Content uploaded by Francisco Guzman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Francisco Guzman on Oct 31, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
3
Consumer-based brand
equity
Sally Baalbaki and Francisco Guzmán
Keywords
brands, brand equity, scale development.
Introduction
Brands today rule the marketplace. Years ago, when demand exceeded supply, good, high quality
products ruled (Kotler, 2000). However, the marketplace evolved. As the quality of products
became more standardized and the supply of these products started to exceed demand, consumer
decision-making became more complex. Brands steadily gained power as they became facilitators
of consumer decision-making in an oversaturated marketplace. Facing uncertainty and risk,
consumers rely on value-adding brands as shortcuts to simplify their decisions among tens, and
sometimes hundreds, of options (Kapferer, 1997). As sources of value, brands have become
multidimensional concepts capable of capturing content, images, feelings, lifestyles, personalities,
culture, and other characteristics that help a consumer deeply and uniquely associate, or disassociate,
with a brand. As Bedbury and Fenichell (2002) define, brands are psychological concepts held
in consumers’ minds.
As brands have become, if not the most important, one of the most important assets for any
business (Kapferer, 1997; Davis, 2000), it is only natural that the conceptualization, study and
measurement of brand equity has become an important topic for both marketing academics and
practitioners (e.g. Aaker and Keller, 1990; Aaker, 1991, 1996; Keller, 1993; Ailawadi et al.,
2003; Netemeyer et al., 2004; Erdem et al., 2006; Keller and Lehmann, 2006; Christodoulides
and de Chernatony, 2010). Furthermore, consumers view brands in a personalized and unique
manner, and ultimately the value each consumer derives from a brand is subjective. Therefore,
‘several often-divergent view-points on the dimensions of brand equity, the factors that influence
it, the perspectives from which it should be studied, and the ways to measure it’ (Ailawadi
et al., 2003: 1) have emerged. In this chapter we provide an overview of brand equity in general,
and consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) in specific. We review past efforts to measure brand
equity and discuss some specific brand equity scales in detail. Finally, we provide some insights
as to where we believe brand equity analysis and research is going. We hope that this chapter
32
serves as a general overview and study guide for the consumer-based brand equity concept, its
seminal models, and measurements.
Brand equity
Most authors agree with Farquhar’s (1989) original definition of brand equity: ‘the added value
with which a given brand endows a product’ (p. 24). This added value has three potential sources
or perspectives. The first is the cognitive psychology perspective. According to this perspective
a brand’s source of added value or equity stems from how consumers respond differently to a
brand’s marketing mix given what consumers perceive and associate with a brand (i.e. Aaker,
1991; Keller, 1993; Anderson, 2007). The second is the information economics perspective.
According to this perspective a brand’s source of added value or equity stems from the increased
utility that a brand name gives to a product (i.e. Wernerfelt, 1988; Erdem and Swait, 1998).
The third is the financial markets perspective. This perspective views the brand’s source of added
value or equity as a financial measure: the firm’s market value minus its tangible asset value
(i.e. Simon and Sullivan, 1993). More recently, a fourth perspective of added value or equity
was proposed. King and Grace (2009: 130) define employee-based brand equity (EBBE) as ‘the
differential effect that brand knowledge has on an employee’s response to their work environ -
ment’. This fourth perspective is particularly interesting as many ‘strong brands’ today are services
or products with an important service component, and as such a company’s employees are critical
in the delivery of the brand experience.
Of all the brand equity conceptualizations, Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) developed the
two most influential ones. According to Aaker (1991: 15) brand equity is ‘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 conceptualizes
brand equity with four dimensions: brand awareness, brand loyalty, brand associations and
perceived quality.
Brand awareness refers to ‘the ability of a potential buyer to recognize or recall that a brand
is a member of a certain product category’ (Aaker, 1991: 61). When consumers are exposed to
a brand, the result is brand awareness. Therefore, the first step in building brand equity is building
brand awareness. In order to measure brand awareness, we have to measure brand recognition
and recall (Keller, 1993; Aaker, 1996).
