Master Thesis Marketing Management
Interact with your Customers to create
Customer-based Brand Equity
2
Master Thesis Marketing Management
Interact with your Customers to create
Customer-based Brand Equity
Author Roelf Cats Stoeldraaierstraat 10 9712 BW Groningen Netherlands Phone: +31(0)6 53679144 Email: rhcast@live.nl Student number: S2253631 University of Groningen Faculty of Economics & Business Master Marketing Management Date: 25-06-2013
Supervisor: Prof. dr. P.C. Verhoef
3
Management summary
Customer engagement behaviour is a construct that becomes more important for companies because the power of customers is growing. In this study the focus is on the positive consequences of customer engagement behaviours on customer-based brand equity. The proposition is made that positive customer engagement behaviours can enhance value for organizations. There are a lot of customer engagement behaviours that can enhance value for the firm. Within this study the main manifestations word-of-mouth and co-creation will be considered as customer engagement behaviours that influence customer-based brand equity. Because of the rise of internet and social media usage, customer engagement behaviours was researched online.
In this study, customer engagement behaviours are conceptualized as consisting out of word-of-mouth and co-creation. The main goal is to investigate the effects of these customer engagement behaviours on customer-based brand equity. Furthermore, two moderating effects are investigated on this main effect: role of product type and brand strength. The research questions are addressed in an experimental design were stimuli were manipulated. To collect the data an online questionnaire is used. The problem statement of this research is:
What is the effect of customer engagement behaviours on customer-based brand equity, and what role might product type and brand strength hereby play?
Based on previous studies a positive effect was expected between the relationship of word-of-mouth and co-creation on customer based brand equity. In addition, it was expected that this positive relationship was positively influenced by hedonic products and strong brands.
No positive main effects were found for the customer engagement behaviour, word-of-mouth and co-creation on customer-based brand equity. The first key outcome of this study is a relationship found for strong brands on customer-based brand equity. Third, the research shows that hedonic products has a relationship with customer-based brand equity. To conclude, no interaction effects are discovered for both product type and brand strength.
4
Preface
With this master thesis here in front of you, my six years as a student have gone to an end. I have really enjoyed my years as a student, and all the fun and exciting events I was able to experience during this period. I have learnt a lot during my last year studying the Master of Science Marketing Management at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. My time as a student has flown and I am about to say goodbye to the student life. The next step, in my life is waiting for me: finding a challenging job in Marketing.
First, I would like to thank my supervisor prof. dr. Peter Verhoef for his inspiration and valuable feedback during the entire process of writing my master thesis.
Second, I would like to thank my family, friends and fellow students for their support during my wonderful and exciting student time.
And finally, I would like to thank my girlfriend Lisa for her patience and understanding during my research period.
Roelf Cats
5
Contents
Management summary ... 3
Preface ... 4
1.
Introduction ... 7
1.1 Background ... 8
1.2 Theoretical and Managerial Relevance ... 8
1.3 Research questions ... 9
1.4 Structure of thesis ... 9
2. Literature review ... 10
2.1 Conceptual model... 10
2.2 Theoretical foundation of the Customer Engagement Concept ... 10
2.2.1 Word-of-Mouth ... 12
2.2.2 Co-creation ... 13
2.3 Customer engagement behaviour outcomes on customer-based brand equity ... 14
2.4 Hypothesis development ... 14
2.4.1 Customer engagement behaviour effects on customer-based brand equity ... 14
2.4.2 Word-of-mouth effects on customer-based brand equity ... 15
2.4.3 Co-creation effects on customer-based brand equity ... 16
2.4.4 Product type ... 16
2.4.5 Brand strength ... 17
3. Methods ... 19
3.1 Experimental design ... 19
3.2 Stimuli... 20
3.3 Pre-test ... 20
3.4 Data collection ... 21
3.5 Participants ... 22
3.6 Internal consistency of the constructs ... 22
3.7 Analysis ... 23
4. Results... 25
4.1 Manipulation checks... 25
4.1.1 Product type ... 25
4.1.2 Brand strength ... 26
4.1.3 Overall differences on brand equity ... 27
6
4.3 Direct effects ... 28
4.4 Univariate analysis ... 29
4.5 Testing the moderation of product type and brand strength ... 29
5.
Discussion ... 31
5.1 Conclusions ... 31
5.2Limitations and Future Research ... 33
5.3 Research Implications ... 34
6. References ... 36
Appendix A ... 41
Appendix B ... 46
7
1. Introduction
In 2010 the chips brand Lay's suffered with loss of market share in a fast growing market. Lay’s had to compete with house brands that offer the same flavours for a lower price. Lay’s wanted to stabilize this loss of market share with a campaign that involves customers with the brand and creates brand preferences. Lay's decided to develop a co-creation campaign called: “Create the Flavour”. Lay’s hereby challenges Dutch consumers to develop their own flavours. Consumers could send their ideas for new flavours in and had the chance to win 25.000 euro and earn one per cent of the sales. The campaign exceeded all commercial objectives. There were 6.7 million Limited Edition packages of the final flavour sold, on top of the regular sales. The campaign caused a shift from a decline in market share into growth. The commercial success of the ‘Create the Flavour’ campaign continued in 2011. Where the new Lay's Limited Edition, was a direct hit. The flavour “Patatje Joppie” sold as well as the top three flavour; Lay's Cheese Onion (EFFIE, 2009).
This example displays the shift that took place within the current marketing landscape. The role of the customer has changed and is becoming more important within marketing. Where in the past the emphasis was on efficient production, the product, selling and marketing this idea shifted towards a focus on the customer. According to many firms nowadays, the customer is the key to increase business performance. Organizations adopting customer management believe that the customer concept creates a long-term vision and creates a sustainable competitive advantage by retaining, sustaining and nurturing their customer base. The voice of the customer is growing and firms do no longer control marketing, but rather customers define the company (Leeflang, 2011).
Customer engagement can be seen as the new paradigm for many organizations. According to van Doorn, Lemon, Mittal, Nass, Pick and Verhoef (2010) Customer engagement can be defined as “a behavioural manifestation, beyond purchase, from a customer toward a brand/firm. The behavioural manifestation may affect the brand/firm and its constituents in ways other than purchase”. This Customer engagement concept leads to customer engagement behaviours, including word-of-mouth activity, recommendations, helping other customers, blogging, writing reviews, and even engaging in legal action.
8
between customers and customers-firms is growing and provides opportunities for companies in creating value.
Customer engagement behaviour is a construct with two faces. First, customer engagement behaviour manifestations can be positive (i.e., posting a positive message). And second, customer engagement behaviour manifestations can be negative (i.e., posting a complaint). Negative customer engagement behaviour manifestations can harm the firm. While positive customer engagement behaviour manifestation can enhance value for the firm and customer. Within this study the focus is on the positive consequences of customer engagement behaviours.
