Consumer Based Brand Equity

International Journal of Market Research Vol. Vol. 52 Issue 1

Consumer-based brand equity conceptualisation and measurement A literature review George Christodoulides University of Birmingham

Leslie de Chernatony Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano and Aston Business School

 Although.there.is.a.large.body.of.research.on.brand.equity,.little.in.terms.of.a. litera lit eratur ture. e. rev review iew has bee been. n. pub publish lished. ed. on. thi this. s. sin since. ce. Feld eldwic wick’s k’s (19 (1996). 96).pap paper er. . To. address.this.gap,.this.paper.brings.toge addres s.this.gap,.this.paper.brings.together.the.scatt ther.the.scattered.litera ered.literature.on.consum ture.on.consumererbased.brand.equity’s.conceptualisation.and.measurement.Measures.of.consumerbased. bas ed. bra brand. nd. equ equity ity are cla classif ssified ied as. eit either her dir direct ect or. indi indirec rect. t. Indi Indirec rect. t. mea measur sures. es. assess.consumer-based.brand.equity.through.its.demonstrable.dimensions.and.are. superior.from.a.diagnostic.level.The.paper.concludes.with.directions.for.future. resea re searc rch. h. an and. d. ma mana nage geri rial al poi point nter ers. s. fo for. r. set setti ting ng up a. br bran and. d. eq equi uity ty me meas asur urem emen ent. t. system

Introduction

Mar ark kete ters rs ar aree con onti tinu nual ally ly und ndeer. pr preessur uree to ju jussti tiffy. th thee im impa pact ct of mark rkeeti tin ng. ac acti tivvit itiies,. and th this is ha hass re ren new eweed. in inttere resst. in. meas asu ure ress of mar ark ket etin ing. g. pe perf rfor orm man ance ce (O’ O’S Sul ulli liva van. n. & Abe bela la 20 2007 07) ) The Mar ark ket etin ing g Scienc Sci ence. e. Ins Instit titute ute (M (MSI) SI) ind indica icativ tively ely pla placed ced acc accoun ountab tabili ility. ty. and ret return urn on. invest inv estme ment. nt.of. of.mar market keting ing exp expend enditu iture. re.at. at.the the top of. of.its its res resear earch. ch.pri priori oritie ties. s. for. fo r. 20 2008 08–1 –10. 0. (M (MSI SI 20 2008 08) ) Fin inan anci cial al me meas asur ures es su such ch as sa sale les. s. an and. d. pr prof ofit it prov pr ovid ide. e. on only ly pa part rtia ial. l. in indi dica cato tors rs of ma mark rket etin ing. g. pe perf rfor orma manc nce. e. du due. e. to th thei eir. r. historical.orientation.and.typically.short-term.horizon.(Mizik.&.Jacobson. 2008).Intangible,.market-based.assets,.on.the.other.hand,.provide.a.richer. understanding.of.marketing.performanc understanding.of. marketing.performance,.reconciling.s e,.reconciling.short-.and.long-te hort-.and.long-term. rm. performance.(Ambler.2003).as.well.as.bridging.marketing.and.shareholder.

Received.(in.revised.form):.20.July.2009

Consumer-based brand equity conceptualisation and measurement

value.(Srivastava.et al..1998).While.competitors.can.emulate.financial.and. physical.assets,.intangib physi cal.assets,.intangible.assets.represen le.assets.represent. t.a. a.more.sustain more.sustainable.competi able.competitive. tive. advantage.(Hunt.&.Morgan.1995) Bran Br and. d. eq equi uity ty is a. ke key. y. ma mark rket etin ing. g. as asse set. t. (D (Dav avis is 20 2000 00;. ;. Am Ambl bler er 20 2003 03), ), which. whi ch. can eng engend ender. er. a. uni unique que and wel welcom comed. ed. rel relati ations onship hip dif differ ferent entiat iating ing the.bonds.between.the.firm.and.its.stakeholders.(Hunt.&.Morgan.1995;. Capro Ca pron. n. &. Hu Hull llan and. d. 19 1999 99), ), an and. d. nu nurt rtur urin ing. g. lo long ng-t -ter erm. m. bu buyi ying ng be beha havi viou ourr. Understanding.the.dimensions.of.brand.equity,.then.investing.to.grow.this. intangible.asset.raises.competitive.barriers.and.drives.brand.wealth.(Yoo. et al..2000).For.firms,.growing.brand.equity.is.a.key.objective.achieved. throug thr ough. h. gai gainin ning. g. mor more. e. fav favour ourabl able. e. ass associ ociati ations ons and fee feelin lings. gs. amo among. ng. targ target. et. cons co nsum umer ers. s. (F (Fal alke kenb nber erg. g. 19 1996 96) ) Pr Prev evio ious us re rese sear arch ch es estab tabli lish shed ed a. po posi siti tive ve effect eff ect of. bran brand. d. equ equity ity on: con consum sumer. er. pre prefer ferenc ence. e. and pur purcha chase. se. int intent ention ion (Cobb-Walgren. et al. 1995); market share (Agarwal & Rao 1996); consumer.perceptions.of.product.quality.(Dodds.et al..1991);.shareholder. valu va lue. e. (K (Ker erin in &. Se Seth thur uram aman an 19 1998 98); ); co cons nsum umeer. ev eval alua uati tion ons. s. of br bran and. d. extens ext ension ions. s. (Aa (Aaker ker &. Ke Kelle ller. r. 199 1990;. 0;. Ran Rangas gaswam wamy. y. et al. 199 1993;. 3;. Bot Bottom tomley ley &. Doy Doyle. le. 199 1996); 6); con consum sumer. er. pri price. ce. ins insens ensiti itivit vity. y. (Er (Erdem dem et al. 20 2002 02); ); an and. d. resilience.to.product-harm.crisis.(Dawar.&.Pillutla.2000) Over.the.last.15. Over .the.last.15.years years,.brand.equity.has.beco ,.brand.equity.has.become.more.impor me.more.important.as.the. tant.as.the. key to. und unders erstand tanding ing the obj object ective ives,. s,. mec mechan hanism isms. s. and net imp impact act of. the holistic.impact.of.marketing.(Reynolds.&.Phillips.2005).In.this.context,. it.is.not. it. is.not. sur surpri prisin sing. g. tha that. t. mea measur sures.captur es.capturing ing asp aspect ects. s.of. of.bra brand. nd.equ equity ity hav have. e. become.part.of.a.set.of.marketing.performance.indicators.(Ambler.2003). The. Th e. di disc scus ussi sion on of br bran and. d. eq equi uity ty an and. d. it its. s. me meas asur urem emen ent. t. ha has. s. a. bro broad ad ra rang nge. e. of.adherents,.both.academi of.adherent s,.both.academic.and. c.and.practi practitione tionerr,.that.collectiv ,.that.collectively.share.what. ely.share.what. can.be.described.as.a.‘black.box’.orientation.(Reynolds.&.Phillips.2005). Evidence.of.the.importance.of.brand.equity.for.the.business.world.is.the. fact. fac t. tha that. t. the there. re.is. is.cur curren rently tly a. sig signif nifica icant. nt.num number ber of. of.con consul sultin ting. g. fir firms ms (e (eg. g. Interb Int erbrand rand,. ,. WPP,. Youn oung. g. &. Rubi ubicam cam and Re Resea search rch Int Intern ernatio ational nal),. ),. eac each. h. with. wit h. the their. ir. own pro propri prieta etary. ry. met method hods. s. for mea measur suring ing bra brand. nd. equ equity ity (H (Haig aigh. h. 1999) 199 9) In. set settin ting. g. up. the fut future ure res resear earch. ch. age agenda nda for bran brand. d. man manage agemen ment,. t,. Keller.and.Lehman.(2006).unsurprisingly.identified.brand.equity.and.its. measurement.as.a.significant.research.topic The.literature.on.brand.equity,.although.substantial,.is.largely.fragmented. and.inconclusive.As.Berthon et al.(2001).put.it,.‘perhaps.the.only.thing. that.has.not.been.reached.with.regard.to.brand.equity.is.a.conclusion’. This paper provides a systemati ticc review of the literature on brand equi eq uity ty co conc ncep eptu tual alis isat atio ion. n. an and. d. me meas asur urem emen ent, t, an and. d. co conc nclu lude des. s. wi with th so some me direct dir ection ions. s.for for fut future ure res resear earch ch Fi Figur gure. e.1. 1.sho shows.the. ws.the. str struct ucture ure of.the. pap paper. er.

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 52 Issue 1

Brand equity

CBBE

FBBE

Direct

Multiattribute

Indirect

Other

Intermediate

Outcome

Figure 1 Brand equity methodologies

and.introduces.the.broad.categories.of.methodologies.to.measure.CBBE.  Although.the.whole.purpose.of.setting.up.a.brand.equity.monitor.is.to. enable.marketers.to.appreciate.its. enable.marketers. to.appreciate.its.key.drivers,. key.drivers,.it.is.beyond. it.is.beyond.the.scope.of the.scope.of.this. .this. paper.to.review.research.on.antecedents.and.consequences.of.brand.equity. as.exemplified.by.Yoo et al.(2000)

Firm-based versus consumer-based brand equity  As Wint inters ers (19 (1991) 91) sta states tes,. ,. ‘if you ask ten peo people ple to. def define ine bra brand. nd. equ equity ity,. ,. you.are.likely.to.get.ten.(maybe.11).different.answers.as.to.what.it.means’. (p.70).Since.then,.many.studies.have.been.published.on.brand.equity.but. Winters’.statement.is.even.more.relevant.today.than.it.was.in.1991.Brand. equity.is.such.a.com equity.is. such.a.complex.concept. plex.concept.that.the.diversity that.the.diversity.of.its. .of.its.conceptualisations. conceptualisations. in th the. e. li lite tera ratu ture re ma may. y. be du due. e. to th the. e. ‘b ‘bli lind nd me men. n. an and. d. el elep epha hant nt’. ’. sy synd ndro rome me (Ambl bler er 20 2003 03));. di difffe fere rent nt stu tudi dies es de desscri ribi bing ng di diff ffer ereent as aspe pect ctss of th this is inta in tang ngib ible le as asse set t Th The. e. la lack ck of an ag agre reed ed de defi fini niti tion on of br bran and. d. eq equi uity ty ha has. s. in tu turn rn sp spaw awne ned. d. va vari riou ous. s. me meth thod odol olog ogie ies. s. fo for. r. me meas asur urin ing. g. th the. e. co cons nstr truc uct t  Although.there.is.no.universally.accepted.definition.of.brand.equity,.there. is.at.least.some.consensus.in.that.brand.equity.denotes.the.added.value. endowed.by.the.brand.to.the.product.(Farquhar.1989,.p.RC7).This.value. can.serve.as.a.bridge.that.links.what.happened.to.the.brand.in.the.past. and.what.should.happen.to.the.brand.in.the.future.(Keller.2003);.hence.  Ambler’s.(2003).characterisation.of.brand.equity.as.a.repository.of.future. profits.or.cash.flows.that.results.from.past.marketing.investment Firms Fi rms,. ,. how howeve everr,. are not the onl only. y. rec recipi ipient ents. s.of. of.bra brand. nd.val value ue Ac Accor cordin ding. g. to th the. e. li lite terat ratur ure. e. th the. e. ma main in re reci cipi pien ents ts of br bran and. d. va valu lue. e. ar are. e. ei eith ther er fi firm rms. s. or customers,.and.such.a.view.is.clearly.presented.in.Aaker’s.(1991).definition.

