Measuring CBBE With the Brand Model of INTERVIEWNSS
Dick Holtman
Measuring CBBE With the Brand Model of INTERVIEWNSS
February 2007
INTERVIEWNSS Overtoom 519-521 1054 LH Amsterdam
e-mail: h.hartman@interview-nss.com telephone: +31 20 6070707
fax: +31 20 6851621
Dick Holtman
student number: 1425579
e-mail: j.d.holtman@student.rug.nl telephone: +31 6 28327360
University of Groningen Faculty Marketing
Master of Science Research Based Marketing
Supervisor INTERVIEWNSS H. Hartman
Supervisors University of Groningen Prof. Dr. T.H.A. Bijmolt
Dr. J.E. Wieringa
Preface
INTERVIEWNSS (IVNSS), a research agency in the Netherlands developed Brand Power Assessment (BPA), a model to measure brand equity. In 2005 they started thinking about an update of BPA. IVNSS contacted Prof. Dr. T.H.A. Bijmolt from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands for advice. They decided to use a trainee from the university to work for five months on the project. Accompanied by Prof. Dr.
T.H.A. Bijmolt the trainee should write a thesis with recommendations.
And the honor was for me to make recommendations for BPA. Besides having a nice project, I was lucky to have two very enthusiastic supervisors, H. Hartman of IVNSS and Prof. Dr. T.H.A. Bijmolt.
All of you who take the time reading this thesis, I wish you a pleasant time.
Sincerely,
Dick Holtman
Management Summary
In this study the association items of Brand Power Assessment (BPA), the brand model of INTERVIEWNSS (IVNSS), were investigated. Standardizing this set in a way it could be used across all product categories and having a relation with preference resulted in six dimensions. The six dimensions and the number of their corresponding items are:
1. Values (11 items + 4 optional items) 2. Status (8 items + 3 optional items) 3. Business (6 items + 3 optional items) 4. Genuine (5 items)
5. Price (2 items) 6. Famous (5 items)
In order to find those dimensions a few steps were followed. First of all, leading academic models and business models were investigated to find items that could improve the set of items already used in BPA. The academic models were the CBBE- model of Aaker (1991), the dimensions of brand knowledge (Keller 1993), the brand personality framework of Aaker (1997) and the customer equity framework of Rust et al. (2005). The business models were Young and Rubicam’s BrandAsset Valuator, TNS’s Conversion Model, Millward Brown’s Brand Dynamics, Harris Interactive’s EquiTrend, and Research International’s Equity Engine.
Second, an online study was held with a selection of the items found in BPA and the inspected models. The study was answered by a sample of almost 800 persons that was representative for the Dutch population.
Third, principal component analysis was used to decrease the number of items.
Analyses were performed on both the set of aided brands and the set of unaided brands.
To assess the stability of the factors a split sample test was performed. The outcomes were not satisfying, because the factors were far from being the same factors as in the complete sample.
Fifth, scales were created based on factors from the different product categories.
Similar looking factors were combined. A couple of scales with three or four items were extracted from those combined factors. The scales were correlated with target variables like preference.
Because this analysis revealed very few dimensions and items, an extra chapter was
added in which the rules used for creating the factors and the scales were relaxed. The
outcomes of this last analysis resulted in the final model with six dimensions.
Table Of Contents
... 3
Preface ... 4
Management Summary ... 5
Table Of Contents 1 Introduction ... 7
1.1 Approach ... 8
1.2 Research Constraints ... 8
1.3 Relevance ... 8
1.4 What’s Next ... 8
2 IVNSS And BPA ... 9
2.1 IVNSS ... 9
2.2 Brand Power Assessment ... 9
3 Measuring CBBE ... 15
3.1 Leading Academic Models Measuring CBBE ... 15
3.2 Leading Models In Business Measuring CBBE ... 23
3.3 Conclusion ... 31
4 Research Method ... 35
4.1 Sample ... 35
4.2 Product Classification ... 35
4.3 Questionnaire ... 37
4.4 Analysis ... 41
5 Results ... 46
5.1 Sample ... 46
5.2 Data Collection ... 47
5.3 Principal Component Analysis ... 48
5.4 Split Sample ... 51
5.5 Scales ... 56
5.6 Correlation With Target Variables ... 60
5.7 Marginal results ... 62
6 Factor analysis without strict rules ... 63
6.1 Results aided set (unrestricted version) ... 63
6.2 Results unaided set (unrestricted version) ... 65
6.3 Differences between the aided and unaided factor solutions ... 68
6.4 Split Sample (unrestricted version) ... 70
6.5 Scales (unrestricted version) ... 70
7 Conclusions ... 76
7.1 From The Original BPA Framework To A New BPA Framework... 77
7.2 A Personal Conclusion ... 78
8 Limitations, Recommendations For Future Research ... 79
8.1 Limitations ... 79
8.2 Recommendations For Future Research ... 79
... 81
References ... 84
Appendix 1: The Questionnaire Appendix 2: Brand Lists... 118
... 119
Appendix 3: References Used To Create The Brand Lists ... 120
Appendix 4: Screenshot of Questionnaire ... 121
Appendix 5: An Outline Of The Association Items Per Product Category ... 122
Appendix 6: Invitation ... 124
Appendix 7: Reminder ... 125
Appendix 8: Complaint E-mails ... 127
Appendix 9: Questionnaire – Inspiration List And Application ... 136
Appendix 10: BPA items ... 139
Appendix 11: Questionnaire – The 47 Association Items And Their Origin ... 141
Appendix 12: Questionnaire - Differences Between Product Categories ... 143
Appendix 13: Correlations Between Scales And Target Variables (Aided) ... 144
Appendix 14: Correlations Between Scales And Target Variables (Unaided) ... 145
Appendix 15: Factor Solution Split Sample 1 (Aided) ... 146
Appendix 16: Factor Solution Split Sample 2 (Aided) ... 147
Appendix 17: Factor Solution Split Sample 1 (Unaided)
... 148
Appendix 18: Factor Solution Split Sample 2 (Unaided)
1 Introduction
Insight in brand equity is important because it gives companies a competitive advantage. High brand equity is considered to be a competitive advantage because companies can charge a premium price, it increases the demand by customers, it is easier to extent brands, the impact of communications is bigger, trade will be leveraged, firms can gain higher margins and companies are less susceptible to competitive marketing actions (Aaker 1996; Hague and Jackson 1994; Keller 2003b;
Quelch and Harding 1996; Wood 2000).