Brand loyalty is the heart of brand equity. It is defined as ‘a deeply held commitment to rebuy
or repatronize a preferred product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive
same-brand, or same-brand set, purchasing despite situational influences and marketing efforts
having the potential to cause switching behaviour’ (Oliver, 1997). Gil et al. (2007) have shown
that loyalty is an important dimension of equity; and if brand loyalty is established, then brand
equity will be the result. They conceptualize brand loyalty on the basis of consumer perception.
Brand loyalty adds considerable value to a brand or firm because it creates a group of buyers
that will be loyal for a long time and will less likely switch to a competitor due to price.
Brand associations are representations of what a brand means for a consumer and are ‘anything
linked in memory to a brand’ (Aaker, 1991: 109). Any contact or experience a consumer has
with a brand can create, change, or reinforce certain favourable or unfavourable associations
(Keller, 2003). In order for associations to have a positive effect on brand equity, they must be
unique, strong and favourable (Keller, 2003).
Finally, perceived quality is related to a consumer’s judgment of a product or brand’s overall
superiority or excellence (Zeithaml, 1988). Therefore, firms have to genuinely increase the real
quality of their brands and then communicate this quality through their marketing actions in
Consumer-based brand equity
33
order to affect perceived quality in a positive manner. High perceived quality allows for consumers
to be convinced about buying the brand; for differentiation of the brand from competition;
and for the firm to charge a premium price and then extend the brand (Aaker, 1991).
Of Aaker’s four proposed dimensions, brand awareness, brand loyalty and perceived quality
are relatively easy to measure; scales to measure these constructs have been tested and validated
and are available for both academic and practitioner use. The brand association construct, however,
has proven difficult to measure. Although conceptually brand associations are an important source
of meaning and equity to a brand, they are ultimately individual consumer perceptions that are
subjective and hard to measure.
In line with the perceptual nature of Aaker’s concept of brand awareness, Keller (1993) states
that the power of a brand rests in consumers’ minds; on what they have learned, felt, seen,
and heard about the brand through time. He thus defines CBBE as ‘the differential effect of
brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand’ (p. 2). He defines brand
knowledge in terms of two components: brand awareness and brand image. Brand awareness
is easy to measure in terms of recognition and recall. Recognition is the consumers’ ability to
confirm prior exposure to the brand when given the brand as a cue. Therefore, it is consumers’
ability to recognize the brand when they see a picture of the logo for example. Recall is
consumers’ ability to retrieve the brand when given the product category. For example, if you
ask someone to list the first three fast food restaurants off the top of their head, then they are
recalling the ‘top of mind’ brands for them. Brand image, on the other hand, is made up of all
the perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory
related to attributes, benefits and attitudes. Therefore, the objective is to create unique, strong
and favourable associations in consumers’ minds that lead to a stronger brand image. These
associations can be partially controlled with marketing mix tools. However, total control of a
brand’s image is not possible given that many brand associations depend on aspects that are out
of a firm’s control, e.g. external brand information, word-of-mouth, experience consumers have
directly with the brand, consumers’ identification of a brand with a firm, country, place, event,
or person that is not necessarily the one intended by the company, among many others.
Furthermore, and likewise the challenge of measuring brand associations, Keller’s brand image
construct, is very difficult, if not impossible. Although conceptually sound, and undoubtedly
important to the value of a brand, measuring consumer subjective perceptions in an objective
manner has proven to be a challenging task for those who have ventured into trying to
operationalize both Aaker’s (1991) and Keller’s (1993) CBBE models.
Brand equity measurement
Attempts to measure brand equity based on all of the previously discussed perspectives have
been made. At a consumer level (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Shocker et al., 1994; Lassar et al.,
1995; Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000; Berry, 2000; Chen, 2001; Bendixen et al., 2003; Baker
et al., 2005; Srinivasan et al., 2005; Tong and Hawley, 2009; Christodoulides et al., 2012), at a
company or firm level (Farquhar et al., 1991; Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995; Dyson et al., 1996;
Kapferer, 1997; Doyle, 2001; Kim et al., 2003; King and Grace, 2009), and at a financial market
level (Simon and Sullivan, 1993; Aaker and Jacobson, 1994; Barth et al., 1998). Some attempts
to develop models that encompass different perspectives of brand equity have also been made
(Srivastava et al., 1998; Epstein and Westbrook, 2001; Keller and Lehmann, 2003; Burmann
et al., 2009).
