study of the relationship between brand awareness

8/6/2019 Study of the Relationship Between Brand Awareness

1/20

1

STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

BRANDAWARENESS, BRAND ASSOCIATION, PERCEIVED

QUALITY, AND BRAND LOYALTY

Shu -Hsien Liao

Dept. of Management Sciences and Decision Making, Tamkang University,NO. 151, Yingjuan Rd, Dansui Jen, Taipei 251, Taiwan, R.O.C

[email protected] Widowati PA

Department of Management Science Tamkang University, Taiwan.NO. 151, Yingjuan Rd, Dansui Jen, Taipei 251, Taiwan, R.O.C

[email protected] Hu

Department of Management Science, Tamkang University Taiwan.

NO. 151, Yingjuan Rd, Dansui Jen, Taipei 251, Taiwan, R.O.C

[email protected]

ABSTRACTThis research investigated direct and indirect relationship between brand equityconstructs which includes brand awareness, brand association,perceived quality, andbrand loyalty. We implement Structural Equation Modellingwith LISREL to examine thehypothesis. The finding showed that there is a significant and positive direct effectbetween brand awareness toward brand associations, and brand association towardperceived quality and brand loyalty. We argue that brand association plays as asuppressor in our model that leads to inverse relation between brand awareness andperceived quality. With respects to the mediating effect ofperceived quality to therelationship between brand awareness towards brand loyalty and brand association

towards brand loyalty, our finding showed thatperceived quality does notplay as amediator role in thisstudy. On the otherhand,we find that brand association is a veryimportantvariable whichmediate the relationship between brand awarenesstoward brandloyalty.

Keywords: Brand Equity, Brand awareness, Brand Association, Perceived Quality, BrandLoyalty.


2/20

2

INTRODUCTIONThe issue of brand equity emerge asone ofthe most crucial topics formarketing

managementin 1990s and its concept and measurementhasinterested academicians andpractitioners formore thanone decade.There have beenthree differentperspectives forconsidering brand equity;The customer- based perspectives,the financial perspectives

and combined perspectives. While thisstudy focuson customer based brand equity.In recent years, customer-based brand equity has garnered considerableattention. Operationalizationof customer based-brand equity usually fall intotwogroups:consumerperception and consumer behaviour, e.g. Mahajan, Rao, and Srivastava (1991)claimed that a customer-based brand equity could be measured bythe level of consumerperception. While Farquhar (1990) claimed that brand equity is reflected bythe changeof consumer attitude while purchasing a product. Later researchers, beside using twoapproach: consumer perception and consumer behaviour, some combined the twoapproach and some were related brand equity to other variable as antecedents andconsequences of brand equity, e.g. Keller (1993, 2001) mentioned about brandknowledge as combination between brand awareness and brand image, Lassar et al.

(1995) evaluate onlyperceptual dimensions, Blackston (1995) study aboutthe conceptofbrand meaning which include objective brand (personality characteristic, brand image)and subjective brand (brand attitude), Dyson et al (1996) using brand loyalty and brandattitude, Motameni and Shakroki (1998) proposed conceptofglo bal brand equity usingbrand strength and Prasad and Dev (2000) using brand performance and brand awarenessto develop brand equity index. While Aakers (1991, 1996) incorporated themeasurement, suggested measure four dimensions of brand equity: brand awareness,brand associationperceived quality, and brand loyalty.

Considering its comprehensiveness, this study based on the concept of brandequity by Aaker (1991, 1996) who established the four dimensionsmodel of consumerbased brand equitywhichthe dimensionalityhas been tested bysome researchers: (CobbWalgren et al, 1995; Yoo & Donthu, 2001; Washburn and Plank, 2002; Pappu et al, 1998,2005; Atilgan, 2005; and Kim and Kim, 2005).

Consistentwith Aakers conceptualization, Cobb-Walgren et al. (1995) and Pappuet al (2005) found four dimensionsof brand equity,while contrasted with findingsof Yooand Donthu (2001,2002) and Washburn and Plank (2002) that also based on Aakersconceptualization, butobserved onlythree brand equity dimensions.

While previous studies tested and found associative relationship among thedimensionsof brand equity, beside testingthe dimensionality,thispresent researchtestedthe direct and indirect causal relationship among comprehensive dimensions of brandequitywhich included brand awareness, brand association,perceived quality and brandloyalty. By doingso,we also could find which dimensionshasinfluenced brand loyalty.In addition, although numerous local or glo bal differentproduct categories have beenemployed tomeasure the brand equity, literature on brand equitywithin the hospitalityindustrystill relatively limited (e.g. Kim and Kim (2005) using luxuryhotel and chainrestaurant; Atilgan (2005) using beverage industry; even Pappu et al. (2005) using carbrands and television brandsThis researchwouldprovide manager and researcher a conceptual frameworkto describethe relationships betweenthe brand equity constructs and a more thorough understandingof consumer behaviour that implies formarketing strategist formaking better strategic


3/20

3

decision about targetmarket definition and product aswell as better tactical decisionsaboutspecific marketing-mix actions.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Brand Equity