There are different definitions of brand equity among researchers (Park and Srinivasan 1994). As noted by Keller (2003b) brand equity is defined in three ways: (1) brand equity defined as financial strength, (2) brand equity defined as the relative profit and relative sales margins compared with other brands and (3) consumer-based brand equity (CBBE), brand equity based on a consumer perspective which is defined as the value to the consumer (Aaker 1991; Keller 1993).
A considerable amount of research has been done in the field of measuring CBBE.
Researchers either used FMCG markets or durables to test their hypotheses. Many CBBE measures hold for frequently purchased grocery foods or infrequently purchased nondurables, but are not tested for durables (Netemeyer et al. 2004). Generalizing results across different product categories and services is preferred, because it enables researchers to measure CBBE in a more standardized manner.
INTERVIEWNSS (IVNSS), a research agency in the Netherlands developed Brand Power Assessment (BPA), a model to measure customer-based brand equity. BPA is mainly based on the brand equity framework of Aaker (1991). IVNSS uses BPA for assessing brand equity in a lot of product categories ranging from the FMCG market to durables. Generalizing CBBE across product categories is difficult, because of the big differences between the product categories and this forms the research objective for the update of BPA. This research objective leads to the next research problem:
Which dimensions and items should be incorporated in BPA to measure brand equity across different product categories?
This problem can be divided into different sub problems:
What are the leading models in academic literature in measuring CBBE?
What are the leading models in business in measuring CBBE?
Which dimensions and items are mentioned in those leading models that are not incorporated in BPA?
Which dimensions and items are useful for the new BPA model?
Which items are important for which dimension?
What major differences in dimensions and items do exist between various product categories?
Which overall variables like purchase intention are good predictors for brand equity?
1.1 Approach
In order to solve the research problems, academic literature and business models for measuring CBBE will be explored. Items will be collected from those models and redundant items will be removed. The set that remains will be used in Factor Analysis to reduce this set of items to a couple of scales.
1.2 Research Constraints
The BPA-model of IVNSS should be slightly adapted. The method of analysis should be the same and the dimensions should be changed as little as possible. The idea behind this is that BPA has evolved in the past couple of years. The model explains brand equity fairly well and IVNSS argues it can predict market share two years ahead. So the model is good, it just needs some slight changes to improve the model, especially in assessing relevant dimensions and items to measure CBBE across product categories. Besides this, the more the new model resembles the old one, the more data gathered in the past can be used.
As mentioned before brand equity can be measured in three ways (Keller 2003b). The BPA-model examines brand equity from a consumer point of view, so financial measures are not used in this study.
1.3 Relevance
This thesis is useful for both brand managers and researchers. It provides brand managers items, which they can use to measure CBBE. Furthermore, it offers insight in the items that are most useful for assessing brand image in a certain product category. It serves researchers in giving them more insight in measuring CBBE across product categories.
1.4 What’s Next
The next chapter deals with IVNSS and the BPA model. Chapter three is about leading academic models and models in business measuring CBBE. Chapter four explains the research method and chapter five shows the results of the analysis. The sixth chapter is an extra analysis that relaxes some of the strict rules used in chapter four and five.
Chapter seven illustrates the conclusion and the last chapter is about
recommendations for future research.
2 IVNSS And BPA
This chapter describes the company IVNSS and its brand equity model Brand Power Assessment.
2.1 IVNSS
IVNSS was established in mid-1999, when CSEM (pioneer in the area of research into stakeholder relationships and research data modeling), Inter/View International (technological innovator in the area of centralized international research and the introduction of technological innovations in the industry) and NSS Research &
Consultancy (pioneer in the development of the industry and in particular in methods and technologies) joined forces. Until the 8th of June 2005 IVNSS was part of SNT Group NV. IVNSS has 110 researchers and consultants, about 650 interviewers and it is ISO 9001 certified for more than five years. All research and data collection tools are available like qualitative, quantitative, consulting, a European Data Collection Center (i.e. call center, web center, field center, white mail and sms) and Web Enabled Reporting. IVNSS has both national and international clients like KPN, Heineken, CNN.com, Microsoft, Orange, Philips, Holland Casino, BBC, Gouden gids, ANWB, Hewlett-Packard and Continental and is a member of Markt Onderzoek Associatie, ESOMAR and EFQM.
2.2 Brand Power Assessment
Brand Power Assessment (BPA) is the brand equity model developed by IVNSS.
Between now and 2001 numerous BPA’s have been executed, both in B2B and B2C markets:
Automotive: B2B and B2C.
Personal Care: tampons, facials and body care products, anti diarrhea medicines and anti-foot mould products.
Retail – entertainment, warehouses and supermarkets.
Employers – government.
Pharmaceutical industry – B2B.
FMCG – butter.
2.2.1 Framework
The underlying framework can be found in Figure 1. IVNSS expects benefits, price/quality, personality, presence and value to be the drivers of brand preference.
Brand preference is expected to influence brand usage and brand usage can be
translated in a financial impact. So it is a causal model. Besides measuring the five
drivers of brand preference, penetration is measured as well. In this way binding can
be explained based on the five drivers.
Brand Preference Brand Usage Financial Impact
Benefits Price/Quality Personality Presence Value
Figure 1: Framework Brand Power Assessment - IVNSS
Benefits: what does it deliver (product-related)?
Price/Quality: what is the value for money?
Personality: what does it stand for?
Presence: where do you find it?
Value: what is in it for the customer (non-product-related)?
A collection of items from many BPAs results in a list that can be found in Appendix 10: BPA items. The first column shows the original items in Dutch and the second column shows the translation in English. The translation is only meant for this thesis.
2.2.2 Underlying Assumptions
There is a variety of assumptions underlying BPA.
The power of a brand can only be measured within the competitive landscape of the market. The whole market is taken into consideration to create a clear benchmark.
The power of a brand lies in the ability to create a psychological relationship.
