Table 4, in no case did the estimated confidence intervalcontain the value 1. This demonstrates that the correlations between thelatent variables significantly diverge from the unit and, consequently, thediscriminant validity is confirmed.

In conclusion, it can be affirmed that the proposed scale of brand utilities

is reliable and valid. In the following step, individual item scores weresubsequently averaged under each of the eight first-order latent constructs.Then, scores were used as indicators to derive the four second-orderdimensions previously proposed: product functional utility, productsymbolic utility, brand name functional utility and brand name symbolicutility (see Figure 2).

Notes: The standard parameters are presented.All the parameters are significant at a confidence level of 95% (t-Robust > 1.96)

Overall Fit Indices

S-B2 (d.f) (p) NFI NNFI GFI AGFI CFI RMSEA

136.62 (p < 0. 01) 0.961 0.921 0.971 0.919 0.968 0.093

Composite reliability coefficient for multi-item factors ():

FUNPROD:0.737 SYMBRAND:0.846

Figure 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Four-Factor Model.

SYMPRODP2

1

Status

PersonalIdentification

FUNPROD(P1)

Comfort

Safety

Duration

Aesthetics

FUNBRAND(B1)

Guarantee

SYMBRAND

(B2)

Social

Identification

0.80

0.82

0.43

1

0.89

0.95

0.53

0.438

0.631

0.543

0.395

0.461

0.711


13/22


The initial results obtained with this model recommended, in the light of theinformation provided by the Lagrange Multiplier Test, the release of theerror covariances among the variables personal identification and socialidentification. The results obtained, following this change appear in Figure2. First, it was observed that all indexes indicated a satisfactory global fit

except the S-B2(due to the large sample size): a value lower than 0.1 for theRMSEA and values over 0.9 in the remaining indexes.

The composite reliability coefficients can be observed at the bottom ofFigure 2. These coefficients are clearly over the recommended minimum limitof 0.6, thus suggesting the reliability of the dimensions. We have also beenable to confirm the convergent validity, since all the items associated to thedimensions are shown to be significant. The discriminant validity was alsoconfirmed, upon checking that the correlations between the factors proposedsignificantly diverge from the unit, as the confidence intervals of thesecorrelations do not include the value 1 (see Table 5).

Table 5. Discriminant Validity of the Factors

Dimensions Correlation Confidence intervalFUNPROD-SYMPROD 0.438 0.375 0.500FUNPROD-FUNBRAND 0.631 0.580 0.683FUNPROD-SYMBRAND 0.543 0.499 0.587SYMPROD-FUNBRAND 0.395 0.336 0.454SYMPROD-SYMBRAND 0.461 0.412 0.511FUNBRAND-SYMBRAND 0.711 0.658 0.763

Once the reliability and validity of these four dimensions had been checked,

we went on to analyse the causal relationship existing between thesedimensions and two observable variables: price premium (the amount acustomer will pay more for the brand in comparison with another apparentlysimilar product of an unknown brand) and the consumers tendency torecommend the brand to others. The aim is to study the nomological validityand thus contribute additional data that demonstrate the construct validity ofthe scale (Peter and Churchill 1986).

In this way, we then estimated the causal model that considersrecommendation of the brand as a dependent variable of the fourdimensions, and price premium as the dependent variable of the brandfunctional and symbolic utilities. The question on the price premium

measures the amount that the consumer would be willing to pay more forthe brand, compared to another unknown brand name but with apparentlysimilar physical characteristics (product). For this reason, the relationbetween the price premium and the product utilities is not considered. On


14/22


the other hand, in the brand equity literature, it is widely recognised that inthe extent that the consumer associates value to a brand he will be morewilling to pay a higher price for the brand and to recommend it to others(Aaker 1991; Huttom 1997; Keller 1998; Yoo et al. 2000). As for the productutilities, since we are not aware of studies that specifically research these

relations in the sports shoes market, we propose estimating the effect of bothtypes of utilities on the willingness to recommend the brand to others,assuming that both utilities have a significant and positive effect.

The results of the causal model are presented in Figure 3. It has beenobserved that the brand name functional and symbolic utilities have apositive influence on the variable price premium. The variablerecommendation of the brand is significantly and positively related to theproduct functional utility and the brand name functional and symbolicutilities. However, the significant incidence of the product symbolic utilityhas not been corroborated. This could be explained by the fact that theproduct symbolic utility is measured by items (design and colour) whose

evaluation is totally subjective and directly observable by the consumer. Inthis way, it is feasible that the individuals do not take into account suchaspects when recommending the brand.