The issue of brand equityhas emerged asone of the most crucial topics formarketingmanagement since 1990s( Leuthesser,1988; Keller,1993; Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, &Dontu, 1995: Lassar, Mittal & Sharma, 1995; Aaker, 1996; Dyson, Farr, and Hollis,1996; Faircloth et al. 2001, Esch et al, 2006; Ramos & Franco et al. 2005.Brand equityhas been considered inmany context:the value added tothe product (Jones,1986; Lethesser 1988; Farquhar, 1990; Aaker,1991,1996,1999; Keller, 1993,1998, 1999;Kapferer, 1997); value of the firm (Aaker, 1991; Kim & Kim, 2005); value of thecustomer(Aaker1991; Martensen & Gronholt, 2003); brand preference, purchaseintention (Lattin, 1987; Zeithaml 1988; Hardie et al 1993; Cobb-Wagren 1995); brandloyalty, brand awarenessperceived quality, brand associations (Aaker, 1991; Keller,1993;

Gralpois 1998, Pappu et al, 2005; Atilgan et al, 2005); differential effect of brandknowledge of consumer response to the marketingof brand (Keller,1993); incrementalutility (Simon & Sullivan, 1993); consequence ofmarketing efforts (Ramos & Franco,2005).There have beenthree differentperspectives for considering brand equity;The customer-based perspectives, the financial perspectives and combined perspectives. While thisstudy focusonthe customer based perspectives.

Customer- Based Brand Equity.The advantage of conceptualizing brand equity from the Customer- based

perspective is that it enables managers to consider specifically how their marketing

programsimprovesthe value oftheir brandsinthe mindsof consumers.Within the marketing literature, operationalization of customer based-brand

equity usually fall intotwogroups (Cobb-Walgren et al. (1995); Yoo & Donthu (2001)):consumer perception (brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality ) andconsumer behaviour (brand loyalty,willingnesstopay a highprice).

Mahajan, Rao, and Srivastava (1991) claimed that a customer-based brandequity could be measured bythe level of customersperception. Alsooperationalized byLassar et al. (1995) as an enhancement of the perceived utility and desirability that abrand name confers on a product. According to them, costumer- based brand equityindicatesonlyperceptual dimensions, not including behavioral or attitudinal such asloyaltyor usage intention,which differs from Aakers (1991) whosuggested tomeasure

brand equity including behavioural and attitudinal dimensions. Farquhar (1990)maintained that brand equity is reflected by the change of consumer attitude whilepurchasing a product. Aaker (1991) incorporated definitions, the four dimensions ofbrand equity namely brand awareness, brand associationperceived quality, and brandloyalty.Customer- Based Brand Equity is defined as a setof Brand assets and liabilities linkedto a brand, itsname and symbol that add toor subtract from the value provided by aproductorservice to a firms consumers ( Aaker,1991).


4/20

4

Onthe otherhand,some researcher related the customer based brand equitywithother construct, e.g. Farquhar and Ijiri (1991) proposed a model by judging thecorporationsmarketing effortson its brand directly. While Lassar et al (1995) focusedon relationship between customer based and financial/ market based brand equitymeasurement. Customer-based brand equity in this respect, is the driving force for

incremental financial gainstothe firm.

Table 1. Main different concepts:

Maincontributor

Concept

Mahajan Rao(1991)

Measure customer based brand equity by the level of customersperception

Farquhar(1990)

-Brand equity is reflected by the change of consumerattitude whilepurchasing a product.

Aaker ( 1991) Measuring the four dimensions of brand equity: brand awareness,brand associationperceived quality, and brand loyalty.

Keller (1993) Adopted two basic approaches ( direct and indirect ) tomeasurecustomer- based brand equity emphasizing two constructs: brandawareness and brand image. The indirect approach to identifypotential sources of costumer- based brand equities The directapproach focuses on consumer response to different elements offirmsmarketing program.

Farquhar &Ijiri(1991)

Judgingthe corporationsmarketing effortsonits brand directly.

Lassar et al,1995 Relationship between customer based and financial/ market basedbrand equity measurement. Customer-based brand equity in thisrespect, is the driving force for incremental financial gains to thefirm.

Hypothesis

Relationships between Brand Awareness and Brand Associations.Aaker (1991,1996) argued that brand equity is a multidimensional construct,

which consistsof brand loyalty,Customer based brand awareness, perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand

awareness and brand associations. brand equityoccurswhen the consumerhas a highlevel of awareness and familiaritywiththe brand and holdssome strong, favourable, andunique brand associationmemory.

Fiske and Taylor (1995) contended that brand associations could be recalled incustomers mind as emotional impressions. Brand awareness influences consumerdecisions making by affecting the strength of the brand associations in theirmind.(Keller,1993,1997). Pitta and Katsanis ( 1995) alsopointed out that there areseveral dimensionsof brand awareness with brand associations.They further indicated


5/20

5

that brand associations of the product can be stored in consumers minds after brandawarenessofthe product are alreadyintheirmemory.

Brand awareness and brand associationswere found to be correlated (Atilgan etal 2005; and Pappu et al 2005). Moreover, high levels of brand awarenesspositivelyaffect the formation of the products brand image ( association) (Ramos and

Franco,2005). Esch et al ( 2006) also found that brand awareness affects brand image (association).These literature review leadstohypotheses H1

H1: Brand Awarenesshas a positive direct effectto Brand Associations.

The Relationship between Brand Awareness, Brand Association and Brand Loyalty

Yoo, Donthu and Lee, (2000) researched about brand awareness with brandassociations and brand equity. These researchers indicated that brand awareness withbrand associationhas a significantpositive effecton brand equity.