Unaided recall (spontaneous questionnaires) is used in order to imitate the natural situation of the market in which the consumer chooses a certain product. The problem with unaided recall is that in answering series of questions about for example perceived quality, the competitor frame of reference is extremely important (Aaker 1996). “It might be necessary to help the respondent by providing a cue as to the appropriate frame of reference”
(Aaker 1996). Although the disadvantage, unaided recall is considered a better option than aided recall where respondents have to evaluate all brands (Barnard and Ehrenberg 1990).
The power of a brand is based on its uniqueness. By letting respondents freely
associate characteristics with brands, a realistic picture is assessed from all
brand images in the market.
To compare the image of brands, one should correct for awareness. A fair comparison can be conducted by comparing brands for people who mention the brand spontaneously.
Often it is only possible to deduce (as opposed to ask in a direct way) the reasons why a customer prefers a brand above other brands. Besides price, sometimes all other characteristics have the same importance. Therefore multivariate regression techniques are used to assess which factors are important for brand preference.
The important characteristics of a brand are not the same for all customers. In order to get a clear image of brand preference, customers are segmented based on needs.
Improvement on the brand position is best done on the basis of segmenting. If segments based on homogeneous needs can be assessed, a specific approach can be chosen for each segment.
2.2.3 When To Use BPA
Usefulness of BPA depends on the number of brands in the product category and on the market share of the principal as can be seen in Table 1. BPA is not useful when the market share of the principal is high or low and only a few number of brands exist in the product category. If the market share of the principal is low, almost none of the association items will be linked to the brand of the principal, because the respondents probably hardly know the brand. In case the market share of the principal is very high, probably all association items will be linked to the principal’s brand, because the respondents know only the brand of the principal. In case a lot of brands exist in the product category, respondents know a couple of brands and the whole market can be taken into consideration.
To assess brand associations, either the Kartenspiel method (KS-method) is used or the Tigert method. The appropriate method depends on the number of brands measured. If one brand is measured, the Kartenspiel method is used and when more than one brand needs to be measured the Tigert method is used.
The Kartenspiel is used when one brand needs to be evaluated. Originally, this method was executed with cards on which aspects were written. Respondents were asked to select cards that fit with the brand. Thereafter cards were selected which did not fit at all with the brand. Nowadays the method is used with a binominal scale (suits / does not suit).
The Tigert method is used when the image of a brand plus its competitors is assessed.
The brands need to have a common amount of spontaneous awareness. Respondents were asked to select brands that fit with an image item. Therefore, Tigert is friendly for respondents, because it does not repeat the measured item for every brand.
Another benefit is the clear and distinctive brand images for the different brands.
Table 1: Rules For Assessing The Usefulness Of BPA Number of brands in the product category
Few Average / A lot
Low BPA is not suitable because it yields too little information.
BPA is suitable to map the market.
Better use qualitative research. PLUS extra questions about brand image of principal, using
the KS-method.
Market share principal
Average BPA is suitable. BPA is suitable.
High If principal is a monopolist, better use a customer satisfaction research. Use KS-
method to assess brand image.
BPA is suitable, but principal should not be a monopolist.
2.2.4 Results
BPA provides the marketer with a tangible tool to reinforce the brand’s own position or attack the competition. There are five elements:
Brand Performance: how strong is my brand and that of the competitor’s?
Brand Competition: who are the most important psychological competitors?
Brand Perception: how does the market perceive the different brands?
Brand Drivers and Segmentation: how is brand preference established?
Brand Dashboard: what should I do to reinforce my brand?
2.2.4.1 Brand Performance: How Strong Is My Brand And That Of The Competitor’s?
Brand Performance shows the brand strength of the principal and of their competitors.
It shows the preference with brands and the extent to which this is converted into behavior.
Relationships are initially created in the mind of the customer. The following relationship levels can be distinguished:
Unique choice: only brand X is considered for buying.
Preference: more brands are considered for buying, but one has a preference for brand X.
Repertoire: more brands are considered for buying, but one has a preference for another brand.
Aware only: one is only spontaneously aware with brand X.
Reject: brand X would never be bought.
Non-franchise: not spontaneously aware.
Based on these relationships the following core definitions are:
Spontaneous awareness: percentage that knows brand X spontaneously (unique choice + preference + repertoire + aware only with reject included).
Evoked set: percentage that considers buying brand (unique choice +
preference + repertoire).
Binding: percentage that has a (unique) preference for brand X (unique choice + preference).
Penetration: percentage of people using brand X.
For each of the above relationship levels the percentages are determined for the people who actually bought a certain brand recently. In that way insight in different customer types is gathered:
Customers: loyal, doubters and disloyal.
Non-customers: potential, latent and inaccessible.
Loyal customers: using brand X at the moment, and also prefer brand X.
Doubters: using brand X at the moment, but do not prefer brand X. Brand X is considered though (evoked set).
Disloyal customers: using brand X at the moment, but brand X is not considered for buying in the future.
Potential customers: not using brand X at the moment, but do prefer brand X.
Latent customers: not using brand X at the moment, but brand X is considered for buying in the future.
Inaccessible/Unreachable customers: not using brand X at the moment, and also brand X is not considered for buying.
Small differences in the names of the customer types are used depending on the type of product category as is shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Customer Types Per Product Category
Durables/Services FMCG/Retail
Loyal customers Loyal customers
Doubters Non-loyal customers (switchers) Disloyal customers Ex-customers
Potential customers Potential customers Latent customers Latent customers Inaccessible customers Inaccessible customers
2.2.4.2 Brand Competition: Who Are The Most Important Psychological Competitors?
For each individual brand the competitors are mentioned. The competitors are the brands who are in the evoked set besides the individual brand.
2.2.4.3 Brand Perception: How Does The Market Perceive The Different Brands?
How does the market perceive the different brands? Which brands are very similar to one another in the eyes of the target group, and which differ strongly from each other? Brand Perception shows per brand which aspects are attributed to a brand.
Besides positioning of the brands, this overview shows the strength of the brand
image, i.e. the distinctiveness of the brand image compared to other brand images.
2.2.4.4 Brand Drivers And Segmentation: How Is Brand Preference Established?
Using key driver analysis, based on advanced regression techniques (latent class analysis), BPA assesses the importance of the different aspects that generate brand preference and creates different groups with homogeneous wants and needs.