1.1 Background
Positive customer engagement behaviours can enhance value for organizations. In the Lay’s example the company started up a co-creation campaign. This created a lot of involvement and positive word-of-mouth among consumers. Which caused a high engagement of customers and this resulted in an increased value for the firm. There are a lot of customer engagement behaviours that can enhance value for the firm. Within this study the main manifestations word-of-mouth and co-creation described by Bijmolt, Leeflang, Block, Eisenbeiss, Hardie, Lemmens and Staffert (2010), will be considered as customer engagement behaviours. Because of the rise of internet and social media usage, customer engagement behaviours will be viewed with the Internet as the medium for his study.
1.2 Theoretical and Managerial Relevance
The marketing environment is changing rapidly due to technologic developments like the Internet, smartphones and tablets and social media. Customers become more connected and information spread occurs at a higher speed. These developments are still in process. The changed and new environment has marketers to reconsider how they define and understand customer-to-customer interactions and their importance for the firm (Libai, Bolton, Bugel, De Ruyter, Gotz, Risselada & Stephen, 2010). In order to keep up to date with these fast moving market landscape, research for customer engagement behaviours within the online world is necessary.
9
Despite tremendous interest in customer-based brand equity, little conceptual development or empirical research has addressed which marketing activities build brand equity (Barwise & Perry, 1993). When making a decision about marketing actions, managers need to consider their potential impact on customer-based brand equity. This research can be used as a practical guideline for managers to get deeper understanding about consequences of customer engagement behaviours and how to manage these relationships within the customer engagement construct.
1.3 Research questions
Companies are moving towards an approach where the customer plays a central role. Therefore, companies are increasingly seeking for customer participation and engagement with their brands. Customer engagement behaviours are important in this approach to create value for both the firm and customer. It is important for companies to measure brand performance due to customer engagement behaviour manifestations. This results in the general research question:
‘What is the effect of customer engagement behaviours on customer-based brand equity, and what
role might product type and brand strength hereby play?’
This will be studied based up on the following research questions:
-What is the definition customer engagement concept?
-What are the most important behavioural customer engagement behaviours?
-What is the effect of exposure to positive word-of-mouth on customer-based brand equity? -What is the effect of exposure co-creation on customer-based brand equity?
-Do consumers experience a difference between the two groups for customer-based brand equity? -What is the moderating role of brand strength (high versus low) on customer engagement behaviour on customer-based brand equity?
-What is the moderating role of product type (hedonic versus utilitarian) on customer engagement behaviour on customer-based brand equity?
1.4 Structure of thesis
10
2. Literature review
In this section an overview of prior studies on the customer engagement behaviour concept is provided. A conceptual model is formulated that provides an overview of this study. This literature framework starts with an elaboration on the customer engagement concept and the customer-based brand equity concept. Relationships between the two concepts will be elaborated. Followed by moderating effects that might influence the main effect. Finally, hypotheses will be formulated based upon the literature framework.
2.1 Conceptual model
This research examines how the customer engagement behaviours: word-of-mouth and co-creation affect customer-based brand equity. And how product types and brand strength moderate this relationship. Within the conceptual model these relations are explained (Figure 1).
Figure 1. A model of customer-based brand equity outcomes of customer engagement behaviour.
2.2 Theoretical foundation of the Customer Engagement Concept
Within the marketing literature multiple definitions for customer engagement have been proposed (Table 1). Bowden (2009a) and Vivek, Beatty and Morgan (2012) describe Customer Engagement, Hollebeek (2011a; b) define customer brand engagement, and Mollen and Wilson (2010) use the
11
definition online consumer engagement. Each of these described concepts from the literature represents a unique theoretical scope from which customer engagement is viewed.
Table 1. Overview of customer engagement definitions (Based on the Brodie et al. 2011 framework)
Author(s) Construct Definition
Van Doorn et al. (2010)
Customer engagement behaviour
Customers’ behavioural manifestation toward a brand or firm, beyond purchase, resulting from motivational drivers, including word-of-mouth activity, recommendations, helping other customers, blogging & writing reviews
Hollebeek (2011b)
Customer brand engagement
The level of a customer’s cognitive, emotional and behavioural investment in specific brand interactions. Identified CBE dimensions include: Immersion (cognitive), passion (emotional), and activation (behavioural). Mollen and Wilson (2010) Online consumer engagement
The customer’s cognitive & affective commitment to an active relationship with the brand as personified by the website or other computer-mediated entities designed to communicate brand value
Vivek et al. (2012)
Customer engagement
The intensity of an individual’s participation & connection with the organisation’s offerings & activities initiated by either the customer or the organisation
Bowden (2009a) Customer engagement
A psychological process that models the underlying mechanisms by which customer loyalty forms for new customers of a service brand, as well as the mechanisms by which loyalty may be maintained for repeat purchase customers of a service brand
Patterson and De Ruyter (2006)
Customer engagement
The level of a customer’s physical, cognitive & emotional ‘presence’ in their relationship with a service organisation
Higgins and Scholer (2009)
Engagement A state of being involved, occupied, fully absorbed or engrossed in something (i.e., sustained attention), generating the consequences of a particular attraction or repulsion force. The more engaged individuals
are to approach or repel a target, the more value is added to or subtracted from it
Brodie, Hollebeek, Juric and Ilic (2011) describe customer engagement as a broader construct. “Customer engagement (CE) is a psychological state that occurs by virtue of interactive, co-creative
customer experiences with a focal agent/object (e.g., a brand) in focal service relationships. It occurs under a specific set of context- dependent conditions generating differing CE levels; and exists as a dynamic, iterative process within service relationships that co-create value. CE plays a central role in a nomological network governing service relationships in which other relational concepts (e.g., involvement, loyalty) are antecedents and/or consequences in iterative CE processes. It is a multidimensional concept subject to a context- and/or stakeholder-specific expression of relevant cognitive, emotional and/or behavioural dimensions.” This definition of customer engagement is a
more general description than the definitions described in (Table 1) and is applicable within multiple contexts, rather than the more specific definitions.
12
Customer engagement behaviours are complaining behaviour, word-of-mouth communications, blogging, co-creation, helping of other customers, You-Tube movies and actively participating in brand communities.
According to Bijmolt et al. (2010) customer engagement is a holistic concept consisting out of the three main behavioural manifestations; word-of-mouth, co-creation and complaining behaviour. For this study the holistic view of customer engagement behaviours is used. Complaining behaviour will not be a part of the research model because the focus of this study is on the positive contribution of customer engagement behaviours on the brand. The two customer engagement behaviours are supposed to enhance value for the firm, therefore the interest of this study is to investigate the influence of these assumed value creating customer engagement behaviours for the brand. In the next part the two customer engagement behaviours, word-of-mouth and co-creation will be elaborated.