Notes: (*) the parameter is significant at a confidence level of 95 % (t-Robust > 1.96).Although for purposes of clarity, we have not included in the graph the covariancesbetween the independent latent variables, these are released in the model (and are allstatistically significant).

Figure 3. Nomological Validity: Relation of the Scale with OtherVariables

Discussion

We have developed and empirically examined a measurement instrument ofbrand equity based on the utilities perceived by the consumer once the brand

FUNPROD

FUNBRAND

SYMBRAND

Price premium(V1)

Recommendation(V2)

0.11*

0.01

0.10*

0.16*

0.28*

0.31*

SYMPROD

P1.1

P1.2

P1.3

P2.1

B1.1

B2.1

B2.2

B2.3


15/22


has been purchased. The results suggest that the proposed scale exhibitsstrong internal consistency and a reasonable degree of validity.

In accordance with these results, it can be concluded that in the study ofbrand utilities, the separation of the product utilities from those utilitiesassociated to the brand name is reliable and valid. At the same time, it is

found that the consumer perceives functional and symbolic utilities of boththe product and the brand name. This implies that the associations held bythe consumer of the brand can be structured into four main dimensions:product functional utility, product symbolic utility, brand name functionalutility and brand name symbolic utility.

The reliability and validity analyses also reveal that for the category ofproduct analysed - sports shoes - the product functional utility is amultidimensional concept. In particular, this may comprise threesubdimensions labelled comfort, safety and duration. Similarly, thesymbolic utility of the brand name is a multidimensional concept embracingthe subdimensions of social identification, status and personal

identification. This result is consistent with the study of Bhat and Reddy(1998). On the other hand, the product symbolic utility and the brand namefunctional utility are uni-dimensional concepts.

In this way, customer-perceived value of the brand represents amultidimensional concept. Nevertheless, this affirmation does not invalidatethe holistic conception of the brand, since it has been confirmed that thedifferent dimensions show a strong inter-relation. The correlations betweenthe dimensions are highly significant, although they maintain discriminantvalidity. In short, the consumers perceptions about the different attributes ofa brand are highly related, but can be ordered in independent dimensions.

These observations suggest to the firms that measure consumer-basedbrand equity, that they should adopt an intermediate posture between theholistic and classic conceptions of the brand. The consumer does not see theproduct as a reality identical to that of the brand name (holistic conception inits strictest sense). However, nor should the brand managers consider theproduct and brand name as two totally independent realities (classicconception in its strictest sense).

In line with these results, firms should simultaneously strengthen theassociations related to the product as well as those linked to the brand name.Due to the inter-relation of these associations, important synergies can begenerated and a clearer, more credible and consistent image can becommunicated to the consumer. In these cases, it is possible that theconsumer perceives greater utilities of the brand, compared to the situationsin which only product associations or brand name associations arestrengthened.

A further implication to be partially derived from the above one is that the


16/22


consideration of each of the dimensions and sub-dimensions of the brandutilities enables firms to better orient their differentiation strategy in terms ofconsumer needs. For example, for consumers who place greater emphasis onsocial needs, an effective strategy is a marketing mix that shows how thebrand can be used to express the consumers personality or the affinity

between certain social groups and the consumer.On the other hand, it has been observed that the price premium that the

consumer is willing to pay for the brand depends positively on the functionaland symbolic utilities of the brand name. Similarly, it has been observed thatthese utilities, together with the product functional utility have a positiveeffect on the consumers willingness to recommend the brand to others. Inaddition, it is noted that the utilities that have a greater incidence on thesevariables are the symbolic utilities of the brand name. Therefore, all theseresults indicate that the use of commercial brands is a vital strategy for firmsto improve the competitiveness of their products. In this way, it is revealedthat the value of the brand for the consumer has a significant impact on

brand equity for the firm.The advantage of the developed scale is its the ability to identify thesources of brand equity for the firm using four basic dimensions. Theapplication of this scale enables us to ascertain the strengths and weaknessesof a brand compared to its main competitors. In this way, firms can orienttheir marketing programs in terms of the brand utilities they wish toimprove. In particular, for the sports shoes market, it is noted that thedevelopment of brand name symbolic utilities are particularly important.