2.2.4.5 Brand Dashboard: What Should I Do To Reinforce My Brand?
The Brand Dashboard is a priority matrix that shows a strength-weakness analysis per segment. In which segment has the principal a strong position? Which segment is useful for strengthen the principal’s brand image and how should this be realized?
Who are the main competitors in the concerned segment?
2.2.5 Data Collection
A sample size of 750 respondents is in general sufficient and IVNSS uses its own respondent database containing more than 50.000 respondents. By means of personal profiles of the respondents very specific research populations can be chosen. If a client wants for example a shifting of users of its own brand, the sample size should increase. In this case IVNSS tries to get extra respondents by asking a user list of the client.
2.2.6 Data Analysis
SPSS is used for data cleaning, recoding and generating descriptive statistics. The
descriptive statistics show brand performance, the structure of the competition and
the binding customers have with brands. Regression analysis in Latent Gold goes one
step further and explains the binding customers have with brands. Finally SPSS is
used for correspondence analysis on the Tigert attributes to determine the images of
the different brands. Almost all the analyses are fully automated using scripts and
macros.
3 Measuring CBBE
This chapter describes respectively the leading academic models and models used in business measuring CBBE.
3.1 Leading Academic Models Measuring CBBE
The leading academic models discussed in this paragraph are respectively the CBBE- model of Aaker (1991), the dimensions of brand knowledge (Keller 1993), the brand personality framework of Aaker (1997) and the customer equity framework of Rust et al. (2005). The models are chosen because of the large number of cited references and the importance of the journal in which the article was published.
3.1.1 D.A. Aaker – Brand Assets
Aaker (1991) conceptualizes CBBE as “a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol, that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or to that firm’s customers.” (Aaker 1991: 15). From a consumer point of view brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality and brand associations are the four main elements that can influence those assets.
Aaker (1991: 39) defined brand loyalty as “a measure of the attachment that a customer has to a brand. It reflects how likely a customer will be to switch to another brand”.
Figure 2: Loyalty Pyramid (Aaker 1991: 40)
The Loyalty Pyramid in Figure 2 shows five levels of customer loyalty. The bottom level is the non-loyal customer and the brand name is not important in the purchase decision. The second level consists of those who are satisfied with the product (i.e. not dissatisfied). They can be difficult to reach because they are not looking for alternatives. The third level includes buyers who are satisfied and loyalty is based on switching costs. The fourth level is the customer that truly likes the brand. They consider the brand as a friend. The top level comprises committed customers. They are proud to be customers of a certain brand.
Brand awareness is defined as “the ability of a potential buyer to recognize or recall that a brand is a member of a certain product category.” (Aaker 1991: 61).
Figure 3: Awareness Pyramid (Aaker 1991: 62)
As can be seen in Figure 3 awareness ranges from recognition to top of mind awareness. The lowest level, brand recognition is based on aided recall tests whereas recall is based on unaided recall. Top of mind awareness is the first-named brand in an unaided recall test. Later on Aaker (1996) added three levels of brand awareness: (1) brand dominance: the only brand recalled, (2) brand knowledge: respondent knows what the brand stands for, and (3) brand opinion: respondent has an opinion about the brand.
Kent and Allen (1994) argue that familiar brands have advantages: consumers better remember new product information for familiar brands and the consumer’s memory is less receptive for competitive advertising. Moreover, results of Kent and Allen (1994) suggest that ads for new brands in product categories with a lot of advertising, it will be difficult for consumers to remember product information.
Wedel et al. (1998) argue that “at low levels of familiarity, the importance of abstract
attributes appeared to be low. Increasing familiarity increases the importance of both
concrete and abstract attributes.” The empirical findings were found in the automobile
market.
One can imagine familiarity is covered by the awareness dimension, because the more familiar a consumer is with a brand, the more a consumer is aware of a brand.
Perceived quality: “the customer’s perception of the overall quality or superiority of a product or service with respect to its intended purpose, relative to alternatives.”
(Aaker 1991: 85). Because perceived quality is a perception by customers, it differs from actual or objective quality, product-based quality (=ingredients, features, and service), and manufacturing quality (= zero defect goal).
Brand associations is defined as “anything linked in memory to a brand” (Aaker 1991:
109). Aaker (1996) proposes to measure brand association on three layers: (1) the brand-as-product (value), (2) the brand-as-person (brand personality), and (3) the brand-as-organization (organizational associations).
The whole CBBE-model of Aaker can be found in Figure 4. It shows besides the impact of the five dimensions (for example brand loyalty is good for reducing marketing costs or the perceived quality can be a reason to buy a product) the advantages brand equity has for the consumer and the firm. The fifth dimension ‘other proprietary brand assets’ protects the company against competitors and can give a competitive advantage. This dimension includes patents, trademarks and channel relationships.
In 1996 he developed The Brand Equity Ten – a set of ten tracking measures. Those tracking measures are displayed in Table 3.
Table 3: Brand Equity Ten - David A. Aaker (1996:319)
Loyalty Measures 1. Price Premium
2. Satisfaction/Loyalty (among those who have used the brand)
Perceived Quality/Leadership Measures 3. Perceived Quality
4. Leadership/Popularity
Associations/Differentiation Measures 5. Perceived Value
6. Brand Personality
7. Organizational Associations
Awareness Measures 8. Brand Awareness
Market Behavior Measures 9. Market Share
10. Market Price and Distribution Coverage
Brand Equity
Reducing marketing costs
Trade leverage
Attracting new customers
- Create awareness - Reassurance
Time to respond to competitive threats
Anchor to which other associations can be attached
Familiarity-liking
Signal of substance / commitment
Brand to be considered
Provides value to customer by
enhancing customer’s:
- Interpretation/
Processing of information - Confidence in the
purchase decision
-
Use satisfactionProvides value to firm by enhancing:
- Efficiency and effectiveness of marketing
programs - Brand loyalty - Prices/margins - Brand extensions - Trade leverage - Competitive
advantage Reason-to-buy
Differentiate/position Price
Channel member interest
Extensions
Help process/retrieve information
Differentiate/position Reason-to-buy
Create positive attitude/feelings Extensions
Competitive advantage Brand loyalty
Brand awareness
Perceived quality
Brand associations
Other proprietary brand assets
Figure 4: CBBE Model (D.A. Aaker 1991)
3.1.2 K.L. Keller – Brand Knowledge
The definition of CBBE according to Keller (1993) is “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of a brand”. Keller (1993) measures CBBE as knowledge of the brand by the consumer on two dimensions: (1) brand awareness and (2) brand image.