While brand loyalty can be defined as combinationof elements including thedegree of customersatisfaction and the positive of brand associations.Thusit can be seenthatif customershad higher brand associations and brand awareness, brand loyaltywouldincrease. Similarlyin Atilgans (2005) study,the more favourable associations consumershave towards a brand,the more their loyalty and vice versa.These literature review leadstohypotheses H2, H3H2: Brand Awarenesshas a positive direct effectto Brand loyaltyH3 : Brand Association has a positive direct effectto Brand Loyalty

The Relationship between brand awareness, brand association and perceived quality.

Asstudied by Aaker (1991), Keller (1993) and Pappu et al (2005), consumerwhohold favourable associations towards a brand are also likely to develop favourableperceptionsof quality and vice versa. Brand awarenessintheirstudyhas been defined asconsumers ability to recall that a brand is a member ofproduct category. Consumersbrand awarenessis likelyto be highwhentheyhave strong associations forthe brand andwhentheyperceived the qualityofthe brand to be high and vice a versa.These literature review leadstohypotheses H4 and H5:H4: Brand Awarenesshas a positive direct effectto Perceived Quality.H5: Brand Associationshas a positive direct effectto Perceived Quality.

The Relationship between Perceived Quality and Brand Loyalty.

For several studies found that brand loyalty is related perceived quality ( McConnel,1968, Shapiro,1970 Szybiloo and Jacoby,1974) as reviewed by Lau and Lee(1999).

Atilgan et al. (2005) studied the relationship between the dimensions of brandequity and brand equity itself.They concluded that brand loyalty is the most influencedimensionof brand equity. Eventheirstudy did notgive enoughsupporttothe existenceof a direct causal relationship between the three dimensions brand awareness, brandassociation, and perceived quality and brand equity However, observed pair-wise


6/20

6

comparison suggested that there is a correlation between brand loyalty, brandawareness, and perceived quality. As a result they suggested that concentrating brandloyalty, should not undervalue the effect of brand awareness and perceived quality tobrand loyalty.

As Pappu et als study (2005) is envisaged that consumersperception of

qualitywill be associated withtheir brand loyalty.The more brand loyal a consumer is,the more he orshe is likelytoperceived the brand asofferingsuperior quality and vice aversa.

These literature review leadstohypotheses H6H6 : Perceived Qualityhas a positive direct effect to Brand Loyalty

The Mediating Effect of Perceived Quality

Brand awarenesshas been define as consumers abilityto recall that a brand is amemberofproduct category (Aaker, 1991). Consumers brand awareness is likely to behigh when they have strong associations for the brand and when theyperceived the

quality of the brand to be high and vice a versa. Similarly, consumers perception ofqualityof a brand is likelyto be highwhentheyhave strong associationwiththe brandand vice versa Pappu et al. (2005). According to Aaker (1991) while brand awarenessbuilds the familiarity liking sight and is a signal of substance/commitment,perceivedquality acts as a differentiationtools.These literature review leadstohypotheses H7, H8H7 : Perceive Qualityis mediatingthe relationship between Brand Awareness and

Brand Equity.H8: Perceived Qualityismediatingthe relationship between Brand Association and

Brand loyalty.

The Mediating Effect of Brand Association.

Brand awarenessinfluences consumer decisionsmaking by affectingthe strengthofthe brand associationsintheirmind.(Keller,1993,1997). Pitta and Katsanis (1995) alsoindicated that brand associationsofthe product can be stored in consumersminds afterbrand awareness of the product are already in their memory. Later Atilgan et al; andPappu et al (2005) found that brand awareness and brand associationswere correlated.These literature review leadstohypotheses H9H9: Brand Association is mediating the relationship between Brand Awareness andBrand Loyalty.

Research Map

Toillustrate the relationship between brand equity dimensions and the relationshipswithanother construct based on literature review,we present a researchmapshownin Figure2.


7/20

7

FIGURE 1. Research map

METHOD.

This research examined the relationship among the four most importantdimensional constructs of brand equity which is includes brand awareness, brandassociations,perceived quality and brand loyalty

Research Framework

Based on literature review and researchhypotheses as illustrated inthe last chapter,thisstudy developthe conceptual frameworkofthis research asshownin Figure 3


8/20

8

FIGURE 2: The Research Framework

The proposed research frameworkpresent the relationship between four construct ofcustomer based brand equity namely Brand awareness, brand association, perceivedquality and brand loyalty.

MeasuresMeasuresof brand equity consistof the four constructof customer based brand

equity. This study employed a five point Likert scale anchored from 1 (stronglydisagreed) to 5 (strongly agreed) whichwere adopted from Atilgan (2005) and Kim and

Kim (2005).

Brand awareness.Sample responded to fouritems designed to assesstheir abilityto recognize and recall thebrand as a memberof a certainproject category.The items from Atilgans questionnaires( Atilgan et al, 2005) which including I am aware ofthis restaurant (BAW1), I canrecognize this restaurant amongother restaurants(BAW2), I knowwhatthis restaurantlooks like( BAW3), Some characteristic of Mc Donald come to my mindquickly(BAW4).

Brand Associations

Fourteen items by Kim and Kim ( 2005) were adopted tomeasure anything linked inmemory to the brand: It is crowded (BA1), It is noisy (BA2), The price isreasonable (BA3), Service isprompt (BA4). It is conveniently located (BA5), Ithas a differentiated image fromother restaurant brands( BA6). Ittastesgood comparewithprice (BA7), Employees are very kind( BA8), Ithas a very cleanimage( BA9),Ithas cheerful and enchanting atmosphere (BA10), There are many event (BA11) Ifeel comfortable to visit alone (BA12), It has a long history( BA13), Its brand isfamiliartome( BA14).