2.2.1 Word-of-Mouth
Consumers search for information to make a purchase decision. Hereby, word-of-mouth communications can be used as a source of information. Within the marketing context word-of-mouth communication can be defined as “informal communications directed at other consumers
about the ownership, use or characteristics of various goods, services or their providers” (Westbrook,
13
technologies like blogs, wikis, podcasts and social software. Online tools and spaces like Wikipedia, YouTube, MySpace enable people to create collective knowledge about any subject.
2.2.2 Co-creation
Vargo and Lusch (2004) describe co-creation as the consumer’s participation in the production of value at all points in the value chain. Co-creation emphasizes on the generation and on-going realization of interactive firm-customer collaborations in order to create value (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 1999). Co-creation can be considered as a source of competence for a firm. The co-creation concept views markets as forums, wherein firms and active customers are considered to enhance each other’s resources and capabilities in order to create value through new forms of interaction, service and learning mechanisms. In doing so, it differs from the traditional active firm versus passive consumer concept as described in the introduction.Consumers are no longer satisfied with only experiences created by companies, the customer wants to shape the experiences by themselves. A good example of innovative co-creation is the example given in the introduction where the chips brand Lay’s introduced the co-creation campaign: “Create the flavour”. The firm approached and activated customers to collaborate with the firm in order to create a new flavour for the brand.
According to Payne, Storbacka, Frow and Know (2008; 2009), the key to value co-creation is the engagement of both parties in dialogue and interaction during product or service design, production, delivery and consumption. Customers can engage in dialog with suppliers during each stage of the product design and product delivery. This dialog should be seen as an interactive process of learning together (Ballantyne, 2004). Co-creation can assist the firm to identify customers’ needs and wants and helps firms to look from the consumers point of view for individualized joint problem definition and problem solving. In this context, researchers often use the term co-creation to describe the customer-supplier dialogue and interaction (Payne et al., 2009). Co-creation is desired to enhance the value of the customer experiences. Nevertheless, the customer decides whether or not to invite the supplier to co-create value.
14
2.3 Customer engagement behaviour outcomes on customer-based brand equity
The customer engagement behaviours word-of-mouth and co-creation are the first part of this study. Second, it is important to research if these two customer engagement behaviours outcomes, word-of-mouth and co-creation, enhance value for the brand. Given the relevance of the customer engagement concept, an investigation of the customer engagement behaviour performance link should be investigated. While the customer engagement concept is strongly customer focused and the focus in this study is on the brand level, customer-based brand equity will be used in the research model as a performance measure. Customer-based brand equity is generally defined as the marketing effects uniquely attributable to the brand (Keller, 1993). For instance when the results of marketing for a smartphone occur because of its brand name, and these results would not occur when the product did not had that specific brand name. So the added value by marketing drives customer-based brand equity. The customer-based brand equity concept shows three important aspects. First the differential aspect, secondly brand knowledge and last consumer responses towards marketing. The differential effect is the outcome of comparing consumer responses on marketing between a brand and a fictive brand named or unnamed brand. Brand knowledge can be divided into brand awareness and brand image. The response to marketing can be viewed as the customers’ perceptions, preferences and behaviour arising from marketing mix activities (Bijmolt et al., 2010). This study aims to test a model on the two customer engagement behaviours, word-of-mouth and co-creation on customer-based brand equity.
2.4 Hypothesis development
For this study, the main purpose is to investigate the effect of customer engagement behaviours on customer-based brand equity (Figure 1). Second, we investigate word-of-mouth and co-creation, the main customer engagement behaviours, separately on customer-based brand equity. Finally, product type and brand strength will be proposed as potential moderators that might affect the relationship between customer engagement behaviours and customer-based brand equity. Based on the literature, relationships among customer engagement behaviour and customer-based brand equity are hypothesized.
2.4.1 Customer engagement behaviour effects on customer-based brand equity
15
advertising share, order of entry and product portfolio as sources of brand equity. Other marketing activities such as the use of public relations (Aaker, 1991); warranties, company image, country of origin, and promotional events (Boulding & Kirmani, 1993); slogans or jingles, symbols, and packages (Keller, 1993); and brand-naming strategy (Keller, Heckler & Houston, 1998) have also been proposed. Every marketing action has the potential to influence customer-based brand equity. Marketing efforts are positively related to brand equity when it leads to a more favourable behavioural response. Based on literature it can be assumed that customer engagement behaviours can positively influence favourable customer responses and influence customer-based brand equity. As described before in the literature review, because of their positive nature, the behavioural manifestations word-of-mouth and co-creation are considered as the main customer engagement behaviour manifestations. These two main manifestations and their effect on customer-based brand equity will be elaborated intensively in the following section.
2.4.2 Word-of-mouth effects on customer-based brand equity
Word-of-mouth can be seen as informal communications directed at other consumers about the ownership, usage, or characteristics of particular goods and services and/or their sellers, or the act of exchanging marketing information among consumers, and plays an essential role in changing consumer attitudes and behaviour towards products and services (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955). Positive word-of-mouth communication has been recognized as valuable for promoting a firm’s products and services. This will create favourable response from the customers towards the brand. Word-of-mouth can contribute to customer acquisition, customer retention and increased business value (Breazeale, 2009) and influence brand image (Jansen, Zhang, Sobel & Chowdury, 2009). Since the fifties, researchers have shown that personal conversations and informal information exchange between acquaintances, affects the choices and purchase decisions of consumers (De Bruyn & Lilien, 2008). Much of the influence for the effect of word-of-mouth comes from online data. Word-of-mouth communications affects television ratings (Godes & Mayzlin, 2004), movies (Liu, 2006), books (Chevalier & Mayzlin, 2006), and customer acquisition in online networking sites (Trusov, Bucklin & Pauwels, 2009). Word-of-mouth has proven to increase growth, profitability and drives performance and influence (Arndt, 1967). Positive customer-customer interactions are supposed to be valuable for promoting a firm’s products and services, create positive and favourable responses, drive value for the brand and this will positively influence customer-based brand equity. Therefore, the following hypothesis is suggested:
16
2.4.3 Co-creation effects on customer-based brand equity
Co-creation is the proposition that the customer becomes a co-creator of value. Co-creation is about joint creation of value by the company and the customers. This emphasizes the development of customer–supplier relationships through interaction and dialog (Payne et al., 2008). The traditional view of customer playing a passive role, is replaced for given customers a platform to interact and play a more active role (Sawhney, Verona & Prandelli, 2005). This will lead to more involvement and more positive associations with the company and their products. Positive customer-firm interaction will result in higher brand awareness and higher brand image and will positively influence brand awareness. Value created by co-creation rises in the form of personal, unique experiences for the customer and on-going revenue, learning and enhanced market performance drivers for the firm. creation drives customer loyalty, improves relationships and generates positive word-of-mouth. Co-creation allows the firm to derive greater value from its product-service investments in the form of new knowledge, higher revenues/profitability and superior brand value. Literature shows that collaborations between customers and firms create value through co-creation and show it can create an sustaining competitive advantage (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2005; Thomke & Von Hippel, 2002). Customer-firm interactions resulting from co-creation are supposed to drive value for the customer, create deeper customer-firm relationship, create word-of-mouth communications among customers, an generate positive associations and will positively influence brand equity. That is why, the following hypothesis is suggested:
H2: Exposure to co-creation is related positively to customer-based brand equity.