CBBE refers to consumers’ feelings of a particular product due to associations that are not
necessarily related to specific product attributes, that is, associations that exist independent of the
Baalbaki and Guzmán
34
product itself (Keller and Lehmann, 2006). The customer level measurement perceives the
value of a brand to originate entirely from the consumers (what they buy, how they buy, why
they buy, etc.). Therefore, consumers assign levels of value to brands when they favour one over
the other. From the consumers’ point of view, brand equity is part of their attraction to or repulsion
from a product (Keller and Lehmann, 2006). This perspective allows marketing managers to use
an effective strategy in understanding and influencing consumer attitudes and behaviours. CBBE
focuses on understanding consumers’ state of mind in brand selections and identifying the sources
of brand values (Lassar et al., 1995; Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Baker et al., 2005).
Company or firm-based brand equity is the added value a company receives from a
branded product that it would not have if the product were unbranded (Farquhar et al., 1991;
Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995; Dyson et al., 1996; Kapferer, 1997; Doyle, 2001; Kim et al., 2003).
A company benefits from a strong brand with respect to advertising and promotion effective-
ness, brand extensions insulation from competition, and strong distribution (Hoeffler and
Keller, 2003). According to Hoeffler and Keller (2003), there have been numerous measures,
including increased advertising elasticity, decreased sensitivity to competitor prices, price
premiums and the ability to secure and maintain distribution channels, that assess the impact of
brand equity in the product market.
From a financial-based perspective, brands are assets that can be bought and sold for a certain
price; this price is the financial worth of a brand. Several authors have looked at measuring
brand equity based on financial market performance (Simon and Sullivan, 1993; Aaker and
Jacobson, 1994; and Barth et al., 1998). Simon and Sullivan (1993) define brand equity as ‘the
incremental cash flows which accrue to branded products over and above the cash flows which
would result from the sale of unbranded products’ (p. 29). The authors measure a firm’s brand
equity by deriving financial market estimates from brand-related profits. They do this by using
the financial market value of the firm as a base and then extract the firm’s brand equity from
the value of the firm’s other tangible and intangible assets. This then results in an estimate based
on the firm’s future cash flows. Doyle (2001) contends that brand equity is explained by the
ability of brands to create value by accelerating growth and enhancing prices. Therefore, brands
function as an important driver of cash flow. These different measures have allowed for a different
understanding of why and how companies or brands have been able to create or maintain high
brand equity.
All of these attempts follow one of two complementary measurement approaches: (1) the
direct approach, ‘which measures customer-based brand equity by assessing the actual impact
of brand knowledge on customer response to different marketing elements’ (Baalbaki, 2012),
and (2) the indirect approach, ‘which assesses potential sources of customer-based brand
equity by identifying and tracking customers’ brand knowledge structure’ (Baalbaki, 2012) (see
Table 3.1). Some direct approach examples include financial or market-outcome-based measures
such as brand equity as a measure of brand extendibility (Randall et al., 1998), brand equity as
a price premium measure (Holbrook, 1992; Randall et al., 1998), and brand equity as a revenue
premium (Ailawadi et al., 2003). Indirect approach examples measure overall brand equity through
multiple dimensions (e.g. Lassar et al., 1995; Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Vazquez et al., 2002; de
Chernatony et al., 2004; Christodoulides et al., 2006; Baalbaki, 2012; Christodoulides et al.,
2012; Veloutsou et al., 2013).
Direct approaches
Srinivasan (1979) compares actual choice preference with consumer preferences to measure a
‘brand–specific effect’ (i.e. brand equity): ‘the difference between overall preference and the
Consumer-based brand equity
35
preference estimated by the model is quantified into a monetary scale’ (Baalbaki, 2012). This
direct measurement method is limited as it only provides segment-level estimates of brand equity
and does not analyse the potential sources of brand value. Park and Srinivasan (1994) develop
a scale and measure brand equity within a single product category. They measure brand equity
at the individual level by analysing two components: attribute-based (consumer evaluations
of the physical characteristics of a brand) and non-attribute-based (consumer evaluations of
the brand based on symbolic associations). This method, however, treats the non-attribute-based
component of brand equity as a single set of associations, barring the possibility for a deeper
understanding of how consumers assess brands. Jourdan (2002) refines Park and Srinivasan’s
(1994) measurement. He notes that their measure includes an error term and, through a
repeated measures experimental design, shows that this error is not minor. Although Jourdan’s
(2002) method can be considered superior to prior models, its complex experimental design
makes it difficult to use.