9/20

9

Perceived Quality

Tenitems by Kim and Kim ( 2005) were adopted tomeasure customerperceptionofoverall qualityorsuperiorityof aproductorservice with respecttoitsintended purpose

relative to alternativesincluding, The physical facilities (e.g building,sign, room dcor,illumination) are visually appealing(PQ1), The restaurantstaffgives customersindividual attention(PQ2), The appearance ofstaffmembers are clean,neat,appropriately dressed (PQ3), The restauranthasoperatinghours convenientto all theircustomers ( PQ4), The staffprovidespromptservice atpromised times (PQ5). Thestaffhandles customers complaints effectively(PQ6). The staffis alwayswillingtocustomers(PQ7), The knowledge and confidence ofthe staff are good(PQ8), Thefood qualityofthe restaurantisgood(PQ9), and The restaurantinsistson error-freeservice( PQ10).

Brand Loyalty

Five items by Kim and Kim (2005) were adopted to measure the attachment thatcustomerhasto a brand including: I regularlyvisitthis restaurant( BL1), I intend tovisit this restaurant again( BL2), I usually use this restaurant as my first choicecompared to other restaurants(BL3), I am satisfied with the visit to thisrestaurant(BL4), I would recommend this restauranttoothers (BL5), and I would notswitchto another restaurant forthe nexttime( BL6).

Pilot study and pre-test of questionnaires.

We prepared questionnaires adopt from Kim and Kim ( 2005) and Atilgan et al (2005)which also based on Aakers model and translated from English into Chinese, thenreviewed and revised by a Professor and 4 PhD candidates. We complete a questionnairescontained 34 items/ statement.The data inthis pre-teststudywere collected throughself-administered questionnairesinTaipei, Taiwan, distributed to 82 respondentsofteenagers customersinthe spot locationof Mc Donalds restaurant.From the resultofpre-test for the statistic evidence reasonswe excluded 6 statements/items, 5 items from brand associations questionnaires and 1 statement/ item from brandloyalty because their factor loading is too low (


10/20

10

chain restaurant but implement local adaptation. Compare to the closest competitors,got sales 2.6 $ billionoroccupied 45% ofmarket share in 2006. We chose Taiwansample, because Taiwan as otherplace in Asia become more importantmarket thatthere are manygrowthopportunities internationally.The chainhad posted an averageof 20 percentgrowthinsingle-store salesoverthe pastthree years,makingTaiwanone

ofthe top 20 marketsinternationally for McDonald's expansion.

Even Mc Donaldstargeting a diverse market ranging from childrento elderlypeople, butwe chose segmentofteenagers asour researchtarget, because Mc Donaldsis a global phenomenonso are the teenagers.The teenageridentity became inextricablylinked to leisure and hedonic consumption. In this study we selected teenagersconsumers inthe age between 13 -19 yearsold. We targeted thefrequent consumerofMc Donalds restaurantwho is at least come tothe Mc Donalds restaurant 4 times amonthoronce a week (Kara et al, 1997) otherthanless frequentconsumers

Toproceed the formal data collection,we first explainthe purpose ofthisstudyand show respondentshowto fill inthe questionnaires. If respondentshave problemsin

fillinginthe questionnaires,they can directly ask us. Ittakestento fifteenminutestocomplete the formal questionnaires.

Survey questionnaireswere hand distributed to 427 respondents, and retrievedwiththe aid of undergraduate and graduate universitystudents.A total of 418 usable questionnairesor 98.82 percent response rate. From the retrievedquestionnaires we separate into the frequent and less frequent consumers data. Weconducted our analysison 213 valid data of frequent consumers.

Before the processof quantitative data analysis began,we employed human effortsindealingwith retrieved questionnaires, using SPSS 13.00 for Windows to analyse the

data of questionnaires. Incomplete questionnaireswere regarded asinvalid. We enlistedthe code forthe retrieved questionnaires and entered themintothe table

Fromthe demographic questions we gotthe data as follows:The sample of 213 consumers consisted of 50.2 % male, and 28.2 % were junior

highschool and 50.7% were highschool students.Their age range from 13 to 19 yearsold: 13 yearsold : 7.5%, 14 yearsold : 8.5%, 15 yearsold; 12.2%, 16 yearsold: 18.3 %,17 yearsold: 20.7%, 18 yearsold: 15%, 19 yearsold: 17.4%.Their frequencytovisittherestaurant; 4-5 times a month: 66.7%, 6-7 times a month: 13.1%,more than 8 times amonth: 19.3 %.Ofthe samples, 50.7% have income (pocketmoney) less than NT 3000dollarsmonthly, and 30% have NT 3000 - NT 5000 dollarsmonthly.The purpose tovisit

the restaurantofthe sample 32.4% are justto eat,21.6% tostudy , 31.0%,to chat.Thesamples reasontovisit Mc Donalds restaurant because of: Clean: 28.2%,The climate:20.7%,Qualityof food: 19.2%, Qualityofservice: 7.5%, Fashion: 8%, Others: 16.4%.Theirpreferenceoftaste are :noprefer: 40.4%,salty: 27.7%,sweet: 14.1 % sour: 13%,spicy: 11.7%.Theystated that advertisingnotinfluenced them: 64.8%,influenced them:35.2%. They are not influenced by newproduct 76.5%, influenced by newproduct23.5%.The respondent also visit other fast food restaurant: KFC: 70.9%, Pizza Hut :


