Customer Based Brand Equity

Customer base vane righteousnessIf all coca plant Colas assets were destroyed overnight , whoever owned the Coca Cola name would walk into a bank the side by side(p) morning and get a loan to rebuild everything.VP Corporate Communications, Coca ColaAbstract The Purpose of this paper is to highlight the major contributions in the mold of developing and measuring guest based mail legality (CBBE) models by looking into the contributions of different researchers in this field. From the outset this paper, then, becomes a equation of different CBBE models. Starting from Aaker (1991) to Keller (2003), it compargons four CBBE models. This paper considers Agarwal and Raos (1996) model to be the beat out suited one for Pakistani environment because it integrates the customers decision making outgrowth with customer based chump virtue.IntroductionThis paper highlights major contributions in the process of understanding different customer based strike off blondness models. The fo cus on customer based instigator candour is because of 3 reasons1. it allows the assessment of equity at the marker train2. researchers in grocery storeing heavily use this concept and3. marketing practitioners find this concept of blur equity easier to understand than other scrape equity concepts (Agarwal Rao, 1996).Literature redirect examinationA handed-down definition of a reproach was the name, associated with one or more items in the carrefour line, which is use to identify the source of lineament of the item(s) (Kotler, 2000) (p.396). The Ameri throne Marketing Association (AMA) definition of a stigmatize is a name, term, sign, symbolism, or design, or a combination of them, intended to identify the goods and operate of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors (p. 404). Keller (2003) particularizes strike off as technically speaking, whenever a marketer take a shits a new name, logo, or symbol for a new product, he or she has created a trademark (Keller, 2003) (p. 3). forrader the re throw inment in focus towards brands and the brand expression process, brands were just other step in the whole process of marketing to sell products. For a long time, the brand has been treated in an off-hand fashion as a part of the product (Urde, 1999) (p. 119). Kotler (2000) mentions stigmatization as a major issue in product dodging (p. 404). Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) mention that within the traditional branding model the goal was to build brand image a tactical element that drives short-term results (Aaker Joachimsthaler, 2000). Kapferer (1997) mentioned that the brand is a sign - in that locationfore external- whose act upon is to disclose the hidden qualities of the product which argon inaccessible to contact (Kapferer, 1997) (p. 28). The brand sufficed to identify a product and to distinguish it from the opposition. The challenge today is to create a strong and distinctive image (Kohli Thakor, 1997) (p. 208).Concerning the brand management process as related to the crop of a brand as an identifier, Aaker and Joachmisthaler (2000) talk slightly the traditional branding model where a brand management team was responsible for creating and coordinating the brands management program. In this situation, the brand manager was non high in the companys hierarchy his focus was the short-term financial results of virtuoso brands and single products in single markets. The basic objective was the coordination with the manufacturing and sales departments in order to solve any problem concerning sales and market share. With this strategy the responsibility of the brand was solely the concern of the marketing department (Davis Aaker, 2000). In general, most companies thought that focusing on the latest and greatest advert campaign meant focusing on the brand (Davis Dunn, 2002). The model itself was tactical and antiphonal rather than strategic and visionary (Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000). The brand was always referred to as a series of tactics and never like strategy (Davis and Dunn 2002).Kapferer (1997) mentions that before the mid-eighties there was a different approach towards brands. Companies esteemed to get a producer of chocolate or pasta after 1980, they wanted to buy KitKat or Buitoni. This distinction is very important in the first case firms wish to buy production capacity and in the second they want to buy a place in the nous of the consumer (p. 23). In other enunciates, the shift in focus towards brands began when it was understood that they were something more than mere identifiers. mark offs, according to Kapferer (1997) serve eight functions shown in Table 1 below the first both are mechanical and concern the essence of the brand to function as a recognized symbol in order to facilitate excerption and to gain time (p. 29) the next three are for reducing the comprehend risk and the final three concern the pleasure side o f a brand. He adds that brands perform an economic function in the mind of the consumer, the apprise of the brand comes from its dexterity to gain an exclusive, positive and prominent meaning in the minds of a large number of consumers (p. 25). Therefore branding and brand building should focus on developing brand value.Table 1The Functions of the instigant for the ConsumerFunctionConsumer BenefitIdentificationTo be clearly seen, to make comprehend of the offer, to quickly identify the sought-after products.PracticalityTo allow savings of time and zipper through and through identical repurchasing and loyalty.GuaranteeTo be sure of finding the resembling quality no matter where or when you buy the product or dish up.OptimizationTo be sure of buying the best product in its category, the