“Brand awareness relates to brand recognition and recall performance by consumers”
(Keller 1993). This definition resembles the definition of Aaker (1991: 61) who defines brand awareness as “the ability of a potential buyer to recognize or recall that a brand is a member of a certain product category”. Brand recognition is defined as “the consumers’ ability to confirm prior exposure to the brand when given the brand as a cue” (Keller 1993). Brand recall “relates to consumers’ ability to retrieve the brand when given the product category, the needs fulfilled by the category, or some other type of probe as a cue (Keller 1993)”. Keller (1993) notifies “brand recall can also be coded in terms of the order of recall to capture the extent to which the name is “top of mind” and thus strongly associated with the product category in memory”. Keller (1993) argues brand awareness is important in consumer decision making for three reasons: (1) it can make consumers think of a brand when they think about a product, (2) it can create brand preference in the consideration set, and (3) it affects the formation and strength of brand associations.
Brand image is defined as “perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory” (Keller 1993). Keller (1993) distinguishes three types of brand association based on their level of abstraction in increasing scope: (1) attributes, (2) benefits, and (3) attitudes. Attributes are divided into non- product and product related attributes. The non-product related attributes consist of (1) price, (2) packaging, (3) user imagery, and (4) user image. The last two types can produce brand personality attributes (Keller 1993). Product-related attributes are product specific attributes like the attribute ‘smell' for detergents. Benefits are grouped according to underlying consumer needs (Park et al. 1986): (1) functional benefits that are used for problem solving and refer often to product-related attributes, (2) experiential benefits, providing sensory pleasure, variety or cognitive stimulation and refer often to product-related attributes, and (3) symbolic benefits, for example self-enhancement and group membership and refer often to non-product- related attributes. Attitudes are defined as “summary judgments and overall evaluations to any brand-related information” (Keller 2003a).
According to Keller (1993) there are two approaches to measure CBBE: (1) an indirect
approach by measuring brand knowledge (i.e. brand awareness and brand image),
and (2) a direct approach by “measuring the effects of brand knowledge on consumer
response to marketing for the brand”. Both methods are complementary and should
be used together. The indirect approach is helpful for identifying what aspects of brand
knowledge cause the differential response (the response to the focal brand compared
to the response to a nameless brand) that creates CBBE; the direct approach is useful for discovering the nature of the differential response.
The dimensions of brand knowledge are displayed in Figure 5.
brand recall brand recognition Brand awareness
price packaging user imagery usage imagery
non-product-related product-related attributes
functional experiential
symbolic
benefits attitudes types of
brand associations
favorability of brand associations
strength of brand associations
uniqueness of brand associations Brand image
Brand Knowledge
Figure 5: Dimensions Of Brand Knowledge (Keller 1993)
Ten year later Keller (2003a) defined eight key dimensions of brand knowledge. The dimension awareness, attributes, benefits, and attitudes where already part of the model of 1993. The dimensions images, thoughts, feelings and experiences are new compared to the model of 1993. The dimensions of brand knowledge (2003a) are:
1. Awareness: “category identification and needs satisfaction by the brand.”
2. Attributes: “descriptive features that characterize the brand name product either intrinsically (e.g. related to brand personality or heritage) or extrinsically (e.g. related to brand personality or heritage).”
3. Benefits: “personal value and meaning that consumers attach to the brand’s product attributes (e.g. functional, symbolic, or experiential consequences from the brand’s purchase or consumption).”
4. Images: “visual information, either concrete or abstract in nature.”
5. Thoughts: “personal cognitive responses to any brand-related information.”
6. Feelings: “personal affective responses to any brand-related information.”
7. Attitudes: “summary judgments and overall evaluations to any brand-related information.”
8. Experiences: “purchase and consumption behaviors and any other brand- related episodes.”
3.1.3 J. Aaker – Brand Personality
Researchers suggest that brand personality boosts the preference and product use of
a consumer (Sirgy 1982) and it brings emotions to mind (Biel 1992), but it is unclear
if and how brand personality affects CBBE measures (Yoo and Donthu 2001, Netemeyer et al. 2004, Fournier 1998).
Aaker (1997) constructed five brand personality dimensions (Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness) based on the Big Five personality traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness to experience) in order to understand the symbolic use of brands. Aaker (1997) used exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in different test stages. More than 600 subjects rated over 300 personality traits across 35 brands (ranging from FMCG products like beverages to durables like cars). Two of the dimensions (sophistication and ruggedness) differ from any of the Big Five of human personality. According to Aaker (1997) Agreeableness relates to Sincerity, Extroversion relates to Excitement and Conscientiousness relates to Competence.
Especially brand personality could be very useful in measuring brand image over all product categories and services, because brand personality is for example not as product specific as product-related attributes. The Brand Personality Framework of Aaker (1997) is shown in Figure 6.
Down-to-earth Honest Wholesome Cheerful
Sincerity
Daring Spirited Imaginative Up-to-date
Excitement
Reliable Intelligent Successful
Competence
Upper class Charming Sophistication
Outdoorsy Tough
Ruggedness Brand Personality
Figure 6: Brand Personality Framework (J. Aaker 1997)
3.1.4 R.T. Rust, K.N. Lemon, N. Narayandas - Customer Equity
Rust et al. (2005) say customer equity consists of three components: (1) value equity,
(2) brand equity, and (3) relationship equity. The three value equity drivers are: (1)
quality, (2) price and (3) convenience. The three brand drivers are: (1) awareness,
(2) attitude, and (3) ethics. The three most important drivers of relationship equity
are: (1) loyalty programs, (2) affinity, and (3) knowledge building. Figure 7 illustrates
the Customer Equity Framework.
Quality Price
Convenience Value Equity
Awareness Attitude Ethics
Brand Equity
Loyalty programs Affinity
Knowledge Building Relationship Equity Customer Equity
Figure 7: Customer Equity Framework (Rust et al. 2005)
According to Rust et al. (2005: 238) brand equity matters most (1) when purchases requiring only low levels of involvement and simple decision processes, (2) when the product or service is highly visible to others, (3) when experiences associated with the product or service can be passed from one individual or generation to the next, or (4) when it is difficult to evaluate the quality of a product or service prior to consumption.