11/20

11

12.2%, Burger King : 6.1%, Other : 10.8%. While they visit location of Mc Donaldsaround:shopping center: 43.2%,school: 25.8%,touristplaces: 17.4%,office: 13.6%

ANALYSISAND RESULT

Testing of Measurement modelWe performed confirmatory factor analysis on the four variables: Brandawareness, Brand association, Perceived Quality, and Brand Loyalty. We tried to assesoverall fitofthe model.Firstwe find thatthe overall fitisnotverygood.Thenwe exclude 11 items ( BL3, BL5,PQ1, PQ2, PQ4, PQ9, BA1, BA2 BA8, BA9, BAW4) whichhasthe modification indexistoohigh (>0.5) and standard solution istoo low (< 0.4), thenwe find a betteroverallfit.The measurementmodel provided an acceptable fit tothe data when considering fitstatistics. GFI 0.91; SRMR 0.063; RMSEA 0.053; NNFI 0.97; CFI 0.98; 2 179.90 DF;113; 2/ DF 1.592

Reliability AnalysisCronbachs coefficient and item to total correlations are both used tomeasurethe internal consistencyof each identified construct.The reliabilityof the construct isacceptable if Cronbachs exceeds 0.70 and item-to-total correlationshave greaterthan0.50 ( Hair, Anderson,Tatham & Black, 1998)

Chronbachs coefficient, item-to-total correlations, mean and standarddeviation are listed in Table 2 which shows that this research has achieved the highreliability (Cronbachs coefficient all above 0. 74 and item-to total correlationsmostaround 0.50 ).

In term of the quality measurement model for the full sample, the constructsdisplay satisfactory levels of reliability, as indicated by composite reliability rangingfrom 0.66 to 0.83.

The value ofskewnessshowsthat lessthan 2 and kurtosis lessthan 7 itmeansthatthe data isnormal,meetingthe normality assumption ( Curran et al, 1996)


12/20

12

TABLE 2. Reliability

Note : BL: Brand Loyalty, PQ : Perceived Quality, BA: Brand Association, BAW: BrandAwareness.

Variab/items

Cronbachalpha Mean

Std.Deviation Skewness

Kurtosis

Items tototalcorrelation

Compositereliability

BL .745 3.770 .56655 .011 -.246 0.6649

BL1 3.73 .847 .404 -.668 .440BL2 4.03 .729 1.058 -.640 .573BL3 3.66 .901 -.497 -.245 .462BL4 3.68 .741 198 -1.84 .572BL5 3.75 .794 -.086 -2.07 .525

PQ .861 3.578 .56775 .093 1.7 0.8260PQ1 3.67 .893 -.226 -.297- .502PQ2 3.29 .900 -.127 -.157 .568PQ3 3.85 .796 -.694 1.237 .570PQ4 4.00 .906 -.884 -.694 .453

PQ5 3.72 .855 -.747 1.075 .662PQ6 3.34 .906 -.003 .171 .625PQ7 3.62 .802 -.076 .112 .654PQ8 3.39 .809 -.224 .024 .633PQ9 3.65 .790 -.255 -.016 .583PQ10 3.25 .842 .065 -.224 .482

BA.801 3.7522 .51258 .087 .31 0.7351

BA1 3.74 .888 -.762 .648 .519BA2 3.85 .837 -.792 1.045 .432

BA3 3.49 .833 .092 -.301 .535BA4 3.71 .765 -.346 .585 .620BA5 3.82 .758 -.533 .960 .487BA6 3.85 .726 -.127 -.352 .514BA7 3.68 .953 -.663 .454 .496BA8 3.77 .813 -.287 -.089 .398BA9 3.87 .834 -.250 -.627 .447

BAW .801 4.0516 .61691 -.288 -.404 0.7694BAW1 4.37 .751 -1.190 1.709 .572BAW2 4.37 .745 -.861 .182 .638

BAW3 3.69 .858 .066 .591 .507BAW4 3.78 .874 -.163 -.366 .533


13/20

13

Validity Analysis

(1). ContentValidityContent Validitymeanswhetherthe contentof questionnaire reflectsthe subjectsof

the studyornot. It also checkswhetherthe measurementselected bythe researchers can

measure the topic correctly. Because of being constructed based uponprevious research,the questionnaire inthe formal studyshows contentvalidity.

(2). ConvergentValidity.Asshown attable 3, all ofthe estimated parameterswere statisticallysignificant (p < .05)the T- value of all questions are between 6.13- 12.00 indicate excellentvalidity. Itmeansthat all the measurementmodel inourstudyhas convergentvalidity.

TABLE 3. Convergent Validity

(3). Discriminant validityTo assess discriminate validity,we tested a seriesof Chi- square (

2) differencetestson the factor correlations among all the constructs (Anderson and Gerbing, 1998).

Variable ParameterFactorloading

Standarderror

T-valueStandardizedsolution

Brandloyalty

1 2 3

0.450.510.49

0.060.050.05

7.02***9.62***9.01***

0.53.0.700.66

Perceivedquality

4 5 6 7 8 9

0.450.600.660.620.560.44

0.050.050.060.050.050.06

8.36***11.01***11.57***12.51***10.91***7.64***

0.560.700.730.770.690.52

BrandAssociations

10 11 12 13 14

0.460.560.440.430.51

0.060.050.050.050.07

8.14***11.53***8.69***8.78***7.79***

0.550.730.580.590.53

BrandAwareness

15 16 17

0.59 0.050.050.06

12.00***14.00***6.13***

0.790.910.43

0.680.37

T 1.96atp0.05 level* T2.58atp 0.01 level**and T3.29atp

0.001 level ***


14/20

14

Thiswas done forone pairofvariables at a time by constrainingthe estimated correlationparameter between them to 1.0 and thenperforming a Chi- square 2 difference testonthe values obtained for the constrained and unconstrained models (Anderson andGerbing, 1998). The resulting significant difference in 2 indicates that the twoconstructs are notperfectly correlated and that discriminate validityis achieved (Bagozzi

and Phillips, 1982). Based onTable. 4 all ofthe

2

difference inthisstudyisgreaterthan3.84,whichthisis a good evidence forthe dimensions discriminate validity.