best performer for a particular purpose.CharacterizationTo allow proof of your self-image or the image that you present to others.ContinuitySatisfaction brought about through old(prenominal)i ty and intimacy with the brand that you have been consuming for years.HedonisticSatisfaction conjugate to the attractiveness of the brand, to its logo, to its communicating.EthicalSatisfaction linked to the responsible behavior of the brand in its relationship towards society.Adapted from Kapferer (1997)Kapferers view of brand value is monetary, and includes in material assets. injurys fail to achieve their value-creating potential where managers pursue strategies that are not oriented to maximizing the shareholder value (Doyle, 2001) (p. 267). Four factors combine in the mind of the consumer to determine the perceived value of the brand brand awareness the aim of perceived quality compared to competitors the level of confidence, of signifi ceasece, of empathy, of liking and the richness and attractiveness of the images conjured up by the brand. In fancy 1 the relationships betwixt the different concepts of brand analysis, according to Kapferer (1997), are summarized.Figure 1Fr om instigator Assets to rat fair-mindedness brandmark Awareness+ Image+ Perceived Quality+ Evocations+ Familiarity, liking Brand Assets Brand added value perceived by customers be of branding Costs of invested capitalBrand financial value(BRAND EQUITY)Kapferer (1997), P 37Brand EquityMany researchers, while discussing brand building models, have referred to brand equity. Urde (1999) in his model of brand orientation, Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) in their model of brand leadership, Davis (2002) in his model of brand asset management, de Chernatony in his model of corporate branding (De Chernatony, 1999), and Kapferer (1997) have discussed brand equity in their respective models of brand building. further what exactly is brand equity?Brand equity, as first delineate by Farquhar , is the added value with which a given brand endows a product (Farquhar, 1989) (p.24). Apart from Farquhars first definition of brand equity, other definitions have appeared. accord to Lassar, Mittal , and Sharma (1995), brand equity has been examined from a financial military position (Farquhar, Han, Ijiri, 1991), (Simon Sullivan, 1993), Kapferer 1997, Doyle 2001), and a customer-based perspective ((Keller 1993 (Shocker, Srivastava, Ruekert, 1994) and (Chen, 2001)) (Lassar, Mittal, Sharma, 1995). In other words, financial meaning from the perspective of the value of the brand to the firm, and customer-based meaning the value of the brand for the customer which comes from a marketing decision-making scope (Kim, Kim, An, 2003).Brand equity has also been defined as the enhancement in the perceived utility and desirability a brand name confers on a product (Lassar, Mittal and Sharma 1995, p.13). High brand equity is considered to be a competitive advantage since it implies that firms ass charge a premium there is an increase in customer demand extending a brand becomes easier communication campaigns are more effective there is repair trade supplement margins can be greate r and the company becomes less vulnerable to competition (Bendixen, Bukasa, Abratt, 2004). In other words, high brand equity generates a derivative instrument effect, higher brand knowledge, and a larger consumer response (Keller 2003), which normally leads to better brand deed, both from a financial and a customer perspective.fiscal value-based techniques extract the brand equity value from the value of the firms other assets (Kim, Kim, and An 2003). Simon and Sullivan (1993) define brand equity as the incremental specie flows which accrue to brand products over and above the cash flows which would result from the sale of unbranded products (p. 29). These authors fancy a firms brand equity by deriving financial market estimates from brand-related profits. Taking the financial market value of a firm as a base, they extract the firms brand equity from the value of the firms other glaring and intangible assets, which results in an estimate based on the firms future cash flows. A long the same line of thought, Doyle (2001) argues that brand equity is reflected by the ability of brands to create value by accelerating growth and enhancing prices. In other words, brands function as an important driver of cash flow.Customer Based Brand Equity (CBBE)Aaker (1991) provided conceptual scheme which link brand equity with miscellaneous customer response variables. He suggested using repurchase rates, switching costs, level of satisfaction, preference for brand, and perceived quality on various product and service dimensions as potential measures of CBBE (Aaker, 1991). Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) define brand equity as brand assets linked to a brands name and symbol that add to, or subtract from, a product or service. According to them, these assets, shown in Figure 2, can be grouped into four dimensions brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations, and brand loyalty.Figure 2Aakers Model of Customer Based Brand EquityBrand EquityBrand AwarenessPerceived QualityBrand AssociationsBrand LoyaltyThese dimensions have been commonly used and accepted by many researchers (Keller 1993 (Motameni Shahrokhi, 1998) (Yoo Donthu, 2001) Bendixen, Bukasa, and Abratt 2004 Kim, Kim, and An 2003). Brand awareness affects perceptions and taste people like the known and are prepared to ascribe all sorts of good attitudes to items that are familiar to them (Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000, p. 17). Perceived quality influences brand associations and affects brand profitability. Brand associations are anything