2.4.4 Product type
17
products compared to utilitarian products, are likely to result in higher customer-based brand equity. Therefore, the following hypothesis is suggested:
H3: Hedonic products have a positive effect on customer-based brand equity.
Customers perceive both product types different. Hedonic products evoke stronger emotions and aroused feelings, while utilitarian product have a more functional nature and are mainly bought based on rational considerations. Keller (2002) states that the hedonic nature of products affects how consumers react to certain marketing stimuli. Mehrabian and Wixen (1986) found a strong connection between consumers’ emotional responses to a typical hedonic product, video games, and evaluations of the games. Based on these studies it becomes clear that hedonic products create stronger emotional responses, more immediate satisfaction, aroused feelings, entertaining experience and provide gratification. It is expected that hedonic products will be more important in brand evaluations in response to presented customer engagement behaviour word-of-mouth and co-creation. Based on these differences between the product types, hedonic products are assumed to have a moderated effect of the two customer engagement behaviours, word-of-mouth and co-creation on customer-based brand equity.Hence, the following hypothesis is suggested:
H4: The effect of (a) positive word-of-mouth and (b) co-creation on Customer-Based brand equity is stronger for hedonic products than for utilitarian products.
2.4.5 Brand strength
Firms consider their brands as important sources to create competitive advantage. Brands provide multiple benefits to the firm, including higher sales, involvement and larger margins of profit, by creating a connection between the product and clientele, repeat purchase, greater intermediary cooperation and support for potential market leadership and brand extension opportunities (Anupama & Roy, 2012). A strong brand enhances the added value to the product or service perceived by customers. Hague & Jackson (1994) argue that strong brands possess the ability to boost the confidence of the consumers’ to purchase the product or service regardless of the competition, as well instil a “feel good factor”. This feel good factor increases the consumer's brand perception that consciously or unconsciously creates an image in the minds of the customer. The stronger associations held by customers and higher involvement are likely to cause higher customer-based brand equity. Hence, the following hypothesis is suggested:
18
According to the definition by Keller (1993) “a brand is said to have positive (negative) customer-based brand equity if consumers react more (less) favourably to the product, price, promotion, or distribution of the brand than they do to the same marketing mix element when it is attributed to a factiously named or unnamed version of the product or service.” Brands, however, are believed to be linked to higher order judgments of performance, quality, reliability, and the like, in addition to affective judgments (Aaker, 1991). The favourability, strength and uniqueness of the brand associations play an important role within the moderating effects. Customers of strong brands perceive their brand as favourable, strong and unique. Strong brands are supposed to create more positive judgements towards these three associations and will have a more favourable response towards customer engagement behaviours. Strong brands can enhance value for the customer and for the firm. Strong brands provide multiple benefits for the consumers strong brands can increase the willingness to purchase, create a feel good factor and create positive associations. This effect is expected to be greater for strong rather than weaker brands. Strong brands are associated with highly accessible and positively evaluated product-related information (Aaker, 1996). Focussing on the positive associations, the study asserts that strong brands are supposed to be evaluated higher than weaker brands, since strong brands are associated with positive evaluations. It is assumed that brand strength will moderate the effect of customer engagement behaviours on customer based brand equity. Consumers of strong brands are therefore likely to be more receptive towards the positive customer engagement behaviours, word-of-mouth and co-creation. That is why, the following hypothesis is suggested:
19
3. Methods
In this chapter the methodology of this research is described. The chapter starts with the specification of the experiment and procedures. Followed by a description of the data and the used variables. Finally the chapter ends with a brief discussion of the statistical analysis used. The next chapter deals with the validation of the model and the results.
3.1 Experimental design
The study investigates the effects of positive word-of-mouth and co-creation on customer-based brand equity, while accounting for the moderating effects of product type and brand strength, by means of sending a questionnaire to Dutch consumers. In order to measure certain effects the independent variables word-of-mouth, co-creation will be manipulated, as well as the two moderators product type and brand strength (Table 2). So within this research a 3 x 2 x 2 experimental design will be used. The 3 conditions (only brand exposure, exposure to positive word-of-mouth versus exposure to co-creation content) x 2 (product type: hedonic versus utilitarian), x 2 (brand strength: high versus low) result in 12 versions of the questionnaire (table 2).
Table 2. Experimental design
Version 3 Treatments 2 Product Types 2 Brand strength Stimuli (brand)
1 Only brand exposure Hedonic Strong Heineken
2 Only brand exposure Utilitarian Strong spa
3 Only brand exposure Hedonic Weak Brand
4 Only brand exposure Utilitarian Weak Vittel
5 Brand exposure + positive WOM Hedonic Strong Heineken
6 Brand exposure + positive WOM Utilitarian Strong spa
7 Brand exposure + positive WOM Hedonic Weak Brand
8 Brand exposure + positive WOM Utilitarian Weak Vittel
9 Brand exposure + co-creation Hedonic Strong Heineken
10 Brand exposure + co-creation Utilitarian Strong spa
11 Brand exposure + co-creation Hedonic Weak Brand
12 Brand exposure + co-creation Utilitarian Weak Vittel
20
of Yoo and Donthu (2001) is used. This measurement scale is drawn from Aaker (1996) and Keller’s (2007) conceptualizations of brand equity. The brand equity scale is proven to be reliable, valid, parsimonious, and generalizable across several cultures and product categories (Yoo & Donthu, 2001).
3.2 Stimuli
The experimental design of this research includes several treatments (Table 1). Within the research different stimuli are developed in order to manipulate the different versions of the questionnaires. First the three treatments; mere brand exposure, word-of-mouth and co-creation are manipulated. There are two moderators formulated in the conceptual model. First, the moderatorproduct type is manipulated using the utilitarian product mineral water (Ang & Lim, 2006) and as hedonic product beer (Sloot, Verhoef, & Franses, 2005). Second, for the moderator brand strength, two strong brands (Heineken beer and Spa mineral water) are selected based on their attendance and high ranking on the EFMI brand top 100. The two selected weak brands (Brand beer and Vittel mineral water) are selected based on their absence on this list. To conclude, four existing brands of beer and water are used as brand stimuli (Table 1). The selected brands are; Heineken (strong brand and hedonic product), Brand a (weak brand and hedonic product), Spa (strong brand and utilitarian product) and Vittel (weak brand and utilitarian product) (Appendix B). To test whether the stimuli will be perceived as hedonic or utilitarian and strong or weak brands a pre-test will be conducted.