Consumer-based brand equity conceptualisation and measurement

of.brand.equity.as.‘a.set.of.assets.and.liabilities.linked.to.a.brand,.its.name. and.symbol,.that.add.to.or.subtrac and.symb ol,.that.add.to.or.subtract.from.the.value t.from.the.value.provided .provided.by.a. .by.a.produc product. t. or.service.to.a.firm.and/or.that.firm’s.customers’.(p.15).A.similar.yet.more. output-orientated.definition.is.that.of.Srivastava.and.Shocker.(1991),.who. define.brand.equity.as.‘a.set.of.associations.and.behaviors.on.the.part.of.a. brand’s.consumers,.channel.members.and.parent.corporation.that.enables. a.bra a. brand.to. nd.to. ear earn.greate n.greater.volum r.volume.or. e.or. gre greate ater. r.mar margin gins.than.it. s.than.it. cou could.witho ld.without. ut. thee br th bran and. d. na name me an and, d, in ad addi diti tion on,. ,. pr prov ovid ides es a. str tron ong, g, su sussta tain inab able le an and. d. differential.advantage’.So.far,.the.brand.equity.construct.has.been.viewed. from. fro m. two maj major. or. per perspe specti ctives ves in. the lit litera eratur ture. e. Som Some. e. aut author hors. s. foc focuse used. d. on. the.financial.perspecti the.financia l.perspective.of. ve.of.brand.equity brand.equity (F (Farquha arquhar. r.et al..1991;.Simon.&. Sullivan.1993;.Haigh.1999).and.others.on.the.customer-based.perspective. (Aaker.1991;.Keller.1993;.Yoo.&.Donthu.2001;.Vazquez. et al..2002;.de. Chernatony. et al..2004;.Pappu. et al..2005;.Christodoulides et al.2006). The.first.perspective.discusses.the.financial.value.brand.equity.creates.to. the bus busine iness ss and is.often.refer is.often.referred red to. to.as. as.fir firmm-bas based. ed.bra brand. nd.equ equity ity (FB (FBBE BE). ). Howe Ho weve verr,. th the. e. fi fina nanc ncia ial. l. va valu lue. e. of br bran and. d. eq equi uity ty is on only ly th the. e. ou outc tcom ome. e. of consumer.response.to.a.brand.name.The.latter.is.considered.the.driving. force.of.increased.market.share.and.profitability.of.the.brand,.and.is.based. on.the.market’s.perceptions.(consumer-based.brand.equity) In.a.related.study.trying.to.understand.interpretations.of.brand.equity,. Feldwick.(1996).identified.three.different.ways.in.which.the.term.‘brand. equi eq uity ty’. ’. ha has. s. be beeen. us used ed:: fi firs rst. t. to sig igni nify fy th the. e. to tota tal. l. val alue ue of a. br bran and. d. as a. separate.asset.–.when.it.is.sold.or.included.on.a.balance.sheet;.second,.as.a. measure.of.the.strength.of.cons measure.of.the .strength.of.consumers’.attachment. umers’.attachment.to.the.brand;.and,.third,. to.the.brand;.and,.third,. as.a.description.of.the.associations.and.beliefs.the.consumer.has.about.the. brand.While.the.first.sense.of brand.While.the.firs t.sense.of.the.term.is .the.term.is.associated.with. .associated.with.firm-based.brand. firm-based.brand. equity,.the.other.two. equity ,.the.other.two.senses.reflect.consumer senses.reflect.consumer-based.brand.equity -based.brand.equity.Kapferer. .Kapferer. (2004) (20 04) atte attempt mpted. ed. to. lin link. k. con consum sumer er-ba -based sed bra brand. nd. equ equity ity dim dimens ension ions. s. (i (ie. e. ‘bra ‘b rand nd as asse sets ts’) ’) to br bran and. d. va valu lue. e. (n (net et di disc scou ount nted ed ca cash sh fl flow ow at attri tribu buta tabl ble. e. to the.brand.after.paying.the.cost.of.capit the.brand.afte r.paying.the.cost.of.capital.invest al.invested.to.produce ed.to.produce.and.run.the. .and.run.the. busine bus iness. ss.and and the cos cost. t. of. of.mar market keting ing). ). (e (eg. g.pri price. ce.pre premiu mium). m).thr throug ough. h. CBB CBBE. E. consequences.such.as.price. consequences.s uch.as.price.premium.F premium.For.Kapferer.it. or.Kapferer.it.is.essential. is.essential.for.brands. for.brands. to.yield.financial.benefits.if.they.are.to.claim.high.levels.of.equity

Consumer-based brand equity The. co The. conc ncep eptu tual alis isat atio ions ns of co cons nsum umer er-b -bas ased ed br bran and. d. eq equi uity ty ha have ve ma main inly ly deri de rive ved. d. fr from om co cogn gnit itiv ive. e. ps psyc ycho holo logy gy an and. d. in info form rmat atio ion. n. ec econ onom omic ics s Th The. e. dominant.stream.of.research.has.been.grounded.in.cognitive.psychology,.

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 52 Issue 1

focusing. focusi ng.on. on.mem memory ory str struct ucture ure (Aa (Aaker ker 199 1991;. 1;.Ke Kelle ller. r. 199 1993) 3) Aak Aaker. er.(19 (1991) 91) identified.the.conceptu identi fied.the.conceptual.dimensi al.dimensions.of.brand. ons.of.brand.equity equity as.brand.awarenes as.brand.awareness,. s,. brand.associations,.perceived.quality,.brand.loyalty,.and.other.proprietary. brand. bran d. ass assets ets suc such. h. as. pat patent ents,. s,. tra tradem demark arks. s. and cha channe nnel. l. rel relati ations onship hips. s. The former.four.dimensions.of.brand.equity.represent.consumer.perceptions. and.reactions.to.the.brand,. and.reactions. to.the.brand,.while.proprietary. while.proprietary.brand.assets. brand.assets.are.not.pe are.not.pertinent. rtinent. to.consumer-based.brand.equity.Keller.(1993).looked.at.consumer-based. brand.equity.strictly.from.a.consumer.psychology.perspective.and.defined. it.as.‘the.differential.effect.of.brand.knowledge.on.consumer.response.to. the.marketing.of.the.brand’.(p.2).According.to.this.conceptualisation,.a. brand.has.a.positive.(or.negative).value.if.the.consumer.reacts.more.(or. less).favourably.to.the.marketing.mix.of.a.product.of.which.he/she.knows. the.brand.name.than.to.the.marketing.mix.of.an.identical.yet.unbranded. prod pr oduc uct t Co Cons nsum umer er re resp spon onse se to th the. e. ma mark rket etin ing. g. mi mix. x. of a. br bran and. d. ca can. n. be trans tra nsla late ted. d. at va vari riou ous. s. st stag ages es of th the. e. pu purc rcha hase se de deci cisi sion on-m -mak akin ing. g. se sequ quen ence ce,. ,. such su ch as pr pref efer eren ence ce,. ,. ch choi oice ce in inte tent ntio ions ns an and. d. ac actu tual al ch choi oice ce. . Ac Acco cord rdin ing. g. to Kelle Ke ller. r. (19 (1993) 93),. ,. bra brand. nd. kno knowle wledge dge is. a. key ant antece eceden dent. t. of. con consum sumer er-ba -base sed. d. brand.equity.and.is.in.turn.conceptualised.as.a.brand.node.in.memory.to. which.a.variety.of.associations.have.been.linked.Brand.knowledge.is.then. deco de comp mpos osed ed in into to tw two. o. se sepa para rate te co cons nstr truc ucts ts:. :. br bran and. d. aw awar aren enes ess. s. an and. d. bra brand nd image. ima ge. (as (assoc sociat iation ions) s) The maj majori ority. ty. of. con concep ceptua tual. l. stu studie dies. s. sum summar marise ised. d. in. Table.1.agree.that.awareness.and.associations.are.important.components. of. con consum sumer er-ba -base sed. d. bra brand. nd. equ equity ity. . The maj majori ority. ty. of. con concep ceptual tual stu studie dies. s. on. CBBE.took.place.in.the.early/mid-1990s.with.subsequent.research.being. mostly mos tly em empir pirica ical. l.It. It.may may als also. o.be. be.arg argued ued tha that. t. the emp emphas hasis.of. is.of. con concep ceptua tual. l. research.has.shifted.from.the.relational.intangible.asset.(ie.brand.equity). per. pe r. se to th the. e. co cons nsum umer er–b –bra rand nd re rela lati tion onsh ship ip (e (eg g. . Fou ourn rnie ier. r. 19 1998 98). ). an and. d. customer.equity.(eg.Rust.et al..2000,.2004) In.parallel,.brand.equity.research.rooted.in.information.economics.draws. on th the. e. im impe perf rfec ect. t. an and. d. as asym ymme metr tric ical al na natu ture re of ma mark rket ets. s. (E (Erd rdem em &. Sw Swait ait 1998).In.this.context,.economic. 1998).In. this.context,.economic.agents.are. agents.are.requir required. ed.to. to.transmi transmit. t.informa information. tion. about.their.specific.characteristics.by.means.of.signals.According.to.Erdem (200 006) 6),. ,. br bran and. d. na name mes. s. ac act. t. as si sign gnal als. s. to co cons nsum umer ers s A. br bran and. d. si sign gnal al et al. (2 beco be come mes. s. th the. e. su sum. m. of th that. at. br bran and’ d’s. s. pa past st an and. d. pr pres esen ent. t. ma mark rket etin ing. g. ac activ tivit itie ies s Imperfect.and.asymmetrical.market.information.produces.uncertainty.in. consumers’.minds.A.credible.brand.signal.generates.consumer.value.by:. (1).reducing.perceived.risk;.(2).reducing.information.search.costs;.and.(3). creati cre ating. ng. fav favour ourabl able. e. att attrib ribute ute per percep ceptio tions. ns. (Er (Erdem dem &. Swa Swait. it. 199 1998) 8) Und Under. er. this.approach,.CBBE.is.defined.as.the.value.of.a.brand.signal.to.consumers. (Erdem (Er dem &.Swait.1998 &.Swait.1998).Fro ).From.our. m.our.rev review iew of.the.litera of.the.literatur ture. e.we.regar we.regard. d.the the

Consumer-based brand equity conceptualisation and measuremen measurementt

Table 1

Conceptual research on CBBE

Study

Dimensions of CBBE

Aaker (1991, 1996)

brand awarenes awarenesss brand associations perceived quality brand loyalty

Blackston (1992)

brand relationship (trust, customer satisfaction with the brand)

Keller (1993)

brand knowledge (brand awareness, brand associations)

Sharp (1995)

company/brand awareness brand image relationshipss with customers/existing customer franchise relationship

Berry (2000)

brand awarenes awarenesss brand meaning

Burmann et al. (2009)

brand benefit clarity perceived brand quality brand benefit uniqueness brand sympathy brand trust

Source: the authors

two. rese research. arch. strea streams. ms. (cogn (cognitive itive psyc psycholog hology. y. and. inform information. ation. econo economics mics). ). as co comp mple leme ment ntar aryy,. an and. d. we pr prop opos ose. e. a. de defi fini niti tion on of CB CBBE BE th that at co cont ntai ains ns eleme ele ments nts fro from. m. bot both,. h,.ie ie. . ‘a. ‘a.set set of. of.per percep ceptio tions, ns, atti attitud tudes, es, kno knowle wledge dge,. ,. and behavi beh aviors ors on. the part of. con consum sumers ers tha that. t. res result ults. s. in. inc increa reased sed uti utilit lity. y. and allows all ows a. bra brand. nd. to. ear earn. n. gre greate ater. r. vol volume ume or. gre greate ater. r. mar margin gins. s. than it. cou could. ld. without.the.brand.name’ Measurement of CBBE

 Although.Aaker.(1991).and.Keller.(1993),.among.others,.conceptualised. brand.equity,.they.never.operationalised.a.scale.for.its.measurement.This. spaw sp awne ned. d. a. nu numb mber er of me meth thod odol olog ogie ies. s. to qu quan antif tify. y. th this is hi high ghly ly re rega gard rded ed intangible.asset,.most.of.which.employ.complex.statistical.procedures.(eg. Park.&.Srinivasan.1994;.Leuthesser.et al..1995),.making.them.difficult.to. comprehend compr ehend and. use. among practi practising sing mark marketers eters. . Empi Empirical. rical. endea endeavours vours to.operationalise.consumer-based.brand.equity.can.be.classified.based.on. their.approach.to.measurement.(ie.direct.or.indirect).Direct.approaches. to br bran and. d. equ quit ity. y. mea eassur urem emeent at atte temp mpt. t. to mea eassur ure. e. th the. e. ph phen enom omeeno non. n. directly.by.focusing.on.consumers’.preferences.(eg.Srinivasan.1979;.Park. &. Sr Srin iniv ivas asan an 19 1994 94). ). or ut util ilit itie ies. s. (e (eg g. . Ka Kama maku kura ra &. Rus usse sell ll 19 1993 93;. ;. Sw Swai aitt

International Journal of Market Research Vol. Vol. 52 Issue 1

et al.1993),.while.indirect.approaches.measure.brand.equity.through.its.

demonstrable.manifestations.(eg.Yoo.&.Donthu.2001;.Pappu et al.2005). Tab able le 2. su summ mmari arise ses. s. th the. e. ma main in st stud udie ies. s. on co cons nsum umer er-b -bas ased ed br bran and. d. eq equi uity ty measurement Table 2

Research on CBBE measuremen measurementt

Dime Di mens nsio ions nsof ofCB CBBE BE

Measurement level

Context

Product category

Srinivasan (1979)

n.a.

aggregate

US

health care

Kamakura & Russell (1993)

perceived quality brand intangible value

aggregate

US

detergents

Swait et al. (1993)

n.a.

individual

US

deodorants, trainers,  jeans

Park & Srinivasan (1994)

attribute-based brand equity non-attribute-based brand equity

individual

US

toothpaste, mouthwash

Leuthesser et al. (1995)

n.a.

individual

Austria

detergents

Shankar et al. (2008)

Offering value, relative brand importance

aggregate

US

insurance

Meas Me asur urem emen entt Direct approach

Indirect approach via intermediate measures

Lassar et al. (1995)

performance social image value trustworthiness attachment

individual

US

televisions watches

Yoo & Donthu (2001)

brand awareness brand associations perceived quality brand loyalty

individual

US, Korea

athletic shoes, film, colour television sets

Vazquez et al. (2002)

product functional utility product symbolic utility brand name functional utility brand name symbolic utility

individual

Spain

sports shoes

Washburn & Plank (2002)

brand awareness brand associations perceived quality brand loyalty

individual

US

crisps paper towels

de Chernatony et al. (2004)

brand loyalty satisfaction reputation

individual

UK

financial services

(continued)

Consumer-based brand equity conceptualisation and measuremen measurementt

Table 2

Research on CBBE measuremen measurementt (continued) Measurement level

Context

Product category

Meas Me asur urem emen entt

Dime Di mens nsio ions nsof ofCB CBBE BE

Netemeyer et al. (2004)

perceived quality perceived value for the cost uniqueness willingness to pay a premium

individual

US

colas, toothpaste, athletic shoes,  jeans

Pappu et al. (2005)

brand awareness brand associations perceived quality brand loyalty

individual

Australia

cars, televisions

Christodoulides et al. (2006)

emotional connection online experience responsive service nature trust fulfilment

individual

UK

e-tailers

Kocak et al. (20 (2007) 07) produ product ct fun functio ctional nal uti utilit lity y product symbolic utility brand name functional utility brand name symbolic utility

individual

Turkey

sports sh shoes

Buil et al. (2008)

individual

UK, Spain

soft drinks, sportswear, electronics, cars

aggregate

US

consumer packaged goods, groceries

brand awareness perceived quality brand loyalty brand associations (perceived value, brand personality, organisational associations)

Indirect approach via behaviour-based measures

Ailawadi et al. (2003)

n.a.