Regarding the research limitations, it is fitting to question to what extentthe above results will be similar in other sectors. It is foreseeable that thefunctional and symbolic utilities have a strong impact on all products relatedto sport: the purchase of these products can be determined not only by theirphysical attributes but also by the attributes that enable the consumer toenrich his self-image and communicate certain values to the people in hisenvironment (these are products usually used in public). On the other hand,it seems reasonable that symbolic utilities take on great importance inproducts for which the purchasing decision mainly depends on fashiontrends (for example, clothes, watches, bags, and other accessories). Similarly,a strong presence of functional utilities should be expected in cleaning andhygiene products (for example, detergents) as these are products that arebasically used in private.

As for future research, the scale developed here can be used to measureconsumer-based brand equity in other sectors, introducing the necessaryadaptations, in line with the specific characteristics of the products, the usagesituations or the type of customer. Finally, it must be said that this work hasfocused on the ex-post utilities of the brand. However, it would also be


17/22


interesting to evaluate the ex-ante utilities and test the relation that theycould maintain with the ex-post utilities. Similarly, a further possibleresearch line consists in assessing the relationship between consumer-basedbrand equity and dependent variables that express firm-based brand equity,such as for example, the consumers brand loyalty and the firms subsequent

bargaining power in the distribution channel.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful commentsand suggestions.

References

Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a BrandName, New York, Free Press.

Achenbaum, A. and Bogda, P. (1996), Brand equity is only a piece of thepuzzle, Brandweek, Vol. 37, No. 34, pp. 14-17.Agarwal, M.K. and Rao, V.R. (1996), An empirical comparison of consumer-

based measures of brand equity, MarketingLetters, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 237-247.

Ambler, T. (1996), Measuring marketing performance, PANAGRA WorkingPaper, No. 96-904, London Business School.

Ambler, T. (1997), How much of brand equity is explained by trust?,Management Decision, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 283-292.

Ambler, T. and Styles, C. (1997), Brand development versus new productdevelopment: toward a process model of extension decisions, Journal of

Product and Brand Management, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 222-234.Ambler, T. and Styles, C. (1995), Brand equity: towards measures thatmatter, PANAGRA Working Paper, No. 95-902, London Business School.

Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural equation modeling inpractice: a review and recommended two-step approach, PsychologicalBulletin, Vol. 103, No. 3, pp. 411-423.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), On the evaluation of structural equationmodels, Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 74-94.

Barwise, P. (1993), Brand equity: snark or boojum?, International Journal ofResearch in Marketing, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 93-104.

Bhat, S. and Reddy, S.K. (1998); Symbolic and functional positioning ofbrands;Journal of Consumer Marketing; Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 32-43.

Bollen, K. and Lenox, R. (1991), Conventional wisdom on measurement: astructural equation perspective, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 110, No. 2, pp.305-314.


18/22


Chaudhuri, A. (1995), Brand equity or double jeopardy?, Journal ofProduct and Brand Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 26-32.

Churchill, J.R, (1979), A paradigm for developing better measures ofmarketing constructs,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16,February, pp.64-73.

Cobb-Walgren, C.J, Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N. (1995), Brand equity, brandpreference, and purchase intent, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.25-40.

Crainer, S. (1997), El Verdadero Poder de las Marcas, Madrid, Eresma andCeleste.

Czellar, S. (1997),Capital de marque: concepts, construits et mesures, Sectiondes Hautes tudes Commerciale, Cahier de recherche No. 97/16, Universitde Genve.

de Chernatony, L. (1993), Categorizing brands: evolutionary processesunderpinned by two key dimensions, Journal of Marketing Management,Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 173-188.

de Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M.H.B. (1996), Creating Powerful Brands,Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann.de Chernatony, L. and McWilliam, G. (1989), The strategic implications of

clarifying how marketers interpret brands, Journal of MarketingManagement, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 153-171.

de Chernatony, L. and McWilliam, G. (1990), Appreciating brands as assetsthrough using a two-dimensional model, International Journal ofAdvertising, Vol. 9, pp. 111-119.

Deng, S. and Dart, J. (1994), Measuring market orientation: a multi-factor,multi-item approach, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 10, pp. 725-742.

Dubois, B. and Duquesne, P. (1995), Un concept essentiel pour comprendrela valeur des marques: la force de conviction, Revue Franaise duMarketing, No. 152, (2) pp. 23-34.

Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (1998), Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon,Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 131-157.

Feldwick, P.(1996), What is brand equity anyway, and how do you measureit?,Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol, 38, No. 2, pp. 85-105.

Friedrich, J. and Marion, A. (1991), La marque, un actif strategique avaloriser, Communication aux Journes des I.A.E. de Clermont-Ferrand,Papier de recherche, no. 16.