3.3 Pre-test
21
=1.889) and as a weak brand (M = 4.5, SD = 1.08). When comparing Heineken beer and Brand beer it can be conclude that Brand beer scores lower on strong brand and higher on weak brand. Spa mineral water is perceived as a strong brand (M = 6.1, SD = 1.1) and as a weak brand (M = 2.3, SD = 1.1). Vittel mineral water is perceived as a strong brand (M = 2.3, SD = 1.179) and as a weak brand (M = 4.3, SD = 1.08). When comparing Spa mineral water and Vittel mineral water it can be conclude that Vittel mineral water scores lower on strong brand and higher on weak brand. For product Type beer is perceived as less functional (M = 2.8, SD = 1.03) and a more enjoyable product (M = 6.4, SD = .699). Water is perceived as a functional product (M= 6.9, SD = .316) and not as an enjoyable product (M =4, SD = 1.33). The results of the pre-test confirm the expectations for the manipulation and stimuli material (Appendix A; B).
3.4 Data collection
The online questionnaire is distributed via social media (Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn). The twelve versions of the questionnaire were assigned randomly among the respondents. The experiment is held online, this enables the respondents to get easy access to participate in the experiment and take the experiment at home. The respondents were invited by mail and social media to participate in the study. For recruitment of the respondents the snowballing technique is used. This technique uses the approached contacts as potential recruiters among his or her group of friends, family and acquaintances. The respondents were instructed that they would receive product information about two different brands. The information consists product information about two brands with different treatments included. The questionnaire consisted of items to measure the dimensions of brand equity and brand strength (Table 3).
Table 3. Measurement scales.
Measure Scale
Brand equity Yoo & Donthu (2001)
Product type Voss, Spangenberg en Grohman (2003)
Brand strength Keller (2007)
22 3.5 Participants
Two hundred and sixty-four respondents took part in this research, of which 130 (48%) men and 134 (52%) women. The participants were between 18 and 67 years old, 49% of the respondents were between 18-25 years old. The average age of the respondents is 27,94 (SD = 8.35), the median is 26 and the mode of the respondents is 24. The twelve different versions of the questionnaire are equally distributed among the respondents (Appendix B). Within the sample 86,4% of the respondents have an higher education or higher and 44% of the respondents have an higher education and 40% have an academic education (Figure 2).
Figure 2. The education of the respondents.
The majority of the respondents, 45,8% are students, 52,4%, 25,4 have a part-time job and 18,6% have a part-time job. The remaining respondents are entrepreneurs (6,8%), unemployed (1,9%) and (1,5%) say other (Figure 3).
Figure 3. The occupation of the respondents.
3.6 Internal consistency of the constructs
To test whether the used measure scale are good, internal consistency for the four constructs is measured using the overall Cronbach’s Alpha. For all the constructs, brand strength, utilitarian product type, hedonic product type and brand equity, the Cronbach’s Alpha for the constructs is higher than 0,6 (Table 4). This is required in order to prove internal consistency.
0,4 3 10,2 43,9 40,2 2,3 0 10 20 30 40 50
Primary school Secondary
school MBO HBO WO Higher
Re sp on d en ts 18,6 25,4 45,8 1,9 6,8 1,5 0 10 20 30 40 50 Work
(Fulltime) (Parttime) Work Study Unemployed Entrepreneur Other
23
Table 4. Overall Cronbach's alpha scores for the 4 constructs.
Construct Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
Brand strength 0,746 0,746 2
Utilitarian products 0,905 0,908 5
Hedonic products 0,819 0,819 5
Brand equity 0,911 0,911 14
The table for Cronbach's alpha if Item Deleted (Appendix B) shows that almost all the constructs have a lower or equal Cronbach’s alpha if item is deleted than the overall factor scores of the Cronbach’s alpha. When the “alpha if item deleted” is lower this indicates that a question is good because deleting that question would lower the overall alpha. Questions of which “alpha if deleted” is higher tend to have low inter-item correlations (Pearson’s r). Only two questions are slightly higher than the factor scores, Cronbach’s alpha if item is deleted. First, the hedonic question: ‘onaangenaam – plezierig’ ( unpleasant – pleasant) scores Cronbach’s alpha if item is deleted 0,832, which is 0,013 higher than Cronbach’s alpha 0,819. Second, the brand equity question: ‘Ik heb moeite om merk X in mijn geheugen op te roepen’ (
Some characteristics of X come to my mind
quickly
) scores Cronbach’s alpha if item is deleted 0,917, which is 0,006 higher than Cronbach’s alpha 0,911. In a well-validated test, no one question will have a large deviation from the overall alpha. Within the construct there is not a large deviation for the constructs. The four constructs in this study are therefore well validated.3.7 Analysis
Within this research two manipulations are used to investigate is there exists an moderating effect. Therefore two manipulation checks, for product type and second for brand strength will be conducted. In order to determine whether or not these manipulations have worked a manipulation check is conducted. The manipulation checks are conducted using an Independent Samples T-test and ANOVA analysis. The manipulation checks will be conducted to control if the planned manipulations were also experienced as high or low Brand Strength and utilitarian or hedonic products. Within the analysis the data is analysed using a rejection region of .95. This means that the p-values have to be smaller or equal to .05 for the research results to be significant.
co-24
creation, product type and brand strength. The four dummies are added as an independent variable in the multiple regression model. The general linear model will be conducted to test H1 H2, H3, H4. The
equation of the multiple regression line is as follows: CBBE = β0 + β1WOM+ β2COCR + β3PT + β4BS + ε
CBBE = Customer-based brand equity WOM = Word-of-mouth
COCR = Co-creation PT = Product type BS = Brand strength
Second, the variables product type and brand strength are added to investigate if there exists a interaction effect for the two variables on the main effect, H5 andH6 Finally. Hence, four moderators
are created and added to the model:
1. Moderator 1 = Word-of-mouth * Product type 2. Moderator 2 = Word-of-mouth * Brand strength 3. Moderator 3 = Co-creation * Product type
4. Moderator 4 = Co-creation * Brand strength
25
4. Results
In this chapter the results of the analyses are presented. The section begins with the description of the sample. Second, the results of the independent T-test and One-way ANOVA analysis are presented. Next, the interaction effects of the moderators are presented. To conclude, an overview of the results are presented and applied to support or reject the hypothesis, as formulated in the first chapter. The results of this chapter are used for the next chapter, in which the conclusions and recommendations will be discussed.