TABLE 4.Discriminant Validity

.

Correlation analysis

Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations for the study variables arereported inTable 5. Correlations reflecting the relationship between researchvariablespredicted bythe hypotheseswere positive significant.

TABLE 5. Descriptive statistics and correlations matrix of constructVariable Mean SD BL PQ BA BAW

BL 3.7700 .56655 1PQ 3.5789 .56775 .474(**) 1BA 3.7522 .51258 .546(**) .725(**) 1BAW 4.0516 .61691 .388(**) .344(**) .533(**) 1

** Correlationissignificant atthe 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Correlation canonly reveal the degree of relationship between construct.To analyse the

direct and indirect effect, aswell asmediating effect among the construct,we appliedstructural equationmodelling.

The Structural ModelAfter testing the measurement model, we proceeded to examined the proposed

structured model and the hypotheses.

Variable Model 2 DF 2 df

Unconstrained model 179.90 113

BL- PQ 239.21 114 59.31 1

BL-BA 203.23 114 23.33 1BL-BAW 244.01 114 64.11 1

PQ- BA 195.52 114 15.62 1PQ-BAW 333.75 114 153.85 1

BA-BAW 320.93 114 141.03 1


15/20

15

The mainpurpose of this study is to analyze the causal relationships, including themediating effect between brand awareness, brand associations,perceived quality andbrand loyalty. Fromthe structural model we gotthe result as follows:

TABLE 6. Direct Effect.

The Direct Relationship

Table 6 showsthe path coefficient from brand awareness ( BAW) to brand loyalty (BL) ispositive butnot significant: (K11 = 0.14,T-value 0.97 p> 0.05) this not support the

hypotheses ( H2) that brand awarenesshas a positive direct effectto brand loyalty.Thepath coefficient from Brand awareness ( BAW) to Perceived Quality (PQ) issignificant

even inverse: (K21= -0.19,T-value -2.25 p< 0.05) thisnotsupportthe hypotheses (H4)

that brand awareness has a positive direct effect toperceived quality. We argue thatbrand association plays as a suppressor in our model that leads to inverse relationbetween brand awareness and perceived quality.The path coefficient from Brand awareness (BAW) and Brand Association (BA) issignificant(K31= 0.51 T- value 5.25 p < 0.05),thusthe hypothesesthat brand awareness

has a positive direct effect to brand association (H1) is supported.The path coefficient

from Brand Associations ( BA) to Brand Loyalty ( BL) is significant(F 12= 1.02,T-value 2.17 p< 0.05) thusthe hypothesisthat Brand associationhas a positive direct effectto brand loyalty (H3) issupported.The path coefficient from Perceived Quality (PQ) to

Brand loyalty (BL) isnotsignificant even inverse (F 13= -0.45,T-value -1.15 p>0.05)

thisnotsupported the hypothesis (H6)that Perceived qualityhas a positive direct effectto Brand loyalty.The path coefficient from Brand Association (BA) to Perceived Quality( PQ) issignificant (F 23=0.98,T- value 5.73 p< 0.05) thus the hypothesis that Brand

Associationshas a positive direct effectto Perceived Quality (H5)issupported.

Path Parameterestimate

Standarderror

T-value

Standardsolution

Hypotheses Result

BAW->BL K 11 0.14 0.14 0.97 0.14 Positive Notsupported

BAW-> PQ K 21 -0.19 0.08 -2.25 -0.19 Positive Notsupported

BAW->BA K 31 0.51 0.10 5.25 0.51 Positive Supported

BA->BL F 12 1.02 0.47 2.17 1.02 Positive Supported

PQ-> BL F 13 -0.45 0.39 -1.15 -0.45 Positive Notsupported

BA -> PQ F 23 0.98 0.17 5.73 0.98 Positive Supported


16/20

16

TABLE 7. The Total and Indirect Effect

Endogenous

Brand Associations Perceived Quality Brand LoyaltyEffect Tvalue Effect Tvalue Effect Tvalue

Exogenous

B. Awareness

Direct .51*** 5.25*** -.19 -2.25* .14 0.97

Indirect -- -- .50*** 4.63*** .38*** 2.76**

Total .51*** 5.25*** .31*** 3.65*** .52*** 4.84***

Endogenous

B. Associations

Direct .98*** 5.73*** .58 *** 4.15***

Indirect -- -- -- --

Total .98*** 5.73*** .58 *** 4.15***

Endogenous

P. Quality

Direct -.45 -1.15

Indirect -- --

Total -.45 -1.15

T 1.96*p 0.05 level T2.58at **p 0.01 leveland T3.29at ***p

0.001 level

Indirect relationships (Mediating Effect)

Table 7 showsthe existence ofmediating effectonthe structural model.Fully mediation ( only indirect effect) is found in the relationship between Brandawareness and Brand Loyaltyvia mediator, Brand Association. Fullymediation is alsofound inthe relationship between Brand awareness and Perceived Quality because thereis aninverse direct relationship between Brand awareness and Perceived quality butthereis an indirect effect between Brand Awareness and Perceived Quality via BrandAssociation.We find thatperceived qualityisnotmediate the relationship between Brand Awareness(BAW) toward brand loyalty (BL) and between Brand Associations (BA) toward BrandLoyalty (BL) thisnotsupportthe hypothesisH7andH8.