Source: the authors

Direct approaches Studies. Studie s. fal fallin ling. g. int into. o. the for former mer gro group. up. neg neglec lect. t. the the theore oretic tical. al. dim dimens ension ions. s. of.the.construct.that,.if.properly.operationalised,.can.provide.actionable. insights.into.the.drivers.of.equity.Ultimately,.what.these.studies.are.trying. to.achieve.is.a.separation.of.the.value.of.the.brand.from.the.value.of.the. product.(eg.by.using.the.multi-at produc t.(eg.by.using.the.multi-attribut tribute.model).Over e.model).Over.the. .the.years years,.this.has. ,.this.has. proved pro ved to. be. con concep ceptua tually lly and met method hodolo ologic gicall ally. y. pro proble blemat matic. ic. as. ‘br ‘brand ands. s. supervene.on.products,.much.as.the.mental.has.been.claimed.to.supervene. on.non-aesthetic.properties’.(Grassl.1999,.p.323)

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 52 Issue 1

Multi-attribute approaches Srinivasan.(1979),.Park.and.Srinivasan.(1994).and.Jourdan.(2002).use.the. multi-attribute.model.as.a.common.departure.point.to.measure.consumerbased. bas ed. bra brand. nd. equ equity ity. . Sri Sriniv nivasa asan. n. (19 (1979) 79) def define ines. s. bra brand. nd. equ equity ity,. ,. whi which. ch. bac back. k. then th en he ca call lleed. br bran andd-sspe peci ciffic ef effe fect ct,. ,. as ‘t ‘the he co com mpo pone nent nt of a. br bran and’ d’ss over ov eral all. l. pr pref efer eren ence ce th that at is no not. t. ex expl plai aine ned. d. by th the. e. mu mult ltia iatt ttri ribu bute te mo mode del’ l’ (p. (p . 12 12) ) In li line ne wi with th th this is de defi fini niti tion on,. ,. Sr Srin iniv ivas asan an (1 (197 979) 9) me meas asur ures es br bran and. d. equi eq uity ty by co comp mpari aring ng ob obse serv rved ed pr pref efer eren ence ces. s. ba base sed. d. on ac actu tual al ch choi oice ce wi with th consumer.preferences.derived.f consumer.prefere nces.derived.from.a.multi-attribute. rom.a.multi-attribute.conjoint.analysis.T conjoint.analysis.The. he. difference.between.overall.preference.and.the.preference.estimated.by.the. multi-attribute.model.is.subsequently.quantified.by.means.of.a.monetary. scale.(dollar-metric.scale).Estimates.of.brand.equity.that.result.from.this. meth me thod od oc occu curr,. at be best st,. ,. at th the. e. se segm gmen ent. t. le leve vel l As wi with th ev ever ery. y. at atte temp mpt. t. to measu me asure. re. bra brand. nd. equ equity ity dir direct ectly ly,. ,. thi this. s. app approa roach. ch. doe does. s. not she shed. d. lig light. ht. on. the sour so urce ces. s. of br bran and. d. va valu lue e Fi Fift ftee een. n. ye years ars la late terr,. Par ark. k. an and. d. Sr Srin iniv ivas asan an (1 (199 994) 4) achieved.measu achie ved.measuremen rement.of. t.of.brand.equity brand.equity.at. .at. the.individ the.individual.level,.which ual.level,.which they operationally.defined.as.‘the.difference.between.an.individual.consumer’s. overall.brand.preference.and.his.or.he overall.brand.preference .and.his.or.her.multiattributed.preference r.multiattributed.preference.based.in. .based.in. objectively.measured.attribute.levels’.(p.273).Objective.preferences.can. be.obtained.by.laboratory.tests,.blind.tests.or.surveys.with.experts.Park. and.Srinivasan.(1994).also.disaggregate.consumer-based.brand.equity.into. two.parts:.an.attribute.component,.based.on.consumers two.parts:.an.attribute.componen t,.based.on.consumers’.evaluations.of.the. ’.evaluations.of.the. brand’s.physical.characteristics;.and.a.non-(product).attribute.component,. based.on.symbolic.associations.attached.to.the.brand.Although.it.provides. impo im port rtan ant. t. in insi sigh ghts ts in into to th the. e. pe perc rcep eptu tual al di dist stor orti tion ons. s. ca caus used ed by a. sp spec ecif ific ic prod pr oduc uct. t. at attr trib ibut ute, e, th this is me meth thod od do does es no not. t. br brea eak. k. do down wn th the. e. no nonn-at attr trib ibut uteebased.component.of.brand.equity.It.is.also.naive.to.assume.that.experts. (or.dentists.in.the.context.of.the.study).are.immune.from.the.brand.equity. effect eff ect and are abl able. e. to. to.pro provid vide. e. obj object ective ive att attrib ribute ute sco scores res. . Jou Jourda rdan. n. (20 (2002) 02) note no tes. s. th that at th the. e. di diff ffer eren ence ce of ut util ilit ity. y. im impl plie ied. d. in th the. e. Par ark. k. an and. d. Sr Srin iniv ivas asan an (1994) (19 94) def defini initio tion. n. of. bra brand. nd. equ equity ity may not ent entire irely. ly. be. imp imputa utable ble to. the brand bra nd as pa part rt of it is du due. e. to me meas asur urem emen ent. t. er erro rorr. As Asid ide. e. fr from om th the. e. br bran and. d. name.effect,.overall.preference name.effect,. overall.preference.may.no .may.not.coincide.with. t.coincide.with.the.preference. the.preference.based. based. on.objectively.measur on.objectiv ely.measured.product.attribut ed.product.attributes.for.two. es.for.two.other other reaso reasons.First ns.First,.a. ,.a. consumer.may.positively.evaluate.all.produ consumer.may.p ositively.evaluate.all.product.attributes.yet.choose. ct.attributes.yet.choose.another. another. bran br and. d. du due. e. to un unob obse serv rvab able le va vari riab able les. s. th that at af affe fect ct pr pref efer eren ence ces. s. an and. d. ma may. y. even.be.random.to.the.individual.consumer.(ie.random.error).Second,. preference prefe rence.based.on.objectiv .based.on.objective.evaluati e.evaluations.of.a. ons.of.a.produ product’s.attrib ct’s.attribute.level ute.levels.is. s.is. estim es timate ated. d. by.means of. of.the the mul multiti-att attribu ribute. te.mod model, el, the arbi arbitra trary. ry.cho choice ice of. which,.as.well.as.the.number.and.nature.of.the.attributes.retained,.may.

Consumer-based brand equity conceptualisation and measurement

be. potent be.pot ential ial sou source rces. s. of. of.sys system temati atic. c. err error or. . As suc such,. h,.Jou Jourda rdan. n. (20 (2002) 02) arg argues ues for.an.error.component,.which.data.from.a.repeated.measures.experiment. show sh ow is no not. t. ne negl glig igib ible le. . Hi His. s. am amen endm dmen ent. t. re resu sult lted ed in im impr prov oved ed le leve vels ls of reliability.and.validity.of.brand.equity.measurement.Also,.the.choice.of.a. single.sample.provides.better.control.of.distortional.factors.Despite.this. method met hod’s. ’s. adv advant antage ages. s. the com comple plexit xity. y. of. its inh inhere erent. nt. exp experi erime menta ntal. l. des design ign translates.into.little.managerial.value Other direct approaches Not.deviating.substantial Not.deviating.subs tantially.from.the.underl ly.from.the.underlying.logi ying.logic.of.the.studies.in.the. c.of.the.studies.in.the. previous.section,.Leuthesser et al.(1995).begin.with.the.assumption.that. personal.evaluation.of.a.given.brand.on.a.number.of.attributes.is.always. bias bi ased ed. . Th This is bi bias as is ca caus used ed by th the. e. fa fact ct th that. at. co cons nsum umer ers. s. ar are. e. pr pred edis ispo pose sed. d. towards.brands.they.know.At.the.level.of.subjective.attribute-by-attribute. evalua eva luatio tions, ns, thi this. s. pre predis dispos positi ition. on. is. man manife ifest. st. thr throug ough. h. the sta statis tistic tical. al. ‘ha ‘halo. lo. effect’.(or.error):.the.correlatio effe ct’.(or.error):.the.correlations.of.inter-a ns.of.inter-attribu ttributes.in.the. tes.in.the.multi multi-attri -attribute. bute. model.would.be.higher.than.if.consumers.held.no.a.priori overall.attitude. (globa (gl obal. l. eff effect ect). ). tow toward ards. s. the bra brand. nd. bei being. ng. rat rated ed Ac Accor cordin ding. g. to. the aut author hors,. s,. it.is.this.perceptual.distortion.that.forms.the.basis.of.brand.equity.In.the. same. sam e. lin line. e. of.thinki of.thinking, ng, the they. y. pos postul tulate ate tha that. t. the hal halo. o. eff effect ect cor corres respon ponds. ds.to. to. the.aggregate.value.of.the.brand.In.order.to.isolate.the.effect.of.this.halo,. Leuthesser et al. (19 (1995) 95) des descri cribe. be. two sta statis tistic tical. al. pro proced cedure ures:. s:. ‘pa ‘partia rtialli lling. ng. out’.and.‘double.centering out’.and.‘double .centering’.This.metho ’.This.method.does.not.provide.any.indic d.does.not.provide.any.indication ation of. the sou source rces. s. of. con consum sumer er-ba -based sed bran brand. d. equ equity ity and is. the theref refore ore of. lit little tle value. val ue. to. bran brand. d. man manage agers rs Mo More. re. imp import ortant antly ly,. ,. thi this. s. met method hod doe does. s. not tak take. e. into in to ac acco coun unt. t. th the. e. pa part rt of co cons nsum umer er-b -bas ased ed br bran and. d. eq equi uity ty th that at hi hing nges es on associ ass ociatio ations.attac ns.attached hed to.the. to.the.bra brand.name nd.name As a. a.res result ult,. ,.thi this.metho s.method. d.can can be. applie app lied. d. onl only. y. in. pro produc duct. t. cat catego egorie ries. s. whe where. re. the pos positi itioni oning. ng. of. com compet petiti itive. ve. brands.is.functional.or.experiential.(Park.et al..1986).Another.weakness. of th this is me meth thod od is th that at eq equi uity ty is at be best st me meas asur ured ed at th the. e. ag aggr greg egat ate. e. le leve vel. l. rather rat her tha than. n. the ind indivi ividua dual. l. lev level el Fi Final nally ly,. ,. the me metho thod. d. doe does. s. not ove overco rcome me the.shortcomings.of.previous.methods,.which.draw.heavily.on.statistics,. making.it.hard.to.use.by.brand.managers Unli Un like ke pr prev evio ious us st stud udie ies, s, wh whic ich. h. fo focu cus. s. on pr pref efer eren ence ce,. ,. Ka Kama maku kura ra an and. d. Russell.(1993).examine.consumers Russell.( 1993).examine.consumers’.actual.purchase.behaviour.by.means.of ’.actual.purchase.behaviour.by.means.of a.segmentwise.logit.model.The.empirical.estimation.of.the.model.is.based. on. rea real. l. pur purcha chase. se. dat data. a. fro from. m. sup superm ermark arket. et. che checko ckout. ut. sca scanne nners rs Con Consum sumer er-based. bas ed. bran brand. d. equ equity ity is. mea measur sured. ed. as. ‘th ‘the. e. imp implie lied. d. uti utilit lity. y. or. val value. ue. ass assign igned. ed. to.a. bra brand. nd.by.consu by.consumer mers’.(p. s’.(p. 10) 10). . By.remov By.removing ing the eff effect ects. s.of.short of.short-te -term. rm.