4.1 Manipulation checks
Within this experiment two manipulations for product type and brand strength are used in the experimental design. To validate if the two manipulations have worked as they were supposed to do, two manipulation checks will be conducted for product type and brand strength.
4.1.1 Product type
The participants were exposed to two manipulated product types (hedonic products versus utilitarian products). For hedonic products beer was chosen and for utilitarian mineral water. The scenarios were expected to differ significantly on brand equity. For product type (hedonic and utilitarian) it is tested whether the manipulations are in line with the results of the manipulation check. The manipulation check for the product type construct consists out of two parts. First, the hedonic construct that measures the degree of hedonic and second the utilitarian construct that measures the level of utilitarian. For the manipulation check a One-way ANOVA is used for the two constructs and the manipulation check (Table 5).
Table 5. One-way ANOVA statistics for Product Type.
Mean score
Manipulation N Mean STDEV Std. Error Hedonic Utilitarian 130 3,96* ,88956 ,07802 hedonic 134 5,03* 1,34498 ,11619 Total 264 4,50 1,26070 ,07759 Utilitarian Utilitarian 130 4,33* 1,11758 ,09802 hedonic 134 2,33* 1,26960 ,10968 Total 264 3,35 1,56141 ,09610 * significant (P < .05)
26
low on the hedonic product type (M = 2,33 SD = 1.12). The scores between the groups show to differ significantly from each other
(P < .05)
(Figure 4).Figure 4. Manipulation check for product type.
These results indicate that the hedonic manipulation (beer), is indeed perceived as more hedonic and the utilitarian manipulation (mineral water), indeed as more utilitarian.
4.1.2 Brand strength
For brand strength high (Heineken beer/Spa water) and low (Brand beer/Vittel water), it is tested whether the manipulations are in line with the results of the manipulation check. The manipulation check is the brand strength construct consisting out of two questions. For running the manipulation check a one-way ANOVA is used for the two questions and the manipulation check. The scores between the groups differ from each other
(p < .05)
(Table 6).Table 6. One-way ANOVA statistics for Brand Strength.
Question Brand strength: High/Low
N Mean STDEV Std.
Error Ik beschouw merk X
als een sterk merk
low 129 3,78* 1,687 0,149
high 135 5,68* 1,514 0,130
Ik beschouw merk X als een zwak merk
low 135 5,40* 1,854 0,160
high 129 4,47* 1,606 0,141
* significant (P < .05)
The first question: “Ik beschouw merk X als eens sterk merk” (I consider brand X as a strong brand) scores high on high brand strength manipulation (M = 5,68, SD = 1.51) and low for the low brand strength manipulation (M = 3,78, SD = 1.69). The second question: “Ik beschouw merk X als eens zwak merk” (I consider brand X as a weak brand) scores high in the low brand strength manipulation
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Utilitarian hedonic Utilitarian hedonic
27
(M = 5,4, SD = 1.85) and low in the low in the high brand strength manipulation (M = 4,47, SD = 1.61) (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Manipulation check for product type
The results indicate that the high brand strength manipulation (Heineken beer/Spa mineral water), indeed perceived as strong brands and the low brand strength manipulation (Brand beer/Vittel mineral water), indeed as having low brand strength.
4.1.3 Overall differences on brand equity
Hedonic brands score high on brand equity Heineken (M = 4.25, SD = 1.14) and Brand (M = 4.05, SD = 1.04). The utilitarian brands Spa (M =3,14, SD = 0.91) and (M = 2,80, SD = 0.84) score low on brand equity. The brand equity outcomes for brand strength high (M = 4.25 versus M = 4,04) and low (M = 0.90 versus M =0.84) also differ (table 7). The results differ significantly from each other (F (3, 96) = 32,578 = p < .01).
Table 7. Overall differences on brand equity.
Brand Product type Brand strength N M STDEV Std. Error
Heineken Hedonic High 68 4,25*** 1,13799 ,13800
Brand Hedonic Low 67 4,05*** 1,04252 ,12736
Spa Utilitarian High 66 3,14*** ,90868 ,11185
Vittel Utilitarian Low 63 2,81*** ,83735 ,10550
*** Significant (P < .01)
The results show that hedonic products have a high mean brand equity and the utilitarian products have the lowest mean brand equity. The results show that Heineken beer, a hedonic product with high brand strength, scores the highest brand equity mean (M = 4.25, SD = 1.14). Vittel mineral water, an utilitarian product with low brand strength, scores the lowest mean brand equity (M = 2.81, SD = 0,84). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
low high low high Ik beschouw merk X als een sterk
merk Ik beschouw merk X als een zwak merk
B
rand
st
reng
28 4.2 Main effects
In order to reject or accept H1 and H2, the results of the one ANOVA analysis are discussed. The
relation between the independent variable of the three senarios; ‘Control Group’, ‘Word-of-mouth’ and ‘Co-creation’ are compared on the dependent variable ‘Brand Equity’. The main effect of brand equity indicated that the scenario’s including word-of-mouth (M = 3.6708, SD = 0,97) and co-creation (M = 3.5308, SD = 1.25) have a higher brand equity than the control group (M = 3.6708, SD = 1.24) (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Brand equity scores for the three scenarios
In order to validate the differences between the groups a linear regression compares the means of the word-of-mouth and co-creation with the control group to see if there is a significant difference between the independent variables on the dependent varianle, cutomer-based brand equity. The test show that there are no signigifcant differences between the word-of-mouth and co-creation on the control group (Table 8).
Table 8. Linear regression model
Dependent variable: Brand Equity. * p < .05. **p < .01.
4.3 Direct effects
In order to reject or accept H3 and H5, the effects of the independent variables in the model product
type and brand strength are analysed using a linear regression model (table 8). The overall model was significant (F = 25,037, p < .05) with an adjusted R Squared of (.268). Which means 26,8% of the variance is explained within this model. The results from the linear regression analysis demonstrate
3,45 3,5 3,55 3,6 3,65 3,7
Control group WOM Co-creation
B ra nd e qu it y Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
29
that product type and brand strength indeed have significant influence on brand equity. The variables product type and brand strength show a direct effect on brand equity (F = 4.675, P < .05 and F (1, 775)= 69.254 P < .01). The results show that high brand strength and hedonic product type have a positive effect on brand equity. Where brand strength has the highest influence on brand equity (B = 1,18) compared with product type (B =,27).