Building on the information economics paradigm, Swait et al. (1993) use the entire value
attached to a brand instead of isolating specific factors. They argue that a brand equity measure
should encompass its total utility given that the effect of brand equity occurs throughout all factors
of the utility function. They thus propose ‘equalization price’ (EP) as a measure of CBBE. EP
measures the differential of a brand’s implicit market value versus its implicit value in a market
void of brand differentiations. Their method calculates CBBE at an individual level, identifies
antecedents of brand associations, and determines the weighted importance of each antecedent
in terms of consumer utility. The model is nevertheless limited as it assumes that all consumers
have identical preferences and thus is only appropriate for testing specific market segments.
Using real purchase data from supermarket checkout counters, Kamakura and Russell (1993)
use a segment-wise logit model to estimate brand value. They identify two sources of equity:
‘brand value’– which serves as a diagnostic for brand competitiveness – and intangible brand
value – which isolates the utility associated to subjective perceptual factors. This method is limited
as it only evaluates CBBE at an aggregate level, similar to Srinivasan (1979), and requires scanner
data. Leuthesser et al. (1995) assume that personal evaluations are biased given consumers’
predisposition towards brands they know. They argue that this predisposition, or psychological
‘halo effect’, is the basis of brand equity. They isolate and measure this ‘halo effect’ by using
two techniques: ‘partialling out’– which is to compute partial correlation coefficients between
attribute ratings after taking into account the effect of overall brand evaluation – and ‘double
centring’– to remove response-set bias and halo effect from the rating data. This method is
limited as it does not indicate the underlying dimensions of consumer-based brand equity, it
only measures equity at the aggregate level, and it is difficult to use.
Shankar et al.’s (2008) brand equity measurement is based on both consumer and financial
measures – relative brand importance and value offering. They combine consumer factors such
as brand associations, brand reputation, brand fit, brand trust, brand fame, brand innovation,
brand regard and brand uniqueness with model estimation to come up with a model for
estimating, tracking and managing brand equity for multicategory brands. The method is limited
as it does not consider that brand-level financial measures may be unavailable, and because as
an aggregate measure of brand equity it only measures relative brand importance at the
individual level.
Indirect approaches
Lassar et al. (1995) propose performance, value, social image, trustworthiness and commitment
as CBBE dimensions and test their scale using consumer survey data from two product
Baalbaki and Guzmán
36
categories: watches and televisions. ‘Their 17-item Likert scale has adequate levels of internal
consistency and discriminant validity’ (Baalbaki, 2012), but the scale does not include any
behavioural components nor the authors report the scale’s external validity.
Vazquez et al. (2002) propose brand name functional utility, brand name symbolic utility,
product functional utility and product symbolic utility as CBBE dimensions and test their scale
using data from the sports shoe category in Spain. Their 22-item scale has reasonable levels of
reliability and validity and is easy to use. Kocak et al. (2007) try to replicate their results in
Turkey, using the exact same 22-item scale in the sports shoes category, but find that the original
scale does not work for the Turkish sample and adapt the scale to 16 items. This set of studies
highlight that consumers in different cultures evaluate brands differently, and the potential need
for culturally specific brand equity scales.
Specific industry brand measurements have also been developed. De Chernatony et al. (2004)
have developed a brand performance measure for financial services brands. They propose brand
loyalty, satisfaction and reputation as CBBE dimensions. Christodoulides et al. (2006) have
developed a 12-item measure for brand equity in an online retail/service (ORS) and analyse
how the Internet and new technologies have allowed consumers to become brand value
co-creators. They propose emotional connection, online experience, responsive service nature,
trust and fulfilment as dimensions of e-tail brand equity. Both studies use consumer survey data
to measure and validate their scales.