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 52 Issue 1

adverti adve rtisi sing ng an and. d. pr pric ice. e. pr prom omot otio ions ns,. ,. Ka Kama maku kura. ra. an and. d. Rus usse sell ll (1 (199 993) 3) ca came me up wi with th a. pr pro oxy of Br Bran and. d. Val alue ue. . Two ma majo jor. r. so sour urce ces. s. of br bran and. d. eq equi uity ty were we re su subs bseq eque uent ntly ly id iden enti tifi fied ed as a. re resu sult lt of de deco comp mpos osin ing. g. Br Bran and. d. Val alue ue into.tangible.and.intangible.components.The.authors.go.on.to.propose. Bran Br and. d. Val alue ue an and. d. In Inta tang ngib ible le Br Bran and. d. Val alue ue as tw two. o. al alte tern rnat ativ ive. e. me meas asur ures es of br bran and. d. eq equi uity ty. . Wh Whil ile. e. Br Bran and. d. Val alue ue pr prov ovid ides es a. fa fair irly ly go good od di diag agno nost stic ic for. fo r. a. br bran and’ d’s. s. co comp mpet etit itiv ive. e. po posi siti tion on,. ,. In Intan tangi gibl ble. e. Br Bran and. d. Val alue ue is isol olat ates es th the. e. utilit uti lity. y. ass associ ociate ated. d. wit with. h. int intang angibl ible. e. fac factor tors. s. suc such. h. as. bra brand. nd. ass associ ociati ations ons and perc pe rcep eptu tual al di dist stor orti tion ons s Wh Whil ile. e. pr prov ovid idin ing. g. a. pr prel elim imin inar ary. y. br brea eakd kdow own. n. of Brand.Value, Brand.V alue, Intang Intangible.Brand.V ible.Brand.Value.is.not. alue.is.not.decom decompose posed.further.to. d.further.to.enable enable brand.managers.to.manage.the.sources.of.that.value.Similar.to.Srinivasan. (1979) (19 79),. ,. thi this. s. app approa roach. ch. doe does. s. not all allow. ow. eva evalua luatin ting. g. con consum sumer er-ba -based sed bran brand. d. equity at.the.individual at.the.individual.consumer.leve .consumer.level.The.method.offers l.The.method.offers the.advanta the.advantage. ge. of.reflecting.actual.consu of.reflect ing.actual.consumer.behavi mer.behaviour.as.opposed.to.preferen our.as.opposed.to.preferences,.but.at. ces,.but.at. the sam same. e. tim time. e. is. con confin fined. ed. to. con contex texts. ts. whe where. re. sc scann anner. er. dat data. a. are ava availa ilable ble. . Finally Fina lly,.the. ,.the.meth method.assumes od.assumes that.brand.separabi that.brand.separability.is.possible, lity.is.possible, a. a.posit position. ion. challe cha llenge nged. d. sev severe erely. ly. by. res resear earche chers. rs. who ado adopt. pt. an. ‘in ‘inclu clusiv sive’. e’. as. opp oppose osed. d. to an ‘a ‘add ddit itiv ive’ e’ ap appr proa oach ch to br bran andi ding ng (B (Bar arwi wise se et al. 19 1990 90;. ;. Am Ambl bler er &. Barwise.1998) Building.on.the.information.economics.paradigm,.the.approach.adopted. by Sw Swai aitt et al. (1 (199 993) 3) us uses es th the. e. en entir tire. e. ut util ilit ity. y. va valu lue. e. at atta tach ched ed to a. br bran and. d. rather. rath er. than iso isolat lating ing spe specif cific. ic. par parame ameter ters. s. the thereo reoff. The Their. ir. arg argume ument. nt. is. tha that. t. the.effect.of.brand.equity.occurs.throughout.the.components.of.the.utility. functi fun ction. on. and the theref refore ore any mea measur sure. e. of. bran brand. d. equ equity ity sho should uld ref reflec lect. t. tot total. al. util ut ilit ityy. Ba Base sed. d. on th this is,. ,. th they ey pr prop opos ose. e. a. ne new. w. me meas asur ure. e. of co cons nsum umer er-b -bas ased ed bran br and. d. eq equi uity ty ca call lled ed ‘E ‘Equ qual alis isat atio ion. n. Pr Pric ice’ e’ (E (EP) P),. ,. wh whic ich. h. en enco comp mpas asse ses. s. ‘t ‘the he mone mo neta tary ry ex expr pres essi sion on of th the. e. ut util ilit ity. y. a. co cons nsum umer er at attr trib ibut utes es to a. bu bund ndle le consisting.of.a.brand.name,.product.attributes.and.price’.(p.30).Based. on a. hy hypo poth thet etic ical al ch choi oice ce ta task sk an and. d. ad addi diti tion onal al in info form rmat atio ion. n. re rela lati ting ng to consumers consu mers’. ’.purcha purchases.and. ses.and.produ product. ct.usage usage,. ,.imag image. e.and.socio-de and.socio-demogr mographics aphics,. ,. EP.is.the EP.is. then. n.cal calcul culate ated. d.by.mean by.means.of. s.of. a. a.mul multin tinomi omial.logit al.logit mod model el Thi This. s.is.the. is.the. hypothetical.price.at.which.each.brand.would.have.the.same.market.share. in. tha that. t. con consum sumer’s. er’s. pur purcha chase ses. s. (Ba (Barwi rwise. se. 199 1993) 3) One of. the adv advant antage ages. s. of. this. thi s. me meas asur urin ing. g. in inst stru rume ment nt is th that at it in inco corp rpor orat ates es a. se seri ries es of qu qual alit itat ativ ive. e. variab var iables les rel relate ated. d. to. sy symbo mbolic lic ass associ ociati ations ons. . The ins instru trume ment. nt. dev develo eloped ped by. Swait et al. (19 (1993) 93) all allows ows ide identi ntifyi fying. ng. the sou source rces. s. of. bra brand. nd. ass associ ociati ations ons and.determining.importance.weights.in.the.function.of.consumer.utility.  Anoth  An other. er. adv advant antage age is. tha that. t. it. per permit mits. s. the cal calcul culati ation. on. of. con consum sumer er-ba -based sed brand.equity at.the. at.the.indiv individual.level idual.level.Neverthe .Nevertheless less,.the. ,.the.spec specificat ification.of. ion.of.the. the. model postul postulates ates that.all. that.all.consu consumers mers have.identic have.identical.preferenc al.preferences,.renderin es,.rendering. g.

Consumer-based brand equity conceptualisation and measurement

the met method hod ina inappr ppropr opriate iate for mar market kets. s. cha charac racter terise ised. d. by. inh inhomo omogen geneou eous. s. consumer.choice Shankar.et al..(2008).deve .(2008).developed loped.a. .a.mode model.of.brand.equity.that l.of.brand.equity.that.combine .combines. s. financial.and.consumer.survey.data.The.two.multiplicative.components. of.brand.equity.are.offering.value.and.relative.brand.importance.Offering. value.is.the.net.present.value.of.a.product.or.product.range.carrying.a.brand. name,.and.can.be.estimated.through.financial.measures.such.as.forecast. revenues.and.margin.ratios.Relative.brand.importance.is.a.measure.that. seeks see ks to.isolat to.isolate. e.the the eff effect ect of.brand.image on.consu on.consumer mer uti utilit lity. y.rel relati ative.to. ve.to. the eff effect ect of. oth other. er. fac factor tors. s. tha that. t. als also. o. aff affect ect con consum sumer. er. cho choice ice. . Sha Shanka nkarr et (2008) 08) ide identi ntify. fy.bra brand. nd. rep reputa utatio tion,. n,. bran brand. d. uni unique quenes ness,. s,.bra brand. nd. fit fit,. ,. bra brand. nd.  al. (20 asso as soci ciat atio ions ns,. ,. br bran and. d. tr trus ust, t, br bran and. d. in inno nova vati tion on,. ,. br bran and. d. re rega gard rd an and. d. br bran and. d. fame.as.drivers.of.brand.image fame .as.drivers.of.brand.image.that.may.be.captured.throug .that.may.be.captured.through.a.consumer. h.a.consumer. surv su rvey ey. . An ad adva vant ntag age. e. of th this is me meth thod od is th that at it al allo lows ws es esti tima mati ting ng br bran and. d. equity.for.multi-cate equity .for.multi-category.brands gory.brands.While.this.metho .While.this.method.is.beneficia d.is.beneficial.in. l.in.terms terms of co comb mbin inin ing. g. bo both th fi fina nanc ncia ial. l. an and. d. co cons nsum umer er da data ta,. ,. it ma make kes. s. co comp mpar aris ison ons. s. with wi th ri riva val. l. br bran ands ds di diff ffic icul ult. t. du due. e. to co comp mpet etit itor or fi fina nanc ncia ial. l. me meas asur ures es of ofte ten. n. being. bei ng. una unavai vailab lable. le. at. the bra brand. nd. lev level el Mo Moreo reover ver,. ,. thi this. s. app approa roach. ch. pro produc duces. es. an.aggregate.estimate.of.brand.equity.as.only.relative.brand.importance.is. measured.at.the.individual.level Indirect approaches Compared.to.direct.approaches,.indirect.approaches.to.CBBE.measurement. adopt.a.more.holistic.view.of.the.brand.and.seek.to.measure.brand.equity. either eit her thr throug ough. h. its man manife ifest. st. dim dimens ension ions. s. or. thr throug ough. h. an. out outcom come. e. var variab iable. le. such.as.a.price.premium Lassar. et al. (1 (199 995) 5) de defi fin ned con onssum umer er-b -bas ased ed br bran and. d. equ quit ity. y. as ‘t ‘the he enhancement.in.the.perceived.utility.and.desirability.a.band.name.confers. on a. pr prod oduc uct’ t’ (p (p. . 10 10) ) Ba Base sed. d. on a. pr prev evio ious us st stud udy. y. co cond nduc ucte ted. d. by Ma Mart rtin in and.Brown.(1990),.the.authors.suggested.five.CBBE.dimensions,.namely. performanc perfo rmance,. e,. value value,. ,. socia social. l. imag image,. e,. trustw trustworthin orthiness. ess.and. and. comm commitmen itment. t. The. hypo hy poth thes esis ised ed st stru ruct ctur ure. e. of br bran and. d. eq equi uity ty wa was. s. su supp ppor orte ted. d. by su surv rvey ey da data ta collec col lected ted fro from. m. con consum sumers ers in. two pro produc duct. t. cat catego egorie ries: s: TV. mon monito itors. rs. and watches. watch es. Lass Lassar ar et al. (1 (199 995) 5) al also so re repo porte rted. d. ad adeq equa uate te le leve vels ls of in inte tern rnal al cons co nsis iste tenc ncy. y. an and. d. di disc scri rimi mina nant nt va vali lidi dity ty fo for. r. th the. e. re resu sulta ltant nt 17 17-i -ite tem. m. Li Like kert rt-type.CBBE.scale.Understanding.the.complexity.of.previous.brand.equity. measurement.techniques,.Lassar et al.(1995).paved.the.way.for.a.simple. paper-and-pencil.instrument.that.enables.managers.to.easily.monitor.their. brand.equity throug through.its. h.its.cons constituen tituent.dimensio t.dimensions.Furt ns.Furthermo hermore,.the.metric. re,.the.metric.

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 52 Issue 1

can. al can. also so be ap appl plie ied. d. to va vari riou ous. s. pr prod oduc uct. t. fi fiel elds ds as in indi divi vidu dual. al. sc scal ale. e. it item ems. s. meas me asur ure. e. co cons nsum umer er pe perc rcep epti tion ons. s. at a. ra rath ther er ab abst stra ract ct,. ,. no nonn-pr prod oduc uct. t. cl clas asssspecific.level.Despite.its.merits,.Lassar et al’s.(1995).CBBE.scale.focuses. solely sol ely on. ass associ ociati ations ons and ex exclu cludes des sig signif nifica icant. nt. beh behavi aviour oural. al. com compon ponent ents. s. of.bra of. brand. nd.equ equity ity (e (eg. g.beh behavi aviour oural. al.loy loyalt alty) y) Als Also,. o,.the the sc scale ale was dev develo eloped ped and. an d. va vali lida date ted. d. wi with th a. co conv nven enie ienc nce. e. sa samp mple le of 11 113. 3. co cons nsum umer ers, s, wh whic ich. h. is consid con sidere ered. d. ina inadeq dequat uate. e. for con confir firmat matory ory fac factor tor ana analys lysis. is. (Hi (Hinki nkin. n. 199 1995) 5) Finally,.the.authors.do.not.report.any.tests.on.the.scale’s.external.validity Simi Si mila lar. r. to th the. e. pr prev evio ious us au auth thor ors’ s’ ho holi list stic ic de defi fini niti tion on of br bran and. d. eq equi uity ty,. ,. Vázquez et al.(2002).define.consumer-based.brand.equity.as.the.‘overall. util ut ilit ity. y. th that at th the. e. co cons nsum umer er as asso soci ciat ates es to th the. e. us use. e. an and. d. co cons nsum umpt ptio ion. n. of th the. e. bran br and; d; in incl clud udin ing. g. as asso soci ciat atio ions ns ex expr pres essi sing ng bo both th fu func ncti tion onal al an and. d. sy symb mbol olic ic utilities’.(p.28).It.is.notable.that.the.above.definition.highlights.ex-post. (ie (i e. . ut util ilit itie ies. s. ob obta tain ined ed by co cons nsum umer ers. s. fo foll llow owin ing. g. a. br bran and’ d’s. s. pu purc rcha hase se). ). as opposed.to.ex-ante utilities.(ie.utilities.obtained.prior.to.purchase),.the. latter lat ter bei being. ng. the foc focus. us. of. inv invest estiga igatio tion. n. und under. er. the inf inform ormati ation. on. eco econom nomics ics para pa radi digm gm. . The heir ir em empi piri rica cal. l. stu tudy dy in invo volv lvin ing. g. co cons nsum umer er ev eval alua uati tion ons. s. of athlet ath letic. ic. sho shoe. e. bra brands nds ver verifi ified. ed. the exi existe stence nce of. fou four. r. dim dimens ension ions. s. of. bra brand. nd. utilities: utilit ies: produc product. t. funct functional. ional. utilit utilityy,. produc product. t. sym symbolic. bolic. utilit utilityy,. brand. name functional.utility funct ional.utility and.brand.name. and.brand.name.sym symbolic.utility bolic.utility. .F Further tests includ including. ing. conf co nfir irma mato tory ry fa fact ctor or an anal alys ysis is sh show owed ed th that at th thei eir. r. pr prop opos osed ed 22 22-i -ite tem. m. sc scal ale. e. has. ha s. st stro rong ng ps psyc ycho home metr tric ic pr prop oper erti ties es. . An ad addi diti tion onal al co conc nclu lusi sion on of th the. e. study.is.that.neither.the.additive.nor.the.inclusive.conception.of.a.brand. is su supp ppor orte ted d Re Resu sult lts. s. sh show owed ed th that. at. pr prod oduc uct. t. an and. d. br bran and. d. ut util ilit itie ies. s. ma main inta tain in disc di scri rimi mina nant nt va vali lidi dity ty,. ,. su sugg gges esti ting ng th that at co cons nsum umer ers. s. do no not. t. vi view ew th the. e. tw two. o. entities.(ie.product.and.brand).as entities.(ie. product.and.brand).as.identical.Nev .identical.Nevertheless,.the. ertheless,.the.strong.inter strong.inter-correlations.between.the.dimensions.require.brand.managers.not.to.regard. the.product.and.brand.name.as.entirely.in the.product.and.brand.nam e.as.entirely.independent.entities.T dependent.entities.The.resulting. he.resulting. scal sc ale. e. ha hass a. nu num mbe ber. r. of ad advvan anta tage ges. s. ov over er pr preece ced din ing. g. met etho hods ds of br bran and. d. equity equ ity mea measur sureme ement nt In. the fir first. st. pla place, ce, unl unlike ike pre previo vious. us. me metho thods. ds. whi which. ch. involve.complex.statistical.modelling,.the.Vázquez et al.(2002).method. is. rel relativ atively ely eas easy. y. to. adm admini iniste sterr. Sec Second ond,. ,. the dev develo eloped ped sc scale ale she sheds. ds. lig light. ht. on.the.sourc on.the. sources.of. es.of.cons consumer umer-base -based.brand. d.brand.equit equity.through.four. y.through.four.dime dimension nsions. s. Third,.the. Third ,.the.scale scale.allows.measure .allows.measurement.at.the.individua ment.at.the.individual.level.Never l.level.Nevertheles theless,. s,. the sca scale. le. was cal calibr ibrate ated. d. sol solely ely in. the ath athlet letic. ic. sho shoes. es.sec sector tor and the theref refore ore certain.adaptation certai n.adaptations.are.required.to.administ s.are.required.to.administer.the.scale.in. er.the.scale.in.other other.contexts. .contexts. Final Fi nally ly,. ,. thi this. s. me metho thod. d. foc focuse used. d. on. exex-pos post. t. bran brand. d. uti utilit lities ies,. ,. thu thus. s. neg neglec lectin ting. g. significant.ex-ante.brand.utilities.In.a.follow-up.study significant.ex-ante.brand.utilities.In.a.fo llow-up.study,.Koçak ,.Koçak et al.(2007). sought.to.replicate.the.results.of.Vázquez et al.(2002).and.to.determine. whethe whe ther. r. the their. ir. sca scale. le. cou could. ld. be. app applie lied. d. to. a. dif differ ferent ent cul cultur tural. al. con contex text,. t,. ie ie. .