4.4 Univariate analysis
In order to reject or accept H3, H4, H5 and H6 the results of a 3 (three scenarios including: control
group, word-of-mouth and co-creation) x 2 (product type: hedonic versus utilitarian) x 2 (brand strength: high versus low) first a univariate analysis on customer-based brand equity is conducted (Table 9). The analysis is an aggregate measure of the 3 scenarios combined to see if the independent variable, the three scenarios combined, are of any influence on the dependent variable, customer based-brand equity. The overall model was significant (F = 12,969, p < .05) with an adjusted R Squared of .269. Which means 26,9% of the variance is explained within this model. The Levene’s test of Equality of error variances is not significant (F (11, 252) = 1,579, p > .05). The Levene’s Test assesses the homogeneity of variances of the different populations and confirms that the variances within this sample are equal and are likely to have occurred based on random sampling from a population with equal variances. Thus, there is no relationship between the scenarios and customer-based brand equity.
Table 9. Univariate statistics for the 3 scenarios on brand equity.
Column1 Type III Sum of Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Three scenarios (Treatment) 2,127 2 1,063 1,085 ,340 Product type 4,850 1 4,850 4,946 ,028* Brand strength 93,169 1 93,169 95.029 ,000** Three scenarios * PRT(Moderator) 2,785 2 1,392 1,420 ,244 Three scenarios * BSTR(Moderator) ,919 2 ,459 ,469 ,626
Note. Three scenarios = Control group, WOM and Co-creation. * p < .05. **p < .01.
4.5 Testing the moderation of product type and brand strength
In order to reject or accept H3, H4, H5 and H6 the results of a 2 (word-of-mouth and co-creation) x 2
30
an adjusted R Squared of .267 ). Which means 26,7% of the variance is explained within this model. The moderators, product type and brand strength on brand equity were hypothesized to be conditional for brand equity. To be more specific, it was expected that the relationship between the scenario’s and brand equity would depend on high brand strength and hedonic products and vice versa for weak brand strength and utilitarian products. In order for moderation to occur the effect of the scenarios on brand equity has to be significant. The results presented in Table 11show that the effect of the scenarios word-of-mouth and co-creation brand equity are not significant (P < .05). The results also show that there is no interaction effect for brand strength and product type.
Table 10. Regression analysis for the model Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients B Std. Error Beta t Sig. (Constant) 2,996 ,188 - 15,922 ,000 Word-of-mouth ,289 ,259 ,118 1,117 ,265 Co-creation ,034 ,263 ,014 ,128 ,898 Product type ,270 ,122 ,117 2,217 ,028* Brand Strength 1,113 ,210 ,482 5,300 ,000** Word-of-mouth * Product type -,393 ,298 -,125 -1,319 ,188 Word-of-mouth * Brand strength ,246 ,299 ,078 ,822 ,412 Co-creation * Product type ,079 ,298 ,025 ,266 ,790 Co-creation * Brand strength -,012 ,299 -,004 -,039 ,969
31
5. Discussion
The current study was conducted in order to estimate the effects of the customer engagement behaviour on customer-based brand equity. Specifically, the goal of this research is to investigate the relational linkage between two customer engagement behaviours word-of-mouth and co-creation on customer-based brand equity, and the moderating role of brand strength and product type on this effect. Which resulted in the following research question:
‘What is the effect of customer engagement behaviours on customer-based brand equity, and what
role might product type and brand strength hereby play?’
Six hypotheses are formulated and tested for a number of different evaluation criteria. Three of the six formulated hypothesis are in line with the expectations, the results are presented in table 11.
Table 11.The outcomes for the six hypotheses.
Hypotheses Accepted/rejected
H1: Exposure to positive word-of-mouth is positively related to Customer-Based brand equity.
Rejected
H2: Exposure to co-creation is related positively to Customer-Based brand equity. Rejected
H3: Hedonic products have a positive effect on Customer-Based brand equity. Accepted
H4: The effect of (a) positive word-of-mouth and (b) co-creation on Customer-Based brand equity is stronger for hedonic products than for utilitarian products
Rejected
H5: Strong brands have a positive effect on Customer-Based brand equity. Accepted
H6: The effect of (a) positive word-of-mouth and (b) co-creation on Customer-Based brand equity is stronger for strong brands than for weak brands.
Rejected
First, the main effect for word-of-mouth on brand equity is in line with H1. The main effect in H2, for
co-creation on brand equity is not in line with the formulated hypothesis. Second, no moderating effects were found for product type and brand strength on customer-based brand equity this rejects both hypothesis H4 and H6. Finally, support was found for the two hypothesized direct effects of H3
and H5, the direct effects of product type and brand strength on brand equity.
5.1 Conclusions
Main effect. First objective of this study is to discover main effects for word-of-mouth and
32
would result in higher brand equity compared to the control group that only saw the brand and brand name of the products. Contradicting with earlier research (Libai et al., 2011; Yoo, Donthu & Lee, 2000 Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955) on word-of mouth and Co-creation. The current study show no enhancing influence on customer-based brand equity. Yoo, Donthu and Lee (2000) found that marketing activities, including word-of-mouth, have a positive influence on customer-based brand equity. They found that word-of-mouth will create favourable response from the customers towards the brand and in the end this will drive customer-based brand equity. Bonhomme, Christodoulides, and Jevons, (2009) found that co-creation improved involvement which increased the brand equity. The first possible explanation for this contradiction between the results and the hypothesis can be the created stimuli material. The used, fictive scenarios could be perceived by the respondents as not meeting the requirements to emphasize with. In the current study the created stimuli for the scenarios might be experienced as difficult to imagine and emphasize oneself with. Co-creation is about joint creation of value by the company and the customer, in order for co-creation to really drive value, you might have to experience it in real life in order to really experience added value. Which might result in non-significant differences between the co-creation scenario and the control group. A second explanation could be the source of the information provided within the customer engagement behaviour scenario’s. The source as general and not personally relevant, respondents might not emphasize with the outlined in the stimuli material. Also the fictive friends, as outlined in the scenario’s might be hard to imagine resulting in no perceived value of the positive word-of-mouth they were exposed to. The final possible explanation for these outcomes could be that the brands chosen as stimuli are already familiar brands that are well known by the respondents. This might influence the added value of the described scenarios on customer-based brand equity. Because the used brands are well-known brands the respondents might be biased and the scenarios might not create any influence on customer-based brand equity.
Moderating effect. Second objective of this study is to discover moderating effects of product
type and brand strength. The moderating effects for product type and brand strength on the main effect are not in line with the stated hypothesis. Moderation occurs when the relationship between customer engagement behaviour and customer-based brand equity depends on a third variable, in the research model product type and brand strength. The results indicate that the direction and strength of the main effect are not moderated by product type and brand strength, this contradicts with H3 and H5. Specifically it indicates that hedonic products and strong brands do not strengthen
33
contradicts with the results found in this study. A possible explanation for the outcomes can be the described scenarios. The stimuli created for the scenarios did not create influence on Customer-based Brand Equity. In order to measure a moderating effect a significant main effect is required.