Gardner, B. and Levy, S. (1955), The product and the brand, HarvardBusiness Review, March-April, pp. 33-39.

Hogg, M.K., Bruce, M. and Hill, A.J. (1998), Fashion brand preferencesamong young consumers, International Journal of Retail and DistributionManagement, Vol. 26, No. 8, pp. 293-300.


19/22


Hutton, J.G. (1997), A study of brand equity in an organizational-buyingcontext, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 428-439.

Irmscher, M. (1993), Modellling the brand equity concept, Marketing andResearch Today, May, pp. 102-110.

Jacoby, J. and Olsom, J.C. (1985), Perceived Quality: How Consumers View Storesand Merchandise, Lexington Books.Kamakura, W.A. and Russell, G.J. (1991), Measuring consumer perceptions

of brand quality with scanner data: implications for brand equity,Marketing Science Institute, Report, No. 91-122, October.

Kapferer, J.N. and Laurent, J.C. (1991), La sensibilidad a las marcas, inKapferer J. and Thoening, J. (ed.): La Marca: Motor de la Competitividad delas Empresas y del Crecimiento de la Economa, Madrid, Mcgraw-Hill, , pp.39-68.

Keller, K.L. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 1-22.

Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring andManaging Brand Equity, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.Kim, P. (1990),A perspective on brands, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.

7, No. 4, pp. 62-67.Lambin, J.J. (1991), La marca y el comportamiento de eleccin del

comprador, in Kapferer J. and Thoening J. (ed.): La marca: Motor de laCompetividad de las Empresas y del Crecimiento de la Economa, Madrid,Mcgraw-Hill, pp. 69-100.

Leuthesser, L, Kohli, CH. and Harich, K. (1995), Brand equity: the halo effectmeasure, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 29, November, pp. 57-66.

Long, M.M. y Schiffman, L.G. (2000); Consumption values andrelationships: segmenting the market for frequency programs; Journal ofConsumer Marketing; Vol. 17, No. 3; pp. 214-232.

Martin, G.S. and Brown, T.J. (1990), In search of brand equity: theconceptualization and measurement of the brand impression construct,Marketing Theory and Applications, Vol. 2, pp. 431-438.

Maslow, A.H. (1974), Motivation and Personality, Harper and Row, New York.McCarthy, J.E. and Perreault, W.D. (1991), Basic Marketing: a Managerial

Approach, Homewood ILL, Irwin.Mittal, B., Ratchford, B. and Prabhakar, P.(1990), Functional and expressive

attributes as determinants of brand-attitude, Research in Marketing, Vol.10, pp. 135-155.

Mgica, J.M. and Yage, M.J. (1993), Impacto del capital comercial en lacompetitividad empresarial, Papeles de Economia Espaola, Vol. 56, pp.242-256.

Murphy, J. (1990), Brand Strategy, Cambridge, Director Books.


20/22


Park, C.S. and Srinivasan, V.(1994), A survey-based method for measuringand understanding brand equity and its extendibility, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 31, May, pp. 271-288.

Peter, J.P. and Churchill, G.A.(1986), Relationships among research designchoices and psychometric properties of rating scales: a meta-analysis,

Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23, February, pp. 1-10.Schmitt, B. and Simonson, A. (1997), Marketing Aesthetics: the StrategicManagement of Brands, Identity, and Image, New York, The Free Press.

Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991), Why we buy what we buy:a theory of consumption values, Journalof Business Research, Vol. 22, pp.159-170.

Sommer, R. (1996), Mind mapping: a new way to understanding brands, inESOMAR (ed.): The Big Brand Challenge, are we jumping on the brand wagon? ,pp. 97-107, Berln.

Srivastava, R.K. and Shocker, A.D.A (1991), Brand equity: a perspective onits meaning and measurement, Marketing Science Institute, Report No. 91-

124, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Steenkamp, J.E.M. and Trijp, H.C.M. (1991), The use of LISREL in validatingmarketing constructs, International Journal of Researchin Marketing, Vol. 8,pp. 283-299.

Styles, C. y ambler, T.; (1995), Brand management en Crainer S. (ed.);Financial Times Handbook of Management; pp. 581-93; Pitman, London.

Wind, Y. J. (1982), Product policy: concepts, methods, and strategy,Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Ma.

Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), An examination of selectedmarketing mix elements and Brand equity, Journal of Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 195-211.

Young and Rubican, (1995), Brand Asset Valuator, Madrid.