Rust et al. (2005: 270) argue value equity matters most (1) when the customer can discern differences between competing products, (2) when innovative products and services are introduced, (3) when customers face complex purchase decisions, and (4) when firms want to reinvigorate mature products or services.
Rust et al. (2005) do not give guidelines when relationship equity matters most like
they did with brand equity and value equity.
3.2 Leading Models In Business Measuring CBBE
The leading business models discussed in this paragraph are respectively Young and Rubicam’s BrandAsset Valuator, TNS’s Conversion Model, Millward Brown’s Brand Dynamics, Harris Interactive’s EquiTrend, and Research International’s Equity Engine.
TNS’s Conversion Model and Millward Brown’s Brand Dynamics model are respectively a commitment and a loyalty model. They are included in this research because loyalty is important in measuring CBBE. For example Brand Loyalty is one of the five dimensions in the CBBE model of Aaker (1991).
The models are chosen because IVNSS considers them as important models and they are mentioned in Franzen (2006).
3.2.1 Young and Rubicam’s BrandAsset Valuator
According to Keller (2003b: 509) Young and Rubicam’s BrandAsset Valuator (BAV) is
“world’s largest database of consumer-derived information on brands”. BAV let respondents evaluate brands from many different categories instead of conventional brand image surveys where respondents answer questions about one product category. The four dimensions of BAV are:
1. Differentiation: “measures the degree to which a brand is seen as different from others. This is a necessary condition for profitable brand building” (Keller 2003b:
509). This dimension relates to Keller’s (1993) uniqueness of brand associations.
2. Relevance: “measures the breadth of a brand’s appeal (the overall size of a brand’s franchise) but not necessarily its profitability” (Keller 2003b: 509). This dimension relates to Keller’s (1993) strength and favorability of brand associations.
3. Esteem: “measures how well the brand is regarded and respected – in short, how well it is liked” (Keller 2003b: 509). This dimension relates to Keller’s (1993) brand associations.
4. Knowledge: “measures how familiar and intimate consumers are with brand.”
(Keller 2003b: 509). This dimension relates to Keller’s (1993) brand awareness.
Figure 8.
The Young and Rubicam’s BrandAsset Valuator is shown in
Figure 8: Young And Rubicam’s Brandasset Valuator
The difference between BAV and Keller (1993) is how they treat awareness and familiarity (Keller 2003b: 517). Keller (1993) argues that awareness is a necessary first step in building brand equity, while BAV deals with familiarity in an affective manner as the last step in building brand equity (Keller 2003b: 517).
Young and Rubicam argue that in general strong brands develop first the Differentiation level. Leadership brands show high levels on all four levels. An eroding differentiation level characterizes a declining brand.
Furthermore a Power Grid (Figure 9) is developed with four quadrants, measuring a brand’s strength on one axis and measuring its growth prospects on the other axis.
Based on this axis they can tell a brand fells in one of the four quadrants: (1)
unfocused or new, (2) unrealized potential, (3) leadership, and (4) eroding.
Figure 9: BAV Power Grid
3.2.2 TNS’s Conversion Model
According to TNS, the Conversion Model is the world's leading measure of commitment. It measures the strength of the relationship between customers and products or services. It is a psychological measure, not a behavioral one. It is based on the recognition that commitment underpins loyalty, but loyalty is not the same as commitment. Loyalty is what people do - the likelihood of repurchase based on past behavior. Commitment, on the other hand, is about how people feel - the likelihood of repurchase based on what's in the consumer's mind. Knowledge of the extent of commitment provides insight in the strength of a brand and its competitors.
The Conversion Model divides consumers into segments based on their response to different questions about four dimensions:
1. Satisfaction: how satisfied is the consumer with the product he uses at the moment?
2. Involvement: how important is the choice for a particular brand? Does it matter whether brand A or brand B is purchased?
3. Attitude towards alternatives: how attractive are competing brands?
4. Ambivalence: to what extent is the consumer attracted by several different brands at the same time?
The consumer response is also used to divide the market into four types of users
(entrenched, average, shallow, convertible) that vary in degree of commitment, and
four types of non-users (available, ambivalent, weakly unavailable, strongly
unavailable) that vary in degree of availability for the brand. The four types of users and non-users are shown in Figure 10.
Uncommitted Users
Available Non- users
Unavailable Non- users Committed Users
Figure 10: User Types In TNS’s Conversion Model
Entrenched: Consumers who are strongly committed to the brand they are currently using - they are highly unlikely to switch brands in the foreseeable future.
Average: They are also committed to the brand they are currently using, but not as strongly - they are unlikely to switch brands in the short term.
Shallow: Consumers who are uncommitted to the brand and could switch - some are actively considering alternatives.
Convertible: Users of the brand who are most likely to defect.
Available: Non-users of the brand who are most likely to be acquired in the short term.
Ambivalent: Non-users who are attracted to the brands they are to their current brands.
Weakly Unavailable: Non-users who are not available to the brand, but only weakly.
Strongly Unavailable: Non-users who are highly unlikely to switch to the brand - their preference lies strongly with their current brands.
3.2.3 Millward Brown’s Brand Dynamics
Millward Brown argues it does not believe in theories of what might drive consumer loyalty. They found out consumers move to loyalty via stages ranging from simply be aware of a brand to be fiercely loyal. Those stages are presented in their Brand Dynamics Pyramid (Figure 11). According to Millward Brown the consumers in the top level have a stronger relationship with the brand and they spend more of their category expenditure on the brand. The levels from low loyalty to high loyalty are respectively:
1. Presence: Active familiarity based on past trial, saliency or knowledge of brand promise.
2. Relevance: Relevant to consumer’s needs, in the right price range or in consideration set.
3. Performance: Felt to deliver acceptable product performance, and is on the
consumer’s short-list.
4. Advantage: Felt to have an emotional, rational, status or saliency based advantage.
5. Bonding: Rational and emotional attachments to the brand to the exclusion of most other brands. They are likely to be advocates of the brand.