Inthis case we find that Brand Association( BA) mediate the relationship between BrandAwareness(BAW) and Perceived Quality (PQ) and between Brand awareness (BAW)toward Brand Loyalty,thusthe hypothesisH9issupported .


17/20

17

1\

L

1. 1!

1 .

1 !

1

.11!

1

11

7

.1 !I

1.

!I

7.

!I

.

!I1.

!I

7.!I

1.7 !I

.!I

7.1 !H

17.

!H

.!H

7

.1!I

7.11 !I

.1

!I

.1

!I

7

.1

!I

.11!YP

70.21!YP

66.31!YP

56.42 !YP70.52 !YP

73.62 !YP

77.72 !YP

69.82 !YP

52.92 !YP

79.11!XP

91.21!XP

43.31!XP

55.3.10 !YP

73.3.

!YP

58.3.1 !YP

53.3.13 !YP

59.3.1

!YP

3L

73.9 !I

1L

Note: BAW : Brand awareness, BL: Brand Loyalty, PQ : Perceived Quality, BA : BrandAssociationFigure 3. Resultofproposed model in Lisrel

Common method varianceAccordingtothe technique of Harmansone factortest,if a single factor emerge fromthe

factor analysisorone factor accounts formore than 50 % ofthe variance inthe variable,commonmethod variance ispresent (Matilla and Enz, 2002). Our analysis revealed 3factorstructure withnogeneral factorpresent ( the 1 st factor account for 34 % variance).It doesprovide support forthe absence ofsuchgeneral bias inthe finding ( Matilla andEnz, 2002).

CONCLUSION

From this researchwe could present some contribution and managerial implication, aswell asits limitation and suggestion for future research.

Contribution and Implications

One of the contribution of this research is that the result established that fourdimensions model of consumer based brand equity is the distinct dimension/constructconsistentwiththe conceptualization of Aakers (1991, 1996) thatwassimilarto Cobb-Walgren et al. (1995) and Pappu et al (2005),while contrasted with findingsof Yoo andDonthu (2001,2002) and Washburn and Plank (2002) that also based on Aakersconceptualization, butobserved onlythree brand equity dimensions. Another contribution


18/20

18

isthat thispresent research enriched the consumer based brand equitymeasurement bytested and found thatthere are direct and indirect causal relationship among dimensionsof brand equity,while previousstudies tested and found associative relationship amongdimensionsof brand equity.

In this study, we found that brand association is the most important variable

which affect brand loyalty. We also found that brand awareness affect brand loyaltyviabrand associations. This has been indicated by Pitta and Katsanis (1995) that brandassociationsofthe product can be stored in consumersminds after brand awarenessofthe product are already in their memory. Thus brand association is mediate therelationship between brand awareness toward brand loyaltysupportourhypothesis. Wealso found that brand associationplays as a suppressorinourmodel that leadstoinverserelation between brand awareness and perceived quality, and perceived quality towardbrand loyaltythat againstourhypothesis.

Finding shows that brand association become a very important dimension toaffect brand loyalty. Ithasimplicationthatmanagerhave tomaintainorstrengthentheir

effort uponthe Brand association as:to keeptheir clean-lines, cheerful atmosphere,goodtaste and price, and friendlystaffs. Even Mc Donaldstargeting a diverse market rangingfrom children to elderly people, manager have to be aware about customerscharacteristic relevant with their age and individual habit toward the restaurant. Thedescriptive statistic of demographic characteristic and information aboutindividual habitofthe consumerinthis researchmay could be considered,or become an example forthemanagertogetinformation fromtheir customer.

While earlier studies were conducted using American (e.g. Yoo and Donthu,2001,2002, Yoo et al 2000; Washburn and Plank, 2002), Korean samples ( Yoo andDonthu,2001), Australia sample ( Pappu, 2005), and Turkeysample (Atilgan, 2005) thispresentstudies used Taiwansample.Thus,this isone ofthe fewstudiestesting Aakers(1991) framework of brand equity and measuring brand equity in Australia and Asia.Finally,the presentstudymeasured brand equityin a givenproduct category for a givenbrand thatnot used inpreviousstudies.

Limitation and future research direction

This research describe the causal relationship between brand equity constructswithout relate them to their antecedents like marketing efforts and with theirconsequences like value of the firm, that might be more useful for the marketingstrategies.

Even this research using universal questionnaires, but using different settingmight be affectthe result. So, for future research directionit alsowould interestingto dothe research in different setting as cross-national, regional and cultural research,whichare necessitythatimplytointernational marketingstrategies.

The method we chose totest the commonmethod variance might be notthe bestmethod. For future study could employothermethod.

.

Acknowledgment

This researchwas funded bythe National Science Council,Taiwan, under contract No.NSC 96-96-2416-H-032-003-MY2


19/20

19

REFERENCES

Aaker DA, 1991.Managing Brand Equity,The Free Press, New York.Aaker DA and Keller, 1992.The Effectofsequential introduction and brand

Extensions,Journal of Marketing Research.