21/22


Appendix: Correlations and Standard Deviations

P1.1.1 P1.1.2 P1.1.3 P1.2.1 P1.2.2 P1.2.3 P1.2.4 P1. 3.1 P2.1.1 P2.1.2

P1.1.1 1.000P1.1.2 .452 1.000

P1.1.3 .501 .399 1.000P1.2.1 .417 .423 .519 1.000P1.2.2 .421 .397 .485 .494 1.000P1.2.3 .379 .429 .372 .513 .402 1.000P1.2.4 .363 .391 .353 .483 .430 .479 1.000P1. 3.1 .231 .153 .280 .369 .296 .287 .273 1.000P2.1.1 .353 .323 .332 .260 .346 .209 .224 .168 1.000P2.1.2 .131 .279 .170 .178 .255 .131 .164 .152 .577 1.000B1.1.1 .316 .257 .286 .264 .264 .204 .225 .175 .341 .221B1.1.2 .360 .335 .345 .369 .414 .321 .311 .347 .347 .224B1.1.4 .406 .324 .403 .432 .402 .344 .352 .413 .363 .210B2.1.1 .355 .271 .287 .277 .283 .251 .211 .112 .433 .276B2.1.2 .225 .235 .144 .140 .171 .164 .178 .057 .319 .224B2.1.3 .388 .317 .325 .302 .321 .274 .228 .217 .396 .270B2.1.4 .339 .274 .303 .256 .270 .238 .205 .113 .357 .219B2.2.1 .137 .195 .135 .135 .152 .179 .144 .048 .224 .197B2.2.2 .133 .172 .102 .083 .082 .153 .127 .023 .143 .127B2.3.1 .295 .279 .322 .287 .322 .266 .201 .219 .357 .225B2.3.2 .290 .316 .281 .253 .286 .248 .199 .212 .333 .273STD 1.73 2.01 1.50 1.62 1.54 1.78 1.66 1.77 1.79 1.97N 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726

B1.1.1 B1.1.2 B1.1.4 B2.1.1 B2.1.2 B2.1.3 B2.1.4 B2.2.1 B2.2.2 B2.3.1 B2.3.2

B1.1.1 1.000B1.1.2 .520 1.000B1.1.4 .483 .651 1.000B2.1.1 .508 .412 .442 1.000B2.1.2 .427 .331 .294 .513 1.000B2.1.3 .543 .543 .545 .583 .460 1.000B2.1.4 .557 .462 .484 .649 .454 .671 1.000B2.2.1 .297 .283 .275 .403 .380 .334 .409 1.000B2.2.2 .334 .254 .219 .289 .341 .283 .383 .461 1.000B2.3.1 .412 .564 .501 .408 .328 .415 .429 .351 .302 1.000B2.3.2 .314 .472 .461 .339 .319 .392 .296 .339 .354 .463 1.000STD 2.04 1.99 1.83 2.52 2.96 1.89 2.37 3.01 3.18 2.61 2.73N 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726

Note: Variables are defined in Table 2.


22/22


P1.1 P1.2 P1.3 P2.1 B1.1 B2.1 B2.2 B2.3 V1 V2

P1.1 1.000P1.2 .669 1.000P1.3 .273 .397 1.000P2.1 .392 .327 .181 1.000B1.1 .504 .502 .374 .395 1.000B2.1 .442 .370 .149 .443 .670 1.000B2.2 .218 .199 .042 .231 .386 .509 1.000B2.3 .437 .388 .251 .400 .636 .521 .461 1.000V1 .158 .119 .054 .183 .220 .240 .175 .191 1.000V2 .400 .359 .246 .321 .586 .445 .328 .616 .138 1.000STD 1.38 1.28 1.77 1.66 1.64 1.96 2.64 2.86 2688 2.68N 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726

Note: Variables are defined in Table 2 and Figure 3.

About the Authors

Rodolfo Vzquez (Ph.D., University of Oviedo, Spain) is a Professor ofMarketing at Oviedo University (Spain). His areas of research interestinclude brand management, relationship marketing and distributionchannels.

A. Beln del Ro (Ph. D., University of Oviedo, Spain) is an AssistantProfessor of Marketing at Oviedo University (Spain). Her areas of researchinterest include brand equity and brand evaluation processes.

Vctor Iglesias (Ph.D., University of Oviedo, Spain) is an Assistant Professorof Marketing at Oviedo University (Spain). His areas of research interest

include consumer behaviour, restraints and contractual agreements indistribution channels.

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	prateek-khanna
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

consumerbasedbrandequity-12698667552208-phpapp01

Documents