Figure 11: Brand Dynamics Pyramid
Furthermore they developed BrandVoltage, a summary measure that tells how well a brand converts people to loyalty. It shows the likelihood of sales growth or decline.
They map the brand and its competitors in the product category across two
dimensions: (1) BrandVoltage, and (2) Presence. This map (Figure 12) illustrates
whether one is managing an up-and-coming brand or a declining brand.
Figure 12: Brand Dynamics Map
Moreover they investigate the brand's positioning (its uniqueness and relevance versus the competition), the brand's personality and how attractive it is, and an inventory of associations – the brand's mental assets that reside in consumers’ heads.
All of these attributes contribute to brand loyalty. Millward Brown considers the brand in all of these areas relative to other brands and puts it into context by considering the brand's foundations – the product truths that positioning and personality are based on market and category trends, and social and political trends. This framework is illustrated in Figure 13.
Figure 13: Framework For Brand Understanding (Brand Dynamics)
3.2.4 Harris Interactive’s EquiTrend
EquiTrend is a tracking study that measures and compares brand equity for more than 1,000 brands in 35 categories. According to Harris Interactive, EquiTrend gives insight into how a brand compares to its competitors and across markets. It determines the strengths and weaknesses of a brand among specific consumer demographic segments and it assesses the impact of advertising and marketing campaigns.
EquiTrend measures brand health on 5 dimensions (Figure 14):
1. Familiarity: “the more people know your brand, the more likely they are to buy your brand if they like it” (Harris Interactive). Familiarity is calculated as the percentage of respondents who indicated they were (Top 3 Box on 1-5 scale) somewhat, very or extremely familiar with a brand.
2. Quality: “the general population’s opinion about a brand” (Harris Interactive).
3. Purchase intent: “this measure indicates the likelihood of the consumer’s relationship with the brand. The question is asked in the context of ‘regardless of price, how likely are you to purchase this brand’ ” (Harris Interactive).
4. Brand expectations: “after consumers were made aware of your brand, bought it and used it – did it live up to its promise? Did it deliver on what they expected, compared to other brands in its category?” (Harris Interactive).
5. Distinctiveness: “this measure provides a supplemental perspective on a brand’s status among its competitors. In other words, are there brands that stand out more than others to most consumers? Can we determine if a brand is perceived as unique in comparison to its competitors?” (Harris Interactive).
Figure 14: Five Dimensions Of Equitrend
Besides those five measures they also calculate Equity and Overall Relevance. Equity
is a combination of the Quality, Familiarity and Purchase Intent variables. Familiarity is
weighted according to (5=1.0, 4=0.9, 3=0.8). This measure is then multiplied by the
mean of Quality and rescaled Purchase Intent. The result is indexed on 100. Similar to
Equity, a brand’s overall relevance score is determined by a calculation of Familiarity,
Quality, and Purchase Intent. For the purpose of the Overall Relevance calculation,
Familiarity is weighted according to (5=1.0, 4=0.9, 3=0.8, 2=0.4, 1=0.0). That
number is then multiplied by the mean of Quality and rescaled Purchase
Consideration. The result is indexed on 100.
3.2.5 Research International’s Equity Engine
Research International argues that analysis of their Equity Engine database of more than 2,500 brands enables them to predict whether a brand is likely to increase its market share, or disappear over a cliff.
Equity Engine measures the key components of a brand’s equity. In particular it measures (1) the contribution of emotional and functional characteristics, (2) the relationship between equity and price in delivering consumer perceived value, and (3) the importance of these drivers within the brand’s category.
Brand equity is measured on two dimensions: (1) affinity: the emotional and intangible benefits it brings, and (2) perceived functional performance. The three drivers of affinity are:
1. Authority: the reputation of a brand, whether as a long-standing leader or as a pioneer in innovation. Authority is measured on heritage, trust, and innovation.
a. Heritage: Long standing reputation and leadership.
b. Trust: The brand as something one can trust or rely on.
c. Innovative: Leading edge, at the forefront of new development.
2. Identification: the closeness customers feel for a brand, and how well they feel the brand matches their personal needs. Identification is measured on bonding, caring, and nostalgia.
a. Bonding: Brand with which the consumer feels comfortable emotionally.
b. Caring: Understanding the consumer as an individual, knows what he/she needs.
c. Nostalgia: Association with happy personal memories.
3. Approval: the way a brand fits into the wider social matrix; the intangible status it holds for experts and friends. Approval is measured on prestige, acceptability, and endorsement.
a. Prestige: Upmarket, upscale or premium.
b. Acceptability: Seen as a ‘good choice’ by peers.
c. Endorsement: Used or approved by experts or ‘people I respect’.
The whole model is shown in Figure 15.
Figure 15: Equity Engine Model (the percentages are just an example)
The Equity Engine model shows how customers’ perceptions of Affinity and Performance interact to drive brand equity, and how consumers relate that equity to their perceptions of Price in judging value and making choices. For every product category the influence on equity is assessed.
3.3 Conclusion
Based on the frameworks in this chapter, the differences between all academic and
business models can be found in Table 4 including BPA. Roughly one can find five
dimensions across all CBBE-models. These dimensions are awareness, loyalty,
differentiation, benefits and brand associations. Some models miss one or more of
those dimensions. This does not always mean they do not measure this dimension,
especially in case of the business models, because this research has not very specific
information about the models in terms of analyses and items they measure. BPA of
IVNSS is a good example, because their framework does not show a differentiation
dimension, but in reality they take the whole market into consideration. The model of
J. Aaker is not a CBBE-model and therefore this model misses four dimensions. TNS’s
conversion model is much of a loyalty model or as they say a model that measures
commitment.
Table 4: Differences Between The Academic And Business Models
Model Awareness Loyalty Differentiation Benefits Associations
D.A. Aaker Awareness Loyalty - Quality Brand
Associations (1991)
D.A. Aaker Awareness Loyalty Differentiation, Quality Associations
(1996) Leadership
K.L. Keller (1993)
Awareness Favorability Uniqueness Brand Image (Attributes, Benefits)
Brand Image (Attitudes)
J. Aaker (1997)
- - - - Brand
Personality Rust et al.