Aaker, A, David, 1992.The value of Brand Equity,Journal of Business Strategy. Vol 13.Aaker, A. David, 1996. Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets,California Management Review, Spring

Aaker, A.D and Jaubun, 2001. Value Relevance of Brand Attitude in High-Tech,Journalof Marketing Research 38.

A Ailawadi L, Kusum and Keller, Lane Kevin, 2004. Understanding retail brandingconceptual insights and researchpriorities:Journal of retailing, 80.

Atilgan, Eda et al, 2005.Determinantsof brand equity,Marketing intelligence andplanning. 23.

Bentler, PM, 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models, Psychological BuletinCaldwell , Niall and Joao R. Freire, 2004.The differences between branding a country, a

region and a city: Applyingthe Brand Box model.Journal of Brand Management.Curran P.J.et al 1996.The robustnessofteststatisticstonoonormality and specificationerrorin confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109: 512-519.

Datta, PR, 2003.The Determinantof Brand Loyalty,Journal of American Academy ofBusiness, 3, pp-138-144

Diamantopoulus,A and Sigouw, JA,2000. Introducing LISREL: a guide fortheuninitiated. Sage Publication.

Doyle, Peter,2001. Building Value-based brandingstrategist, Journal ofstrategicMarketing.

Esch, Franz-Rudolf et al, 2006. Are brands forever? How brand knowledge andrelationships affect current and future purchases,Journal of Product & BrandManagement ,13/2.

Gounares, S and Vlasis Stathakopoulos, 2004. Antecedent and consequencesof brandequitymanagement.Journal of Brand Management, April.

Ghozali, Imam and Fuad, 2005.Structural Equation Modelling, BP-Undip, Semarang.Johansson, Johny and Ilenka A. Reihanen, 2005.The esteemof Global Brands,Journal

of Brand management, June.Jones, Peter and David Hilker, 2002. Customer Perceptionof Service Brand: A case

studyof J.D.Wetherspeons,British Food Journalvol 104 no 10.Jones, Richard, 2005. Findingsourcesof Brand value: Developing a stakeholdermodel

of brand equity,Journal of brand management, October.Keller Lane, Kevin, 1993. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-based

Brand equity,Journal of Marketing, Jan: 57Keller Lane, Kevin, 2001. Building Customer-Based Brand Equity.Marketing

Management.

Kim, Bumm Hong, 2003.The Effecton consumer-based brand equityon firms financialperformance,The Journal of consumer marketing: 20, 4/5.

Kim Gon Woo and Hong Bumm Kim, 2004. Measuring Customer based restaurant BrandEquity.Cornell Hotel and restaurant administration quarterly, May.


20/20

20

Kim Bumm Hong and Woo Gon Kim,2004.The relationship between brand equity andfirmsperformance in luxuryhotels and chain restaurants,Tourism management.

Lassar,et al, 1995. Measuring customer Based Brand Equity.Journal of ConsumerMarketing. Vol 12.

Mc Donald Ek and Sharp RM 2000. Brand awareness effecton consumer decision

making for a common repeatpurchase product, a replication. Journal of BusinessResearch, 48.Martin M, Ingrid and David W Stewart, 2001.The Differential impactof Goal

Congruencyon attitudes,intentions, and transferof brand equity, Nov,38.Mattiesen, Insa, Ian Phau, 2005.The Hugo Boss connection: Achieving Global Brand

Consistency across country.Journal of Brand ManagementMattila, A. S. and Enz, C.A, 2002.The role of emotionsinservice encounters, Journal of

Services Research, 4(4), 268-277.Nelson, Susan, 2005. Beyond Branding,Journal of Brand Management. October.Netmeyer et al, 2004. Developing and validating measuresof facetsof customer-based

brand equity,Journal of Business Research.

Odin, Yorick et al, 2001. Conceptual and operational aspectsof brand loyalty, AnEmpirical investigation,Journal of Business Research,53.Pappu, Ravi,2005. Consumer-based Brand equity:improving the measurement,Journal

of Product and Brand management.

Park Su Chan, and V, Srinivasan, 1994.A survey- based method formeasuring andunderstanding Brand Equity and its extendibility, Journal of Marketing Research.

Podsakoff, M. Philip et al, 2003. Common Method Biasesin Behavioural Research: Acritical Reviewof the Literature and Recommended Remedies.Journal ofApplied Psychology,vol 88

Punj, Girish and Junyean Moon, 2002. Positioning Options for achieving brandassociation, A psychological categorization framework , Journal of Businessresearch,55.

Ramos, Angel F, Villuejo and Manuel J. Sanchez-Franco, 2005.The impactofMarketing Communication And Price Promotion on Brand Equity, Journal ofBrand Management, August.

Rio,A Ballen et al, 2001.The effectof brand associationson consumer response,Journalof Consumer marketing:18: 4/5.

Van Riel et al, 2005. Marketing antecedentsofindustrial brand equity: An empiricalinvestigationinspecialty chemical.Industrial Marketing Management, 24.

Washburn, JH. And Plank, RE, 2002. Measuring brand Equity: an evaluation of aconsumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Marketing Theory andPractice, Vol.10 no 1.pp,46-61.

Yoo,B. and Donthu,N, 2001. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equityscale.Journal of Business Research, 52(1),1-14.

Zeithaml, VA, 1988. Consumerperceptions ofprice, quality and value: a means-endmodel and synthesisof evidence.Journal of Marketing, Vol 52 No 3,pp. 2-22

study of the relationship between brand awareness

Documents