Consumer-based brand equity conceptualisation and measurement

Turkey urkey. . Koçak et al. (2 (200 007) 7) th ther eref efor ore. e. us used ed th the. e. sa same me di dime mens nsio iona nali lity ty of cons co nsum umer er-b -bas ased ed br bran and. d. eq equi uity ty (i (ie e. . pr prod oduc uct, t, fu func ncti tion onal al ut util ilit ityy,. pr prod oduc uct, t, symbolic.utility).and,.to.facilitate.comparability.of.results,.tested.the.scale. in.the.same.product.category.(ie.sport.shoes).The.results.showed.that. the.original.22-item.scale.developed.by.Vázquez et al.(2002).in.Spain.was. not.appropriate.for.the.Turkish.sample.Instead.a.16-item.scale.that.was. simila sim ilar. r.but but not ide identi ntical cal to.the. to.the.ori origin ginal.scale al.scale was sup suppor ported ted by.the. by.the.dat data. a. This.led.Koçak et al.(2007).to.conclude.that.the.differences.between.the. original.and.the.replication.study.may.be.due.to.cultural.diversity original.and.the.replication.study.may.be.due.to.cultural.div ersity.In.other. .In.other. words,.consumers.may.arrive.at.different.evaluations.of.brands.as.a.result. of.different.cultural.conditions In.a.separate.endeavour,.Yoo.and.Donthu.(2001).sought.to.develop.an. individual-level.measure.of.consumer-based.brand.equity.that.is.reliable,. valid,.parsimonious,.and.draws.on.the.theoretical.dimensions.put.forward. by Aa Aake ker. r. (1 (199 991) 1) an and. d. Kel elle ler. r. (1 (199 993) 3). . Da Data ta to ca cali libr brat ate. e. an and. d. va vali lida date te th the. e. scale.were.collected.from.three.independent.samples.of.American,.Korean. Amer eric ican an an and. d. Kor orea ean. n. co cons nsum umeers rs. . Th Thee re ressul ulta tant nt ba batt tter eryy mea eassur urin ing g ‘multi-dim ‘mult i-dimensi ensional.brand.equity’.consist onal.brand.equity’.consists.of. s.of.ten.items.refle ten.items.reflecting.the.three. cting.the.three. dime di mens nsio ions ns of br bran and. d. lo loya yalt ltyy,. pe perc rcei eive ved. d. qu qual alit ity. y. an and. d. br bran and. d. aw awar aren enes ess/ s/ asssoc as ocia iati tion ons s To. as assses ess. s. MBE BE’s ’s co conv nver erge gent nt val alid idit ityy,. Yoo an and. d. Do Dont nthu hu (2001).further.developed.a.four-item.unidimensional.(direct).measure.of. brand.equity,.which.they.labelled.as.‘overall.brand.equity’.A.strong.and. significant.correlation.was.found.between.the.two.measures Amon ong. g. th the. e. in indi dire recct. ap appr proa oach ches es to co cons nsum umer er-b -bas aseed. br bran and. d. equ quit ityy measur mea sureme ement, nt, the Yoo. and Don Donthu thu (20 (2001) 01) stu study. dy. arg arguab uably. ly. has the mos most. t. strengths.and.fewest.weaknesses.First,.Yoo.and.Donthu’s.(2001).adoption. of.an.etic.approach.to.scale.development,.which. of.an.etic.approach.to.sc ale.development,.which.refers.to.the.simu refers.to.the.simultaneous. ltaneous. use.of.samples.from.multiple.cultures,.suggests.that.the.scale.is.culturally. valid.Second,.the.scale.is.applicable.to.various.product.categories.without. requiring.further.adjustments.such.as.in.the.case.of.Vázquez et al.(2002). Third, Thi rd, the ins instru trumen ment. t. is. is.par parsim simoni onious ous and eas easy. y. to. to.adm admini iniste sterr,. mak making ing it. simple.for.brand.managers.to.regularly.assess.the.equity.of.their.brands. Fourth,.measurement.of.brand.equity.is.made.at.the.individual.consumer. level.Fifth,.the.authors.carried.out.a.rigorous.multi-step.validation.process Neve Ne verth rthel eles ess, s, th the. e. st stud udy’s y’s li limi mita tati tion ons, s, as ou outl tlin ined ed be belo low w,. ne nece cess ssit itat ate. e. further.scale.develop furthe r.scale.development.to.allow.research ment.to.allow.researchers.and.practitio ers.and.practitioners.to.arrive. ners.to.arrive. closer.to.a.universally.accepted.measure.of.consumer-based.brand.equity. (Washburn.&.Plank.2002) The.major.limitation.of.Yoo.and.Donthu’s.(2001).three-factor.consumerbased.brand.equity.scale.is.that.brand.awareness.and.brand.associations,.

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 52 Issue 1

two.theoretically.distinct.underlying.constructs.of.brand.equity,.collapsed. into in to on one. e. di dime mens nsio ion n Th The. e. qu ques esti tion on of wh whet ethe her. r. or no not. t. br bran and. d. aw awar aren enes ess. s. and bra brand. nd. ass associ ociati ations ons sho should uld be. col collap lapsed sed is. is.cri critic tical al Alt Althou hough. gh. the two cons co nstr truc ucts ts ar are. e. cl clea earl rly. y. co corr rrel elat ated ed,. ,. bo both th Aa Aake ker. r. (1 (199 991) 1) an and. d. Kel elle ler. r. (1 (199 993) 3) dist di stin ingu guis ish. h. be betw twee een. n. br bran and. d. aw awar aren enes ess. s. an and. d. as asso soci ciat atio ions ns. . Acc ccor ordi ding ng to  Aaker’s  Aa ker’s (19 (1991) 91) con concep ceptua tualis lisatio ation,. n,. bran brand. d. awar awarene eness ss mus must. t. pre preced cede. e. bra brand. nd. asso as soci ciat atio ions ns. . Non onet ethe hele less ss,. ,. th the. e. tw two. o. di dime mens nsio ions ns ar are. e. no not. t. sy syno nony nym mou ouss since.one.can.be.aware.of.a.brand.without.having.a.strong.set.of.brand. associations.linked.in.memory.Pappu et al.(2005).achieved.a.distinction. betw be twee een. n. th the. e. di dime mens nsio ions ns of br bran and. d. aw awar aren enes ess. s. an and. d. br bran and. d. as asso soci ciat atio ions ns;. ;. however,.their.confirmatory. however ,.their.confirmatory.factor.model.suffe factor.model.suffers.from.a.se rs.from.a.serious.limitation. rious.limitation. Two. of. bra brand. nd. equ equity’s ity’s dim dimens ension ions. s. –. bran brand. d. awa awaren reness ess and bra brand. nd. loy loyalt alty. y. –. ar are. e. op oper erat atio iona nali lise sed. d. by on one. e. an and. d. tw two. o. in indi dica cato tors rs re resp spec ecti tive vely ly,. ,. ma maki king ng the. th e. ps psyc ycho home metr tric ic pr prop oper erti ties es of th thei eir. r. sc scal ale. e. qu ques esti tion onab able le (c (con onfi firm rmat ator ory. y. factor fac tor ana analys lysis. is. req requir uires. es. a. min minimu imum. m. of. thr three. ee.ind indica icator tor var variab iables les for eac each. h. exog ogen enou ouss co con nst stru rucct) t). . Ano noth theer. li lim mit itat atio ion. n. is re rela late ted. d. to th the. e. ex excl clus usiv ive. e. reli re lian ance ce on st stud uden ent. t. sa samp mple les. s. to de deve velo lop. p. an and. d. va vali lida date te th thei eir. r. br bran and. d. eq equi uity ty scale.Students.are.generally.not.effective.surrogates.for.consumers.(James. &.Sonner.2001).A.third.limitation.is.concerned.with.Yoo.and.Donthu’s. (200 (2 001) 1) se sele lect ctio ion. n. of pr prod oduc uct. t. ca cate tego gori ries es. . In an er era. a. wh when en br bran andi ding ng ha has. s. become.critical.for.services.(van.Riel. et al..2001;.Brodie et al.2006),.and. severa sev eral. l. ser servic vice. e. bra brands nds enj enjoy. oy. pro promin minent ent pos positi itions ons in. Int Interb erbran rand’s d’s ann annual ual top.brands.ranking,.it.is.a.serious.omission.that.Yoo.and.Donthu.(2001). chose.only.product.brands.for.their.s chose.only.produc t.brands.for.their.survey.(films,. urvey.(films,.jeans.and.athletic.s jeans.and.athletic.shoes). hoes). Furthermore,.while.attentive.to.cultural.variations,.their.study.was.based. on.specific.country.cultures.Further.evidence.about.the.dimensionality.of. brand.equity.and.the.construct’s.invariance.among.cultures.was.presented. by.Buil. et al..(2008),.who.collected.and.compared.data.from.consumers. in.the.UK.and.Spain.The.hypothesised.structure.of.consumer-based.brand. equity.consisting.of.brand.awareness,.perceived.quality,.brand.loyalty.and. brand. bra nd. ass associ ociati ations ons (de (decom compos posed. ed. int into. o. per percei ceived ved val value, ue, bra brand. nd. per person sonali ality. ty. and.organisational.assoc and.organisat ional.association iations).was. s).was.suppo supported.in. rted.in.both.countrie both.countries.Furth s.Further. er. research.may.look.further.into.the.conceptual.and.metric.equivalence.of. brand.equity.such.as.in.‘individualist.vs.collectivist’.cultures,.and.also.in. ‘developed.vs.developing’.markets Exce Ex cept pt fo for. r. me meas asur ures es of co cons nsum umeer-ba base sed. d. br bran and. d. equ quit ityy in inte tend ndeed. to be ap appl plic icab able le ac acro ross ss pr prod oduc uct. t. ca cate tego gori ries es,. ,. th the. e. ma mark rket etin ing. g. li lite tera ratu ture re al also so report rep orts. s. stu studie dies. s. dev develo elopin ping. g. cat catego egory/ ry/ind indust ustry. ry. spe specif cific. ic. me measu asures res of. bran brand. d. equity.(eg.de.Chernatony et al.2004;.Christodoulides et al.2006).For. instance,.de.Chernatony et al.(2004).identified.three.dimensions.of.CBBE.