Direct effects. Third objective of this study is to discover direct effects for product type and brand
strength on customer-based brand equity. The results show that there is a direct effect of brand strength on customer based Brand Equity, which is in line with the stated hypothesis. If brand strength is high this will likely have an direct positive influence on Customer-based Brand Equity and for weak brands vice versa. Srivastava and Shocker (1991) state that the way customers evaluate brand equity, is viewed as consisting of the two components brand strength and brand value. The results found in this study are in line with research by Lasser, Mittal and Sharma (1995). They found that brand strength constitutes the brand associations held by customers resulting in higher evaluations on Customer-based brand Equity. For example, Heineken beer and Spa mineral water are well known brands in the Netherlands, almost everyone has strong associations with the brand. When asking respondents the questions from the brand equity scale they are more likely to evaluate higher on the questions than for the weaker brands Brand beer and Vittel mineral water. The results also show that there is a direct effect of product type on Customer based Brand Equity the results which is in line with the stated hypothesis as well. The results show that hedonic product type is related with brand equity. This is in line with the findings of Ailawadi, Lehmann, and Neslin (2003),
they found that hedonic product type is positively associated with brand equity. An explanation for
the results could be the different nature of consumption for hedonic products. As elaborated in more detail in the literature review utilitarian products are generally consumed to solve a problem and have a more functional nature. Whereas hedonic products have a more experiential value such as sensory gratification, more fun, pleasure and excitement (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000). Hedonic products cause more aroused feelings resulting in stronger associations with the brand. Stronger associations towards a brand held by customers result in higher evaluation on Customer-based Brand Equity.
5.2 Limitations and Future Research
The current study has some limitations that will be discussed in this section. The described limitations provide directions for future research.
34
creating customer-based brand equity, based on scenarios for word-of-mouth and co-creation. Non-fast moving consumer goods like e.g. holidays, cars and kitchen equipment might be more relevant for evaluations based on word-of-mouth and co-creation scenarios. The second limitation is the selected scenarios. The current study used two fictive scenarios, based on real examples, for word-of-mouth and co-creation. Because the scenarios are fictive they might create not enough ability to emphasize with. Real business co-creation scenarios might deliver added value (winning money, participating in product development etc.) that is hard to copy in fictive scenarios. Within these fictive scenarios this real added value might not be perceived. Which might result in moderate effects on brand equity. Finally, within the study predominantly higher educated people participated, this might have influence the results of this study. The homophily concept might occurred which means that explains group composition in terms of the similarity of members’ characteristics. Homophily limits people’s social worlds in a way that has powerful implications for the information they receive, the attitudes they form, and the interactions they experience (McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987).
The literature indicated the added value of customer engagement behaviour on customer-engagement behaviour. However the results from this study did not support the literature. Future research should aim to further discover the effects of engagement behaviours, initiated by marketing stimuli, on customer-based brand equity. The best way to conduct this research is by studying real life case studies over a representative sample of the society. Another possibility could be to make the stimuli material more personal and relevant. Because the fictive scenarios seems to create not enough ability to emphasize with. Another important research direction is the development of research in studying how effective co-creation programs should be developed, and how to initiate word-of-mouth, from the perspective of the company. This knowledge could be than used in order to create value by using this knowledge in the business practice.
5.3 Research Implications
35
brand equity. Managers can relate these findings to their brand-building strategies. Brand equity is rooted in the association held by customers. So, especially for the utilitarian products there is an opportunity for managers. Managers could create more ‘hedonic’ associations for utilitarian products to create stronger associations and higher customer-based brand equity.
36
6. References
Aaker, D.A. (1997). “Should You Take Your Brand to Where the Action Is?” Harvard Business Review 75 (September/October): 135-143.
Aaker, D.A. (1996) Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets. Califonia Managamenet
Review. Vol. 38 no. 3 spring.
Aaker, D.A. (1991) . [B] Managing Brand Equity. New York: The Free Press.
Ailawadi, K. L., Lehmann, D. R., & Neslin, S. A. (2003). Revenue premium as an outcome measure of brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 1-17.
Ang, S. H., & Lim, E. A. C. (2006). The influence of metaphors and product type on brand personality perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 39-53.
Anupama, T., & Dilip, R. (2012) Measuring Brand Strength concept and Mobile Handset study.; Winter2012, Vol. 7 Issue 3, p38-55, 18p
Arndt, J. (1967) Role of Product-Related Conversations in the Diffusion of a New Product. Journal of
Marketing Research. Vol. 4, No. 3, Aug. 1967, 291-295.
Ballantyne, D. (2004) ‘Dialogue and its Role in the Development of Relationship Specific Knowledge’,
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 19(2): 114–23.Barwise 1993
Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1983). Situation and attitudes.
Bijmolt, T.H.A., Leeflang, P.S.H. Block, F., Eisenbeiss, M., Hardie, B.G.S., Lemmens, A., & Staffert, P. (2010), ‘‘Analytics for Customer Engagement,’’ Journal of Service Research, 13 (3), 341-356.Breazeale 2009
37
Bruyn, B & Lilien, G.L. (2008) A multi-stage model of word-of-mouth influence through viral marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, Volume 25, Issue 3, September 2008, Pages 151–163
Boulding, W., & Kirmani., A. (1993) A Consumer-Side Experimental Examination of Signaling Theory: Do Consumers Perceive Warranties as Signals of Quality? Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Jun., 1993), pp. 111-123
Bowden, J.L. (2009) The Process of Customer Engagement: A Conceptual Framework. The Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice. Vol. 17, No. 1 / Winter 2009, pp. 63 – 74
Bonhomme, J., Christodoulides, G., & Jevons, C. (2009). The impact of user-generated content on consumer-based brand equity. In Proceedings of the 6th Thought Leaders International Conference
on Brand Management (pp. 1-16).
van Doorn, J., K.N. Lemon, V. Mittal, S. Nass, D. Pick, & P.C. Verhoef (2010), ‘Key Lessons and Emerging Trends’, ‘European Management Journal’, Forthcoming
Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication. Marketing Science, 23(4), 545-560.
Hague, P., & Jackson, P. (1994) The Power of Industrial Brands. London: McGraw‐Hill.
Hennig-Thurau T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D.D. (2004), ‘Electronic Word-of‐Mouth Via Consumer-Opinion Platforms: What Motivates Consumers to Articulate Themselves on the Internet?, ‘Journal of Interactive Marketing,’ 8 (1), 38-52.
Higgins, E.T., & Scholer, A.S. (2009) Engaging the Consumer: The Science and Art of the Value Creation Process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 100-114, 2009 April 1, 2009