that connects the consumer to the brand, including exploiter imagery, product attributes, organizational associations, brand personality, and symbols (p. 17). Brand loyalty is at the content of brands value. The concept is to military strengthen the size and intensity of each loyalty share (p. 17). The simplest way in which the brand equity can be considered is that it can be understood as the incremental value a brand name grants a product (Sr ivastava Shocker, 1991).According to Lassar, Mittal and Sharma (1995), brand equity can be configured against five dimensions 1) performance, 2) value, 3) social image, 4) trustworthiness, and 5) attachment. They agree to the views of Srivastava and Shocker (1991) who believe that customers prize brand equity on the basis of two components 1) brand strength and 2) brand value. Since they believe that the source of brand equity is customer perceptions, as described by Keller (1993), it is important for the managers to be able to measure and booster cable it at the customer level (Keller, 1993). Figure 3 below explains the model.Figure 3Lassars Model of Customer Based Brand EquityBrand Equity executionSocial ImageValueTrustworthiness allianceKeller (2003) introduced the Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) model, which approaches brand equity form the perspective of the consumer -whether an individual or an organization (Keller 2003, p. 59). The model is based on the premise that th e source of a brand lies in what customers have learned, felt, seen and heard about the brand as a result of their experiences over time (p. 59). He defines CBBE as the differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer response to the marketing of that brand (p. 60), which emerges from two sources brand awareness and brand image.According to Keller (2003), brand awareness consists of brand recognition -the consumers ability to confirm prior picture to the brand when given a brand as a instigate (p. 67)- and brand recall -the consumers ability to retrieve the brand form computer storage when given the product category, the needs fulfilled by the category, or a purchase or usage situation as cue (p. 67). On the other hand, brand image is created by marketing programs that link strong, favorable, and curious associations to the brand in the memory (p. 70). These associations are not only controlled by the marketing program, but also through direct experience, brand informati on, word of mouth, assumptions of the brand itself -name, logo-, or with the brands denomination with a certain company, country, distribution channel, person, place or event.The way to build a strong brand, according to the CBBE model, is by following four sequential steps, each one representing a native question that customers ask about brands1. Ensuring the identification of the brand with a specialized product category or need in the customers mind -who are you?2. Establishing the meaning of the brand in the customers mind by strategically linking tangible and intangible brand associations with certain properties -what are you?3. Eliciting customer responses to the brand identification and meaning -what about you?4. Converting the response into an active, intense and loyal relationship between the customers and the brand -what about you and me?The CBBE model is built by sequentially establishing sestet brand building blocks with customers (Keller 2003 p. 75), that can be ass embled as a brand pyramid, shown in Figure 4. Brand salience relates to the awareness of the brand. Brand performance relates to the satisfaction of customers functional needs. Brand imagery relates to the satisfaction of customers psychological needs. Brand judgments focus on customers opinions based on performance and imagery. Brand feelings are the customers emotional responses and reactions to the brand. Brand resonance is the relationship and level of identification of the customer with a brand.Figure 4Kellers Model for CBBEResonanceFeelingsJudgmentsImageryPerformanceSalienceIdentityWho are you?MeaningWhat are you?ResponseWhat about you?RelationshipsWhat about you and me?Another model of customer based brand equity was presented by Agarwal and Rao (1996), who linked various components of CBBE to examine their convergent validity. To measure CBBE, they used a framework based on the perception-preference-choice paradigm and the hierarchy of personal effects model of McGuire (McGu ire, 1972). This framework measures the stages through which a consumer passes before making a purchase decision (Agarwal Rao, 1996). The hierarchy model for CBBE is shown in figure 5 below.Figure 5Agarwal and Raos Model for CBBEAwarenessActual prime(a)Perceptions and AttitudesPreferencesChoice IntentionsUnaided RecallFamiliarityValue of MoneyQuality of Brand designExplicit PreferenceImplicit PreferenceLikelihood of Buying ago PurchasesCurrent PurchasesCustomer Based Brand EquityThe model suggests divert indirect brand equity measures as conceptualized by Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993). These measures can be considered as the sources that can lead toward creation of brand equity.Conclusion afterwards discussing above four models to measure customer based brand equity (Aaker 1991 Lassar et al 1995 Agarwal and Rao, 1996 Keller, 2003) it is concluded that the model presented by Agarwal and Rao (1996) seems to be more discriminate to fit Pakistani environment. In addition to measur ing CBBE, It seems to incorporate late(a) theoretical advances and managerial in understanding and influencing consumers decision making process. They have also provided a validated instrument (with Cronbachs Alpha above 0.85) to financial backing their model of customer based brand equity.