Consumer-based brand equity conceptualisation and measurement

specif spec ific ic to fi fina nanc ncia ial. l. se serv rvic ices es br bran ands ds,. ,. na name mely ly br bran and. d. lo loya yalt ltyy,. sa sati tisf sfac acti tion on and.reputation.Similarly,.Christodoulides et al.(2006).focused.on.brand. equi eq uity ty me meas asur urem emen ent. t. in an on onli line ne co cont ntex ext. t. an and. d. th thro roug ugh. h. in inte terv rvie iews ws wi with th expert exp erts. s. ide identi ntifie fied. d. fiv five. e. dim dimens ension ions. s. of. e-t e-tail ail bra brand. nd. equ equity ity,. ,. ie ie. . emo emotio tional nal conn co nnec ecti tion on,. ,. on onli line ne ex expe peri rien ence ce,. ,. re resp spon onsi sive ve se serv rvic ice. e. na natu ture re,. ,. tr trus ust. t. an and. d. fulf fu lfil ilm men ent t Co Cons nsum umer er su surv rvey eyss ar are. e. in bo both th cas asees us used ed to th then en as asse sesss. consumer-based.brand.equity,.each.time.through.its.manifest.dimensions Price premium  Anoth  Ano ther er wa way. y. to in indi dire rect ctly ly me meas asur ure. e. con onsu sum mer er-b -bas ased ed br bran and. d. equ quit ityy is throug thr ough. h. an. out outcom come. e. var variab iable. le. of. con consum sumer er-ba -based sed bra brand. nd. equ equity ity,. ,. ie ie. . pri price. ce. premiu pre mium. m.Thi This. s. met method hod cal calcul culate ates. s. the add additi itiona onal. l. inc income ome or. or.pro profit fit tha that. t. is. genera gen erated ted as. a. res result ult of. the dif differ ferent ential ial sel sellin ling. g. pri price. ce. bet betwee ween. n. a. bra brande nded. d. and.a.generic.(non-branded).product.(Barwise et al.1989).Ailawadi.et al. (2003) (20 03) pro propos posed. ed. a. rev revenu enue. e. pre premiu mium. m. me measu asure. re. as. a. pro proxy. xy. for mea measur suring ing consumer-based.brand.equity.This.is.defined.as.‘the.difference.in.revenue. (ie. (i e.net net pri price. ce.×. ×. vol volume ume). ). bet betwee ween. n. a. bra brande nded. d. goo good. d. and a. cor corres respon pondin ding. g. private.label’.(p.3).Two.of.the.advantages.of.this.measure.are.the.reliance. private.label’.(p.3).T wo.of.the.advantages.of.this.measure.are.the.reliance. on ac actu tual al ma mark rket et da data ta (a (as. s. op oppo pose sed. d. to su subj bjec ecti tive ve ju judg dgem emen ents ts). ). an and. d. th the. e. rela re lati tive ve ea ease se of ca calc lcul ulat atio ion n On th the. e. ne nega gati tive ve si side de,. ,. pr pric ice. e. pr prem emiu ium. m. do does es not.provide.insights.into.the.sources.of.brand.equity.Also,.brand.equity. buildi bui lding. ng. usu usuall ally. y. imp implie lies. s. one of. two gen generi eric. c. str strate ategie gies:. s:. a. pri price. ce. pre premiu mium. m. strategy.or.a.market.share.strategy.(Park.&.Srinivasan.1994).In.the.former. case,.revenue.premium.provides.satisfactory.results.However,.in.the.case. where.the. where .the.brand.in.questio brand.in.question.strives n.strives.to. .to.incre increase.its.market ase.its.market.share,.the.price. .share,.the.price. premiu pre mium. m. me metho thod. d. fai fails. ls. to. del delive iver. r. acc accura urate. te. res result ults. s. of. bra brand. nd. val value ue Thi Third, rd, often.no.equivalent.generic.product.is.available.–.and,.even.when.available,. it.is.likely.to.be.extremely.difficult.to.obtain.a.breakdown.of.competitors’. profitability.figures.by.individual.product.line In. par parall allel. el. wit with. h. the aca academ demic. ic. res resear earch. ch. on. bra brand. nd. equ equity ity mea measur sureme ement, nt, vari va riou ous. s. co cons nsul ulta tanc ncie ies. s. an and. d. ma mark rket et re rese sear arch ch fi firm rms. s. ha have ve al also so de deve velo lope ped. d. their.own.methodologies their.own.methodol ogies,.which.cannot.be. ,.which.cannot.be.negle neglected.as.they.occasiona cted.as.they.occasionally. lly. appear.in.scholarly.research.(eg.Chu.&.Keh.2006;.Mizik.&.Jacobson. 2008 20 08) ) The be best st-k -kno nown wn me meth thod odol olog ogie ies. s. ar are. e. su summ mmar aris ised ed in Tab able le 3 Comparing.the.measures.used.by.different.consultancies.(see.Table.3).as. well. wel l. as. the me measu asures res use used. d. by. con consul sultan tancie cies. s. and aca academ demics ics (se (see. e. Tabl ables. es. 1. and.3).shows.little.common.ground.in.terms.of.the.constituent.dimensions. of.brand.equity

International Journal of Market Research Vol. Vol. 52 Issue 1

Table 3

Consultancy-based measures measures of CBBE

Name

Measures of CBBE

Interbrand Brand Strength

Market Stability Brand leadership  Trend Brand support Diversification Protection

Y&R Brand Asset Valuator

Knowledge Esteem Relevance Differentiation

WPP Brand Dynamics

Presence Relevance Performance Advantage Bonding

Research Internationa Internationall Equity Engine

Affinity Perceived functional performance  The interaction between the brand’s brand’s equity and its price

Source: the authors

Conclusions and directions for future research

Our ext exten ensi sive ve lit litera eratur ture. e. rev review iew id ident entifi ified ed two st strea reams ms of res resea earch rch wit with. h. regard reg ard to. CB CBBE BE’s ’s con concep ceptua tualis lisati ation: on: the dom domina inant. nt. st strea ream. m. der deriv ives es fr from. om. cognitive.psychology,.while.a.secondary.stream.draws.on.signalling.theory. from fr om in info form rmat atio ion. n. ec econ onom omic ics s Al Alth thou ough gh th ther ere. e. is so some me ag agre reem emen ent. t. wi with th regar re gard. d. to. to.the the de defin finiti ition. on.of. of.bra brand. nd.equ equity ity as the add added ed va value lue en endow dowed. ed.by. by. the.brand.to.the.product,.additive.approaches.to.measuring.brand.equity. have. hav e. re recen cently tly gi give ven. n. way to. mo more. re. hol holis istic tic me metri trics cs. . Ou Our. r. lit litera eratur ture. e. rev revie iew. w. identifies.two.main.classes.of.CBBE.measurement.methods.First,.methods. that th at se seek ek to qu quan anti tify fy br bran and. d. eq equi uity ty di dire rect ctly ly;. ;. an and, d, se seco cond nd,. ,. me meth thod ods. s. th that at seek. see k.to. to.meas measure.brand. ure.brand.equi equity. ty.eith either. er.thro through.its. ugh.its.dem demonst onstrabl rable. e.dime dimensio nsions. ns. or.through.price.premium.(outcome.variable).It.is.mostly.earlier.studies. that th at at atte temp mpte ted. d. to me meas asur ure. e. br bran and. d. eq equi uity ty di dire rect ctly ly (e (eg g. . Sr Srin iniv ivas asan an 19 1979 79). ). and fac faced ed se serio rious us pro proble blems ms suc such. h. as bra brand. nd. se separ parabi abilit lityy. Mo Moreo reove verr,. dir direct ect techniqu tech niques.have.limited es.have.limited mana manageri gerial.value.as. al.value.as. they usua usually.rely.on. lly.rely.on. com complex plex statisti stat istical.model cal.models.and. s.and.prov provide.no. ide.no.insi insights ghts into the.sourc the.sources.of. es.of.brand brand valu value. e. Indirect.approaches,.by.contrast,.use.simple.‘pen.and.pencil’.instruments. to. tap con consu sume merr-b -base ased. d. bra brand. nd. eq equit uity. y. thr throug ough. h. its ind indiv ividu idual. al. dim dimens ension ions. s.

Consumer-based brand equity conceptualisation and measurement

Despite.their.managerial.usefulness.as.a.diagnostic.tool,.indirect.measures. of.brand.equity.still.have.limitations,.some.of.which.derive.from.the.lack. of.agreement.on.what.dimensions.constitute.consumer of.agreement.on.what.dimensions.constitute .consumer-based.brand.equity -based.brand.equity,. ,. although.a.wave.of.studies.(eg.Yoo.and.Donthu.2001;.Washburn.&.Plank. 2002;.Pappu et al.2005;.Buil et al.2008).endorse.Aaker’s.(1991,.1996). dimensionality.W dimensionality .We.believe.that.there.is.no.such.thing.as. e.believe.that.there.is.no.such.thing.as. a.universal.measure. for.brand.equity,.and.that.the.market.sector.and.life-stage.of.the.brand.need. to.be.taken.into.account.when.selecting.an.appropriate.set.of.measures.to. assess ass ess bran brand. d. equi equity. ty. (Bak (Baker. er. et al. 200 2005) 5). . It. is not notabl able. e. fro from. m. our lit litera eratur ture. e. review.that.while.some.CBBE.facets.may.be.product.or.category.specific. (eg.car.perform (eg .car.performance ance),.other ),.others.are.‘softe s.are.‘softer’. r’.and.like and.likely.to.be. ly.to.be.mor more.generi e.generic.in. c.in. their.applicability.and.scope.(eg.trust).(cf.Morgan.2000).Tables.1.and.3. suggest.that.not.only.is.there.diversity.in.the.views.of.academics.on.CBBE’s. dimensionality,.but.also.there.seems.to.be.a.gap.between.their.views.and. consultants’.views.This.may.be.because.consultants.have.a.business.model. based.on.which.they.generate.an.income.stream.through.their.proprietary. methodo met hodologi logies. es.F Futur uture. e.rese research arch sho should. uld.inve investig stigate. ate.the. the.rele relevanc vance. e. of. of.CBB CBBE. E. measures.for.practising.managers.Furthermore,.our.literature.review.shows. a. bia bias. s. to. rep report ortin ing. g. me measu asures res dev devel elope oped. d. and va valid lidate ated. d. in. the US US. . Futu uture. re. research.should.apply.these.scales.to.other.contexts.to.assess.the.conceptual. and.psy and. psychom chometri etric. c. equi equivale valence. nce.of. of. CBB CBBE. E. mea measure sures. s. acro across. ss. cult cultures ures. . Fi Finall nallyy,. existing.CBBE.measures.relied.heavily.on.evaluations.of.product.(especially. fmcg fm cg). ). br bran ands ds. . Br Bran andi ding ng is es esssen enti tial al no not. t. ju just st fo for. r. pr prod oduc ucts ts bu but. t. al alsso. fo for. r. services.As.such,.CBBE.measures.should.be.tested.with.service.brands,.and. if.nece if. necessa ssary. ry.new new ser service vice-sp -speci ecific.brand. fic.brand.equi equity. ty.scal scales.should.be. es.should.be. dev develop eloped. ed. Furthermore,.we.recognise.that.a.market.consists.of.clusters.of.individuals. with.different.levels.of.loyalty.(Dick.&. with.different.levels.of. loyalty.(Dick.&.Basu.1994;.M Basu.1994;.Morgan.2000).Research. organ.2000).Research. also. als o. sh shows ows tha that. t. eac each. h. of the these se clu cluste sters rs ma may. y. dif diffe fer. r. si sign gnifi ifican cantly tly on. bra brand. nd. equity equ ity,. ,. su sugge ggest sting ing tha that. t. ag aggre gregat gate. e. bra brand nd eq equit uity. y. sc score ores. s. may be mi misle sleadi ading. ng. (Rust et al.2004).Futu .2004).Future.research.needs re.research.needs.to.address.the.relative.strength.of. .to.address.the.relative.strength.of. brand.equity.by.type.of.user.For.instance,.are.committed,.loyal.customers. typica typ ically lly the mo most. st.val valued ued?. ?. Why sh shou ould. ld.hab habitu itual. al.cu cust stom omers ers no not. t. be jus just. t. as. valued.(Knox.2001)? Fin inal ally ly,. ,. th the. e. la larg rges est. t. co cont ntri ribu buti tion on (i (in. n. te term rms. s. of vo volu lume me). ). to th the. e. ex exis isti ting ng body of research knowledge on brand equity comes from studies adop ad opti ting ng a. ps psyc ycho ho-c -cog ogni niti tive ve pe pers rspe pect ctiv ive, e, wh whic ich. h. is la larg rgel ely. y. un unde derpi rpinn nned ed by a. li line near ar co cons nsum umer er th thin inki king ng pr proc oces ess. s. (s (see ee,. ,. fo for. r. ex exam ampl ple, e, ‘h ‘hie iera rarc rchy hy of effect eff ects’) s’). . Em Emerg erging ing adv advanc ances. es. in. neu neural. ral. psy psycho cholog logy. y. all allude ude to. muc much. h. mor more. e. comple com plex. x. brai brain. n. act activi ivity. ty. whe when. n. con consum sumers ers pro proces cess. s. a. bra brand. nd. (e (eg. g. Qua Quartz rtz &.  Asp.  As p. 200 2005;. 5;. Yoon et al. 20 2006 06;. ;. Mo Mout utin inho ho &. Sa Sant ntos os 20 2009 09) ) For in inst stan ance ce,. ,.

