Brand Equity: Dish Home Brand Equity: Dish Home of Nepalof Nepal

Dr. Dhruba Kumar Gautam Associate Professor, Tribhuvan University

Sajeeb Kumar Shrestha Ph.D. Research Fellow,

Teaching Assistant, Tribhuvan UniversityICMC 2015, Dec 3-4

Birla Institute of Management Technology, Greater Noida1

Background of the Background of the StudyStudy

Brand equity provides the value of brand to the product.

If customer-based brand equity becomes positive it can generate more revenue, reduce company's operations costs, build greater profit margins and impact on the company's marketing practices (Keller, 2003).

2

Dish HomeDish HomeEstablished in 2009.Digital satellite services to

individual homes of Nepal. (DTH)Without use of any wire, cables, or

cable infrastructure throughout the coverage in the region.

3

4

……DTH service all over Nepal. 87 distributors and nearly 2,000 sub

distributors.Strong content portfolio (various channels) Customer base: 1,25,000 in Kathmandu .Nationwide: 5 lakh, and in increasing trend.

5

Research Questions and Research Questions and ObjectivesObjectivesQuestions:What is the application of brand

equity model in Dish Home?

ObjectivesTo find the significance of brand

equity dimensions on Dish Home.

6

Figure 1: Research Framework7

Research Framework

PQQ

BAWWBLL

BASS

H3 = 3

H1=1

H2=2

H4 = 1

H5=2

H6 = 3

HypothesesH1(1) = Brand awareness has significant effect on

perceived quality. H2(2) = Brand awareness has significant effect on brand

association.H3(3) = Brand awareness has significant effect on brand

loyalty.H4(1) = Perceived quality has significant effect on brand

association.H5(2) = Perceived quality has significant effect on brand

loyalty.H6(3) = Brand association has significant effect on

brand loyalty. 8

MethodologyMethodologyResearch design: Descriptive and

Explanatory.Population: Dish Home users in

Kathmandu valley.Sample: 214 Dish Home users approached in

Kathmandu Valley. Sample Methods: Convenience Sampling. Data: Primary data.Instrument: Structured questionnaire. Tools of Analysis: SEM

9

AnalysisAnalysisExploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)Bartlett's test of Sphericity (Chi-square 1757.92; df

210; sig. 0.000) Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) = 0.85Sample were adequate and data were enough for

factor analysis. Four factors were extracted that cumulatively

accounted 56 percent of the total variance. All the statements with factor loadings greater

than 0.5 were grouped in the corresponding factor.

10

11

Table1: Rotated Component Matrix

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component1 2 3 4

0BL6 0.83BL5 0.817BL4 0.694BL3 0.676

BAS2 0.759BAW5 0.696BAS6 0.68BAS1 0.653BAW2 0.801BAW4 0.773

PQ5 0.67PQ3 0.824PQ4 0.757

BAW1 0.667Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

12

Table 2: Model Fit Indices

Fit IndicesCMIN/DF CFI GFI RMSEA RMR

3-5 >.90 >.90 .1 .5

Final Measurement Model 1.66 0.941 0.921 0.56 0.033

Validity and Reliability of the Model

Discriminant Validity AVE should be greater than 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker,

1981). AVE should be greater than MSV AVE should be greater than ASV.

Convergent Validity:Construct Reliability (CR) should be greater than 0.7 CR should be greater than AVE.

13

Table3: Validity and Reliability of Table3: Validity and Reliability of ConstructsConstructs

14

CR AVE MSV ASV BAWW BLL BASS PQQ

BAWW 0.769 0.527 0.371 0.269 0.726

BLL 0.792 0.504 0.190 0.154 0.350 0.71

BASS 0.713 0.503 0.371 0.29 0.609 0.436 0.620

PQQ 0.729 0.516 0.314 0.257 0.560 0.386 0.556 0.690

Figure 2: Final Overall Measurement Model 15

Figure 3: Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) 16

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

17

Variance Explained by Structural Model

• Perceived quality (.313 or 31.3%), • Brand association (.438 or 43.8%) and • Brand loyalty (.223 or 22.3%).

18

Hypotheses Testing

Hypothesis From TOStandardized Coefficients

S.E. t-value Label

H1 BAWW PQQ 0.48 0.08 5.968 Supported

H2 BAWW BASS 0.439 0.117 3.759 Supported

H3 BAWW BLL 0.088 0.152 0.582 Not supported

H4 PQQ BASS 0.371 0.134 2.769 Supported

H5 PQQ BLL 0.277 0.169 1.642 Not supported

H6 BASS BLL 0.369 0.16 2.31 Supported

FindingsFindingsBrand awareness and perceived quality

had no effect on brand loyalty. Brand association has significant effect

on brand loyalty. Brand awareness affects perceived

quality and brand association and simultaneously these factors have combined affect on brand loyalty which leads the brand equity of Dish Home.

19

ConclusionConclusionThe study confirmed that proposed

model also exists in the Dish Home. The study is consisted with Koirala

and Shrestha (2015), Dua and others (2013); Tong and Hawley (2009).

The SEM model confirmed that brand awareness, perceived quality; brand associations and brand loyalty were the antecedent factors for brand equity for Dish Home.

20

……

Companies should focus on brand loyalty programmes to increase and retain brand loyal customers.

Dish Home is preferred due to various reasons - picture quality, brand name, valued monthly packages, more HD channels, and attractive price ranges.

21

22