(2005)
Brand Equity (Awareness),
Relationship Equity (Loyalty, Affinity)
- Value Equity
(Quality, Price,
Convenience)
Brand Equity (Attitude, Ethics) Relationship
Equity (Knowledge Building) BrandAsset
Valuator
Knowledge Esteem Differentiation - -
(Y&R) Conversion Model
- Satisfaction, Attitude Toward Alternatives,
- -
Involvement
(TNS) Ambivalence
Brand Dynamics
Presence Bonding, Positioning, Performance Brand Personality, Loyalty Foundations,
(Millward Brown)
Relevance, Brand
Inventory of Associations Advantage
Equitrend - Affinity - Performance Affinity
(Authority, Identification, Approval) (Harris
Interactive)
Equity Engine
Familiarity Purchase Intent
Distinctiveness Quality Brand
Expectations (R.I.)
BPA Presence Benefits, Personality
(IVNSS) Price/Quality,
Value
A list with items extracted from the academic and business models including BPA are
mentioned in Table 5 and in Appendix 9: Questionnaire – Inspiration List And
Application. The first column of the table in the appendix shows the dimension in the
specific model. If available, the second column shows items that can be used in
measuring a certain dimension. The last column shows the application in this research.
The list with the numbered Ima-items that are mentioned in this column can be found in Appendix 5: An Outline Of The Association Items Per Product Category. This appendix shows all 47 association items used in this research and can be found as well in Appendix 11: Questionnaire – The 47 Association Items And Their Origin. The last appendix shows the origin of the specific association item between brackets.
Table 5: Compact List Of All Items Extracted From Business And Academic Models
x Top of mind (Awareness) x Brand recall (Awareness) x Brand recognition
(Awareness) x Brand unawareness
(Awareness) x Brand dominance
(Awareness) x Brand knowledge
(Awareness) x Brand opinion
(Awareness) x Committed buyer
(Loyalty)
x Like the brand, consider it a friend (Loyalty) x Satisfied buyer with
switching costs (Loyalty) x Habitual buyer (Loyalty) x Switchers/no brand
loyalty (Loyalty) x Perceived quality x Brand associations x Price
x Price premium (Loyalty) x Satisfaction/loyalty
(Loyalty) x Perceived quality
(Perceived quality / Leadership)
x Leadership/popularity (Perceived quality / Leadership) x Perceived value
(Associations / Differentiation) x Brand Personality
(Associations / Differentiation) x Organizational
Associations (Associations / Differentiation) x Brand Awareness
(Awareness)
x Market share (Market behaviour)
x Market Price and Distribution Coverage (Market behaviour) x Brand recall (Brand
awareness)
x Brand recognition (Brand awareness)
x Attributes (Brand image) x Benefits (Brand image) x Attitude (Brand image) x Favourability (Brand
image)
x Strength (Brand image) x Uniqueness (Brand
image) x Awareness x Attributes x Benefits x Images x Thoughts x Feelings x Attitudes x Experiences
x Down-to-earth (Sincerity) x Honest (Sincerity) x Wholesome (Sincerity) x Cheerful (Sincerity) x Daring (Excitement) x Spirited (Excitement) x Imaginative (Excitement) x Up-to-date (Excitement) x Reliable (Competence) x Intelligent (Competence) x Successful (Competence) x Upper class
(Sophistication) x Charming
(Sophistication)
x Outdoorsy (Ruggedness) x Tough (Ruggedness) x Quality (Value equity) x Price (Value equity)
x Convenience (Value equity)
x Awareness (Brand equity)
x Attitude (Brand equity) x Ethics (Brand equity) x Loyalty programs
(Relationship equity) x Affinity (Relationship
equity)
x Knowledge building (Relationship equity) x Differentiation (Brand
strength)
x Relevance (Brand strength)
x Esteem (Brand stature) x Knowledge (Brand
stature) x Satisfaction x Involvement x Attitude towards
alternatives x Ambivalence x Presence x Relevance x Performance x Advantage x Bonding x Brand voltage x Brand Personality x Brand Inventory of
associations x Brand positioning x Brand loyalty x Brand foundations x Familiarity x Quality
x Purchase intent x Brand expectations x Distinctiveness x Heritage (Authority) x Trust (Authority) x Innovative (Authority) x Bonding (Identification)
x Caring (Identification) x Nostalgia (Identification) x Prestige (Approval) x Acceptability (Approval) x Endorsement (Approval) x Safe
x Attractive design / styling x During / lasting
x Eye for detail / sophisticated
x Has competent personnel x Has friendly personnel x Has benevolent personnel x Pleasant
x Complies with appointments x Has service directed
personnel x Wide assortment x Deep assortment x Well-organized x Effective
x Attractive service program
x Offers protection x Gives a save feeling x Value for money x Cheap
x Good quality / decorated x Expensive
x Has attractive offers x Has many offers x Authentic
x Honest and Sincere x Sympathetic (friendly) x Innovative (renovating) x Sportsmanlike
x Progressive
x No-nonsense / sober x Passion
x Young
x Trendy / fashionable x Modest
x Arrogant x Old fashion x Without character x Aggressive x Defines the norm x Provocative x Sexy x Stylish
x Rebellious (obstinate) x A specialist
x Involved x Pro active x Prestigious x Conservative x Tough
x Representative x Eye for customer x Suitable for businessmen x Suitable for families x Suitable for people who
dare to do unusual things x Suitable for hedonists x Suitable for ambitious and successful people x Suitable for everybody x Suitable for critical
people
x Suitable for braggarts x Suitable for intelligent
people x Innovative x Positive thinking x Active
x Independent x Competent x Distant x Influential x Friendly x Easy to reach
x In the neighbor
x Often in the media (a lot of advertisement) x Easy to obtain x Generates a lot of
advertisement x Famous
x Often in the news x Shows what they are
doing
x Informs and educates consumers
x Influences officials and politicians
x Offers fun
x Current assortment x Reliable
x Offers freedom x Approachable x Inspires me x Takes the personal
wishes of our company into account
x Foresees quick in an appeal
x Informs a lot
x Is produced with a lot of attention
x Goes in front with product development x Has a lot of knowledge x Do I feel familiar with x Gives freedom / self-
confidence
x They show willingness for things I hold in great esteem
x Good service
x Environmentally aware x Innovative technique x Works very well