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 52 Issue 1

 Yoon et al.(2006).have.recently.challenged.the.view.that.the.processing. of.products.and.brands.is.akin.to.that.of.humans.Further.developments. in.neu in. neuros roscie cience nces. s. are exp expect ected. ed.to. to.pro provid vide. e. a. bet better ter und unders erstan tandin ding. g. of. of.how how consumers.feel.about,.resonate.and.value.a.brand The.following.pointers.are.intended.to.assist.practising.marketers.and. market.researchers.in.setting.up.their.own. market.researchers. in.setting.up.their.own.system.to.me system.to.measure.brand.equity asure.brand.equity 1. Brand.equi Brand.equity.is.a. ty.is.a. com comple plex. x.and and mul multiti-fac facete eted.conce d.concept.and,.as.such, pt.and,.as.such, it. needs.to.be.captured.through.a.set.of.measures.rather.than.a.single. meas me asur ure e Th The. e. me meas asur ures es se sele lect cted ed sh shou ould ld be al alig igne ned. d. wi with th th the. e. br bran and. d. visi vi sion on (D (Dav avis is 20 2000 00) ) For in inst stan ance ce,. ,. a. su supe perm rmar arke ket. t. li like ke Wai aitr tros ose. e. is likely.to.be.more.concerned.about.perceived.quality.than. likely.to.be.more.conc erned.about.perceived.quality.than.a.discounter a.discounter,. ,. which. whi ch.wou would. ld.foc focus. us.mor more. e. on. val value. ue.for for mon money ey. . Mea Measur sures. es.sho should uld als also. o. be at atte tent ntiv ive. e. to. th the. e. or orga gani nisa sati tion onal al cu cult ltur ure. e. of th the. e. co corp rpor orat atio ion. n. si sinc nce. e. exte ex tern rnal ally ly fo focu cuse sed. d. org organ anis isati ation ons. s. wi with th fl flex exib ible le st stru ruct ctur ures es wo woul uld. d. be more.attentive.to.particular.facets.than.internally.focused.organisations. with.stable.structures 2 Un Unde ders rsta tand ndin ing. g. br bran and. d. eq equi uity ty is ab abou out. t. un unde ders rsta tand ndin ing. g. cu cust stom omer er va valu lue. e. within.a.particular.situational.context.and.level.of.co-producing.value. It.is.therefore.important. It.is.the refore.important.for.brand.m for.brand.managers.and. anagers.and.market.researche market.researchers.to. rs.to. know.how.their.brand.contributes.to.the.overall.product.experience 3. Brand.c Brand.catego ategory.is.an ry.is.an.import .important.var ant.variable.in iable.in.brand.eq .brand.equity.me uity.measure asurement ment The.usefulness.of.different.dimensions.of.brand.equity.is.not.uniform. across.diverse.industries.A.brand.equity.monitor.should.incorporate. dimensions.that.drive.value.within.the.specific.industry.(eg.satisfaction. for.financial.services.(de.Chernatony et al.2004).and.online.customer. experience exper ience for.e-brands.(Christ for.e-brands.(Christodouli odoulides des et al.2006).The.holy.grail. of.‘universal’.measures.is.akin.to.fools’.gold.–.a.shining.example.of. statistical.depth.with.little.that.drives.significant.growth 4 Brand equity monitor systems should consist of perc rceeptual and mot otiv ivat atio iona nall fa fact ctor orss th that at ca can. n. be mod odel elle led. d. ag agai ains nst. t. co cons nseq eque uent ntia ial. l. behavioural.(eg.purchase.recency/frequency).measures 5. Functional. Functional.(eg. (eg.performance),. performance),.emotional. emotional.(eg. (eg.affinity). affinity).and. and.experiential. experiential. facets.should.be.consider facets.should.be. considered.for. ed.for.inclusi inclusion. on.in.a. in.a.brand.equity.measurement. brand.equity.measurement. system.to.truly.appreciate.the.evolving.nature.of.brands 6. In.reces In.recessio sionar nary.period y.periods,.mana s,.manager gers. s.may may be.exce be.excessi ssivel vely.focus y.focused.on. ed.on. the short-term short -term fisc fiscal. al.outco outcomes.of. mes.of. brand.strategi brand.strategies.Insightfu es.Insightful. l.consu consultancy ltancy advice adv ice nee needs. ds. to. exh exhort ort the imp import ortanc ance. e. of. app apprec reciat iating ing the fac facets ets of. brand.equity.that.have.given.rise.to.monetary.gain.–.and.how.this.can. be.sustained

Consumer-based brand equity conceptualisation and measurement

References

 Managing Brand Equity.New.York:.Free.Press  Aaker,.DA.(1991). Managing  Building Strong Brands.New.York:.Free.Press  Aaker,.DA.(1996). Building  Journal of   Aaker,.DA.&.Keller,.KL.(1990).Consumer.evaluations.of.brand.extensions. Journal  Marketing, 54,.1,.pp.27–41  Agarwal,.MK.&.Rao,.VR.(1996).An.  Agarwal,.MK.&.Rao,.V R.(1996).An. empirical.comparison.of.consumer-based.measures.of.  Marketing Letters, 7,.3,.pp.237–247 brand.equity. Marketing  Ailawadi,.KL,.Lehmann,.DR.&.Neslin,.SA.(2003).Revenue.premium.as.an.outcome.  Journal of Marketing,. 67,.4,.pp.1–17 measure.of.brand.equity. Journal  Ambler,.T.(2003). Marketing and the Bottom Line: Creating the Measures of Success .London:. Financial.Times/Prentice.Hall  Journal of Brand  Ambler,.T  Ambler ,.T.&.Barwise,.P .&.Barwise,.P.(1998).The.trouble. .(1998).The.trouble.with.brand.valuation. with.brand.valuation. Journal  Management, 5,.6,.pp.367–377 Baker,.C,.Nancarrow,.C.&.Tinson,.J.(2005).The.mind.versus.market.share.guide.to.brand.  International Journal of Market Research ,.47,.5,.pp.523–540 equity. International  International Journal of  Barwise,.P.(1993).Introduction.to. Barwise,.P .(1993).Introduction.to.the.special.issue.on.br the.special.issue.on.brand.equity and.equity. . International  Research in Marketing,. 10,.1,.pp.3–8  Accounting for Brands.London:. Barwise,.P,.Higson,.C,.Likierman,.A.&. Barwise,.P ,.Higson,.C,.Likierman,.A.&. Marsh,.P Marsh,.P.(1989). .(1989). Accounting London.Business.School  Business Barwise,.P,.Higson,.C,.Likierman,.A.&. Marsh,.P Marsh,.P.(1990).Brands. .(1990).Brands.as.separable.assets. as.separable.assets. Business Strategy Review, 1,.2,.pp.43–59 Berry,.L.(2000).Cultivating.service.brand.equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,. 28,.1,.pp.128–137 Berthon,.JP,.Capon,.N,.Hulbert,.J,.Murgolo-Poore,.NJ,.Pitt,.L.&. Berthon,.JP ,.Capon,.N,.Hulbert,.J,.Murgolo-Poore,.NJ,.Pitt,.L.&.Keating,.S.(2001). Keating,.S.(2001). Organizational and Customer Perspectives on Brand Equity: Issues for Managers and  Researchers.Auckland:.ANZMAC,.Massey.University Blackston,.M.(1992).Building.brand.equity.by.managing.the.brand’s.relationships. Journal of   Advertising Research,.32,.3,.pp.79–83 Bottomley,.P Bottomley ,.PA.&.Doyle,.JR. A.&.Doyle,.JR.(1996).The.formation.o (1996).The.formation.of.attitudes.towards.brand. f.attitudes.towards.brand.extensions:. extensions:. testing.and.generalising.Aaker.and.Keller’s.model. International Journal of Research in  Marketing,.13,.4,.pp.365–377 Brodie,.RJ,.Glynn,.MS.&.Little,.V Brodie,.RJ,.Glynn,.MS.&. Little,.V.(2006).The.serv .(2006).The.service.brand.and. ice.brand.and.the.service-dominant. the.service-dominant. logic:.missing.fundamental.premise.or.the.need.for.stronger.theory?. Marketing Theory,. 6,.3,. pp.363–379 Buil,.I,.de.Chernatony,.L.&.Martinez,.E.(2008).A.cross-national.validation.of.the.consumerbased.brand.equity.scale. Journal  Journal of Product and Brand Management ,.17,.6,.pp.384–392 Burmann,.C,.Jost-Benz,.M.&.Riley,.N.(2009).Towards.an.identity-based.brand.equity. model. Journal  Journal of Business Research ,. 62,.pp.390–397 Capron,.L.&.Hulland,.J.(1999).Redeployment.of.brands,.sales.forces,.and.general.marketing. expertise.following.horizontal.acquisitions:.a.resource-based.view. Journal  Journal of Marketing,.63,. 2,.pp.41–54 Christodoulides,.G,.de.Chernatony,.L,.Furrer,.O Christodoulides,.G,.de.Chernatony,.L,.F urrer,.O.&.Abimbola,.T.(2006).Conceptualising. .&.Abimbola,.T.(2006).Conceptualising. and.measuring.the.equity.of.online.brands. Journal of Marketing Management,. 22,.7/8,. pp.799–825 Chu,.S.&.Keh,.HT.(2006).Brand.value.creation:.analysis.of.the.Interbrand–Business.Week.   Marketing Letters,. 17,.4,.pp.323–331 brand.value.rankings. Marketing Cobb-Walgren,.CJ,.Ruble,.CA.&.Donthu.N.(1995).Brand.equity,.brand.preference,.and.   Journal of Advertising, 24,.3,.pp.25–40 purchase.intent. Journal  Brand Asset Management.San.Francisco,.CA:.Jossey-Bass Davis,.SM.(2000). Brand

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 52 Issue 1

Dawar,.N.&.Pillutla,.MM.(2000).Impact.of.product-harm.crises.on.brand.equity:.the.  Journal of Marketing Research ,.37,.2,.pp.215– moderating.role.of.consumer.expectations. Journal 226 de.Chernatony,.L,.Harris,.FJ.&.Christodoulides,.G.(2004).Developing.a.brand.performance. measure.for.financial.services.brands. Services Industries Journal ,. 24,.2,.pp.15–33 Dick,.AS.&.Basu,.K.(1994).Customer.loyalty:.towards.an.integrated.framework,. Journal of  the Academy of Marketing Science ,. 22,.2,.pp.99–113 Dodds,.WB,.Monroe,.KB.&.Grewal,.D. Dodds,.W B,.Monroe,.KB.&.Grewal,.D.(1991).Effects.of.price,.bra (1991).Effects.of.price,.brand,.and.store. nd,.and.store.  Journal of Marketing Research, 28,.3,.pp.307– information.on.buyers’.product.evaluations. Journal 319 Erdem,.T.&.Swait,.J.(1998).Brand.equity.as.a.signaling.phenomenon. Journal of Consumer   Psychology ,.7,.2,.pp.131–157 Erdem,.T,.Swait,.J.&.Louviere,.J.(2002).The.impact.of.brand.credibility.on.consumer.price.  International Journal of Research in Marketing , 19,.1,.pp.1–19 sensitivity. International Erdem,.T,.Swait,.J.&.Valenzuela,.A.(2006).Brands.as.signals:.a.cross.country.validation.  Journal of Marketing,.70,.1,.pp.34–49 study. Journal  Journal of Macromarketing,.16,. Falkenberg,.AW.(1996).Marketing.and. the.wealth.of.firms. Journal 4,.pp.4–24  Journal of Advertising Research ,.30,.4,.pp.RC7– Farquhar,.P.(1 Farquhar,.P .(1989). 989).Managin Managing.br g.brand. and.equity. equity. Journal RC12  Recognizing and Measuring Brand Assets. Farquhar,.PH,. Farquhar,.P H,.Han,. Han,.JY JY.&. .&.Ijiri, Ijiri,.Y .Y.(19 .(1991). 91). Recognizing Report.#.91-119.MA:.Marketing.Science.Institute  Journal of the Feldwick,.P.(1996).What.is.brand.equity.anyway,.and.how.do.you.measure.it?. Journal  Market Research Society,.38,.2,.pp.85–104 Fournier,.S.(1998).Consumers.and.their.brands:.developing.relationship.theory.in.consumer.  Journal of Consumer Research ,. 24,.4,.pp.343–373 research. Journal  American Journal Grassl,.W.(1999).The. .(1999).The.reality.of.brands:.toward reality.of.brands:.towards.an.ontology.of. s.an.ontology.of. marketing. American of Economics and Sociology ,.58,.2,.pp.313–359 Haigh,.D.(1999). Understanding the Financial Value of Brands .Brussels:.European.  Association.of.Advertising.Agencies Hinkin,.TR.(1995).A.review.of.scale.development.practices.in.the.study.of.organizations.  Journal of Management,.21,.5,.pp.967–988 Hunt,.SD.&.Morgan,.RM.(1995).The.comparative.advantage.theory.of.competition.  Journal of Marketing,.59,.2,.pp.1–15  Journal of   James,.WL.&.Sonner,.BS.(2001).Just.say. L.&.Sonner,.BS.(2001).Just.say.no.to.traditional. no.to.traditional.student.samples. student.samples. Journal  Advertising Research,. 41,.5,.pp 63–71  Jourdan,.P.(2002).Measuring.brand.equity:.proposal.for.conceptual.and.methodological.  Advances in Consumer Research,. 29,.1,.pp.290–298 improvements. Advances Kamakura,.WA.&.Russell,.GJ.(1993).Measuring.brand. Kamakura,.W A.&.Russell,.GJ.(1993).Measuring.brand.value.with.scanner.data. value.with.scanner.data.  International Journal of Research in Marketing ,.10,.1,.pp.9–22 Kapferer,.J-N.(2004).The New Strategic Brand Management.London:.Kogan.Page Keller,.KL.(1993).Conceptualizing,.measuring.and.managing.customer-based.brand.equity.  Journal of Marketing,.57,.1,.pp.1–22 Keller,.KL.(2003).Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand  Equity.Upper.Saddle.River,.NJ Keller,.KL.&.Lehmann,.DR.(2006).Brands.and.branding:.research.findings.and.future.  Marketing Science,.25,.6,.pp.740–759 priorities. Marketing Kerin,.RA.&.Sethuraman,.R.(1998).Exploring.the.brand.value–shareholder.value.nexus.for.  Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science ,.26,.4,.pp.260– consumer.goods.companies. Journal 273

Consumer-based brand equity conceptualisation and measurement

Koçak,.A,.Abimbola,.T.&.Ozer,.A.(2007).Consumer.brand.equity.in.a.cross-cultural. Koçak,.A,.Abimbola,.T.&.Ozer,.A.(2007).Consum er.brand.equity.in.a.cross-cultural.  Journal of Marketing Management,. Management,. 23,.1/2,.pp.157– replication:.an.evaluation.of.a.scale. Journal 173  Journal of Strategic Marketing,. Marketing,.9,. Knox,.S.(2001).Measuring.and.managing.brand.loya Knox,.S.(2001).Measurin g.and.managing.brand.loyalty lty. . Journal pp.111–128  Journal Lassar,.W,.Mit Lassar,.W ,.Mittal,.B tal,.B.&.S .&.Sharma,. harma,.A.(199 A.(1995).Meas 5).Measuring. uring.customer-base customer-based.brand d.brand.equity. .equity. Journal of Consumer Marketing,. Marketing,.12,.4,.pp.11–19 Leuthesser,.L,.Kohli,.CS.&.Harich,.KR.(1995).Brand.equity:.the.halo.effect.measure.  European Journal of Marketing,. Marketing,.29,.4,.pp.57–66 Martin,.GS.&.Brown,.TJ.(1990).In.search.of.brand.equity Martin,.GS.&.Brown,.T J.(1990).In.search.of.brand.equity:.the.conceptualizatio :.the.conceptualization.and. n.and. al.(eds). Marketing  Marketing measurement.of.the.brand.impression.construct.In.T measurement.of.the.brand.impression.con struct.In.TL.Childers. L.Childers. et al.(eds). Theory and Applications,.V Applications,.Vol.2.Chicago,.IL:.American.Marketi ol.2.Chicago,.IL:.American.Marketing.Association,.pp.431 ng.Association,.pp.431– – 438 Mizik,.N.&.Jacobson,.R.(2008).The.financial.value.impact.of.perceptual.brand.attributes.  Journal of Marketing Research,. Research ,.45,.1,.pp.15–32 Morgan,.RP Morgan,. RP.(2000) .(2000).A. .A.consumer-orie consumer-orientated. ntated.framewor framework.of. k.of.brand.e brand.equity.a quity.and.loyalty. nd.loyalty.  International Journal of Market Research,. Research ,.42,.1,.pp.65–78 Moutinho,.L.&.Santos,.JP Moutinho ,.L.&.Santos,.JP.(2009).Neuroscience.in.marketin .(2009).Neuroscience.in.marketing:.empirical.evidence.of.social. g:.empirical.evidence.of.social. and.emotional.meanings.conveyed.by.brands.Presen and.emotional .meanings.conveyed.by.brands.Presentation.at.the.5th.Thought.Leaders. tation.at.the.5th.Thought.Leaders. International.Conference.on.Brand.Management,.Athens  Research Priorities: Guide to MSI Research Programs and Procedures .MA:. MSI.(2008). Research Marketing.Science.Institute.Ava Marketing.Science.Instit ute.Available.at:.www ilable.at:.wwwmsiorg/pdf msiorg/pdf/MSI_RP08-10 /MSI_RP08-10pdf.(accessed. pdf.(accessed. 2.October.2008) Netemeyer,.RG,.Krishnan,.B,.Pullig,.C,.W Netemeyer ,.RG,.Krishnan,.B,.Pullig,.C,.Wang,.G,.Y ang,.G,.Yagci,.M,.Dean,.D,.Ricks,.J.&.Wirth agci,.M,.Dean,.D,.Ricks,.J.&.Wirth,.F ,.F. .  Journal (2004).Developing.and.validating (2004).Develop ing.and.validating.measures.of.facets.of.customer-based.brand.equity .measures.of.facets.of.customer-based.brand.equity. . Journal of Business Research,. Research ,. 57,.l2,.pp.209–224 O’Sullivan,.D.&.Abela,.AV.(2007).Marketing.performan .(2007).Marketing.performance.measurement.ability.and.firm. ce.measurement.ability.and.firm.  Journal of Marketing,. Marketing,.71,.2,.pp.79–93 performance. Journal Pappu,.R,.Quest Pappu,.R, .Quester,.P er,.PG.&. G.&.Cooksey Cooksey,.R ,.RW W.(2005) .(2005).Consumer-ba .Consumer-based.br sed.brand.equi and.equity:.improving. ty:.improving.  Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14,.3,. the.measurement.–.empirical.evidence. Journal pp.143–154 Park,.CS.&.Srinivasan,.V Park, .CS.&.Srinivasan,.V.(1994).A.survey-based.metho .(1994).A.survey-based.method.for.measuring.and.understandin d.for.measuring.and.understanding. g.  Journal of Marketing Research, 31,.2,.pp.271–288 brand.equity.and.its.extendibilityy. brand.equity.and.its.extendibilit . Journal Park,.WC,.Jaworski,.BJ.&.MacInnis,.DJ.(198 C,.Jaworski,.BJ.&.MacInnis,.DJ.(1986).Strategic.brand.concept-ima 6).Strategic.brand.concept-image. ge.  Journal of Marketing,. Marketing,.50,.4,.pp.135–145 management. Journal management. Quartz,.S.&.Asp,.A.(2005).Brain.branding:.brands.on.the.brain.ESOMAR.Annual.Congress,. Cannes Rangaswamy,.A,.Burke,.RR. Rangaswamy ,.A,.Burke,.RR.&.Oliva,.T &.Oliva,.TA.(1993).Brand.equity.and.the.extendibil A.(1993).Brand.equity.and.the.extendibility.of. ity.of.  International Journal of Research in Marketing, Marketing , 10,.1,.pp.61–75 brand.names. International Reynolds,.T Reynold s,.TJ.&.Phillips,.CB.(2005).In.search.of.true.brand.equity.metrics:.all.market.share. J.&.Phillips,.CB.(2005).In.search.of.true.brand.equity.metrics:.all.market.share.  Journal of Advertising Research,. Research ,. 45,.2,.pp.171–186 ain’t.created.equally. Journal ain’t.created.equally.  Driving Customer Equity.New.York:.The. Equity.New.York:.The. Rust,.RT,.Zeithaml,.VA.&.Lemon,.KN.(2000). Driving Rust,.RT,.Zeithaml,.VA.&.Lemon,.KN.(2000). Free.Press Rust,.RT,.Zeithaml,.V Rust,.RT ,.Zeithaml,.VA.&.Lemon,.KN.(2004).Customer A.&.Lemon,.KN.(2004).Customer-centered.brand.managemen -centered.brand.management. t.  Harvard Business Review,. Review,.82,.9,.pp.110–118 Shankar,.V,.Azar,.P.&.Fuller,.M.(2008).BRAN*EQT:.a.multicategory.brand.equity.model.  Marketing Science,. Science,.27,.4,.pp.567–584 and.its.application.at.Allstate. Marketing  Journal of  Sharp,.B.(1995).Brand.equity.and.market-based.assets.of.professional.service.firms. Journal  Professional Services Marketing,. Marketing ,.13,.1,.pp.3–13 Simon,.CJ.&.Sullivan,.MV.(1993).The.measurement.of.determinant .(1993).The.measurement.of.determinants.of.brand.equity:.a. s.of.brand.equity:.a.  Marketing Science,. Science,.12,.1,.pp 28–52 financial.approach. Marketing

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 52 Issue 1

Srinivasan,.V.(1979).Network.models.for.estimat Srinivasan,.V .(1979).Network.models.for.estimating.brand-specific ing.brand-specific.effects.in.multi-attribute. .effects.in.multi-attribute.  Management Science,. Science,.25,.1,.pp.11–21 marketing.models. Management  Brand equity: a perspective on its meaning and Srivastava,.RK.&.Shocker,.A.(1991). Brand measurement,.W measurement ,.Working.P orking.Paper.91-124.Cambr aper.91-124.Cambridge,.MA.Marketing.Science.Insti idge,.MA.Marketing.Science.Institute tute Srivastava,.RK,.Shervani,.T Srivastava ,.RK,.Shervani,.TA.&.Fahey A.&.Fahey,.L.(1998).Market-based.assets.and.shar ,.L.(1998).Market-based.assets.and.shareholder.value:. eholder.value:.  Journal of Marketing,. Marketing,.62,.1,.pp.2–18 a.framework.for.analysis. Journal Swait,.J,.Erdem,.T,.Louvière,.J.&.Dubelaar Swait,.J,.Erdem,.T ,.Louvière,.J.&.Dubelaar,.C.(1993).The.equalization.price: ,.C.(1993).The.equalization.price:.a.measure.of. .a.measure.of.  International Journal of Research in Marketing,. Marketing ,. 10,.1,. consumer-perceived.brand.equity. International consumer-perceived.brand.equity. pp.23–45 Van.Riel,.ACR,.Lemmink,.J.&.Ouwersloo an.Riel,.ACR,.Lemmink,.J.&.Ouwersloot,.H.(2001).Consumer.evalua t,.H.(2001).Consumer.evaluations.of.service. tions.of.service.  Journal of Service Research,. Research,.3,.3,.pp.220–231 brand.extensions. Journal Vázquez,.R,.Del.Rio,.AB.&.Iglesias,.V.(2002).Consumer Vázquez,.R,.Del.Rio,.AB.&.Iglesias,.V .(2002).Consumer-based.brand.equity -based.brand.equity:.development. :.development.  Journal of Marketing Management,. Management,.18,.1/2,. and.validation.of.a.measurement.instrument. Journal pp.27–48 Washburn,.JH.&.Plank, ashburn,.JH.&.Plank,.RE.(2002).Measuring.brand.equity .RE.(2002).Measuring.brand.equity:.an.evaluation.of.a.consumer :.an.evaluation.of.a.consumer-   Journal Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice Practice,. based.brand.equity.scale. ,.10,.1,.pp.46–61    Marketing Marketing Research,.3,.4,. Research,. Winters,.LC.(1991).Bran inters,.LC.(1991).Brand.equity.measures:.some.recent.adva d.equity.measures:.some.recent.advances. nces. pp.70–73  Yoo,.B.&.Donthu,.N.(2001).Develop  Y oo,.B.&.Donthu,.N.(2001).Developing.and.validating ing.and.validating.a.multidimensional .a.multidimensional.consumer-ba .consumer-based. sed.    Journal Journal of Business Research, 52 brand.equity.scale. ,.1,.pp.1–14  Yoo,.B,.Donthu,.N.&.Lee,.S.(2000).An.examinatio  Y oo,.B,.Donthu,.N.&.Lee,.S.(2000).An.examination.of.selected.marketing.mix.elements.and. n.of.selected.marketing.mix.elements.and.  Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,. Science ,.28,.2,.pp.195–211 brand.equity. Journal  Yoon,.C,.Gutchess,.AH,.Feinberg,.F.&.Polk,.TA.(2006).A.functional.magnetic.resonance.  Journal of  imaging.study.of.neural.dissociations.between.brand imaging.study .of.neural.dissociations.between.brand.and.person.judgments,. .and.person.judgments,. Journal Consumer Research,. Research,.33,.1,.pp.31–40

About the authors

George Geor ge Ch Chri rist stod odou ouli lide des. s. is Le Lect ctur urer er in Ma Mark rket etin ing. g. at th the. e. Un Univ iver ersi sity ty of Bir irmi ming ngha ham. m. Bus usin ines ess. s. Sc Scho hool ol. . Hi His. s. re rese sear arcch. fo foccus uses es on br bran andi ding ng an and. d. e-m -mar ark ket etin ing, g, pa part rtic icul ular arly ly th the. e. wa wayy th the. e. in inte tern rnet et an and. d. ot othe her. r. in inte tera raccti tive ve tech te chno nolo logi gies es af affe fect ct br bran ands ds. . Ch Chri rist stod odou ouli lide des. s. is a. re regu gula lar. r. pr preese sent nter er at nati na tion onal al an and. d. in inte tern rnat atio iona nal. l. co conf nfer eren ence ces. s. an and. d. hi his. s. re rese sear arch ch ha has. s. ap appe pear ared ed in. hig highly hly ran ranked ked jou journa rnals. ls. inc includ luding ing the   Journal of Advertising Research,.   Journal of Marketing Management,.  Marketing Theory,. Service Industries  Journal.and. Journal  Journal of Product and Brand Management .He.is.the.principal. investigator.of.a.£100,000.grant.funded.by.Economic.and.Social.Research. Council.(ESRC).examining.brand.equity.measurement.in.Europe Leslie.de. Lesli e.de.Chern Chernatony atony is.Profess is.Professor.of. or.of.Brand.Marke Brand.Marketing.at.the. ting.at.the.Unive Università. rsità. della.Svizzera.italiana,.Lugano, della.Svizze ra.italiana,.Lugano, Switze Switzerland, rland, Honora Honorary.Profess ry.Professor.at. or.at. Aston. Busi Bu sine ness ss Sc Scho hool ol,. ,. UK an and. d. Ma Mana nagi ging ng Par artn tner er at Br Bran ands ds Bo Box. x. Ma Mark rket etin ing. g. &. Re Resea search rch Con Consul sultan tancy cy. . His. res resear earch. ch. is. glo global bally. ly. dis dissem semina inated ted thro through ugh books, boo ks, int intern ernati ationa onal. l. con confer ferenc ence. e. pre presen sentat tation ions,. s,. TV. and rad radio. io. bro broadc adcast asts. s. and.numerous.journal.articles,.some.of.which.won.best.paper.prizes.He. has.run.many.highly.acclaimed.brand.strategy.workshops.throughout.the.

Consumer-based brand equity conceptualisation and measurement

world.His.advice.about.brand.management.has.been.sought.by.numerous. orga or gani nisa sati tion ons s He ha has. s. ac acte ted. d. as an ex expe pert rt wi witn tnes ess. s. in co cour urt. t. ca case ses. s. ov over er branding.issues  Add  A ddre ress ss co corr rres espo pond nden ence ce to to:. :. Ge Geor orge ge Ch Chri rist stod odou ouli lide des, s, Le Lect ctur urer er in Marketing,.Birmingham.Business.School,.The.University.of.Birmingham,. University.House,.Edgbaston,.Birmingham.B15.2TT,.United.Kingdom Email:.GChristodoulides@bhamacuk

Copyright of International Journal of Market Research is the property of World Advertising Research Rese arch Center Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.