Boo et al. (2009) have developed a measure for measuring the brand equity of tourist
destinations. They propose destination brand awareness (DBA), destination brand image (DBI),
destination brand quality (DBQ), destination brand value (DBV), and destination brand loyalty
(DBL) as CBBE dimensions. They test their scale using two destinations – Las Vegas and Atlantic
City – and conclude that destination-specific items must be considered for measuring
destinations’ brand equity. Rajasekar and Nalina (2008) measure the brand equity of India
as a country and identify performance, social image, value, trust-worthiness and attachment as
CBBE dimensions. Their results indicate that performance, trust-worthiness and attachment are
the dimensions that have significant influence on the overall equity of the India brand.
Yoo and Donthu’s (2001) brand equity scale is the most robust in the literature to date
(Christodoulides and de Chernatony, 2010). Based on Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993), their
multidimensional brand equity scale (MBE) results in three dimensions – brand loyalty, brand
perceived quality and brand awareness/associations. They have also developed an overall brand
equity construct to assess the scale’s convergent validity. The scale, however, has its limitations.
Baalbaki (2012) argues that one of the main reasons for this scale not being fully functional is
because it is not customer-focused. They add that most scales available in the literature have
been developed based on purely conceptual models (i.e. Aaker, 1991 and Keller, 1993). As a
consequence, and as previously discussed, constructs such as brand associations, which are fully
subjective, become very difficult to measure. Baalbaki (2012) also argues that the fact that the
two most influential models were purely theoretically developed, and that all of their constructs
and measurements have been developed without confirming or validating their relevance to
consumers, has led to the lack of a fully functional, easy to implement, universally accepted
consumer-based brand equity scale.
Two recent efforts, however, are worth highlighting. Both suggest alternative scales not
purely based on conceptual models. Christodoulides et al. (2012) conduct qualitative research
with brand management experts to identify brand equity dimensions, and then test and
validate their scale in a multinational study. Their conceptualization of brand equity includes
five dimensions: awareness, heritage, uniqueness, reliability and willingness to sacrifice. Likewise,
Baalbaki (2012), conducted qualitative research with consumers to identify what they label as
Consumer-based brand equity
37
Table 3.1 Brand equity measurement approaches
DIRECT APPROACH
#Author Year Use Description Base conceptualization Dimensions Definition of brand equity
1Srinivasan 1979 measurement use the multi-attribute
model to measure
consumer-based brand
equity
n.a. n.a. ‘brand-specific effect’ is the
component of a brand’s overall
preference that is not explained
by the multi-attribute model
2Kamakura and
Russell
1993 scale looked at perceived
quality and brand
intangible value of
CBBE
n.a. perceived quality,
brand intangible value
the implied utility or value
assigned to a brand by the
consumer
3Swait et al.1993 scale Equalization Price as a
measure of brand
equity
n.a. n.a. propose a measure of consumer-
based brand equity called
‘Equalization Price’ (EP) which is
the monetary expression of the
utility a consumer attributes to a
bundle consisting of a brand
name, product attributes and
price
4Park and
Srinivasan
1994 measurement achieved measurement
of brand equity at the
individual level
n.a. attribute-based brand
equity, non-attribute-
based brand equity
the difference between an
individual consumer’s overall
brand preference and his or her
multi-attributed preference
based on objectively measured
attribute levels
5Leuthesser et al.1995 scale the halo effect measure
of brand equity
Thorndike, 1920 and
Keller, 1993
n.a. from Keller: brand equity
represents the value to a
consumer of a product, above
that which would result for
otherwise identical products
without the brand’s name
6Jourdan 2002 measurement amendment and
improvement of the
Park and Srinivasan
measurement model
using experimental
design
Park and Srinivasan,
1994
attribute-based brand
equity, non-attribute-
based brand equity
the difference between the
subjective preference and the
objective preference vis-à-vis the
product
7Ailawadi et al. 2003 scale propose and validate
revenue premium as an
outcome measure of
brand equity
Keller, 2003 revenue premium is the
difference in revenue
(net price x volume)
between a branded
good and a
corresponding private
label
from various authors: the
marketing effects or outcomes
that accrue to a product with its
brand name compared with
those that would accrue if the
same product did not have the
brand name
8Shankar et al. 2008 scale a multicategory brand
equity model and its
application
n.a. offering value (net
present value or
financial worth of an
offering carrying a
brand name) and RBI
(relative brand
importance derived
from consumer brand
choice and determined
by brand image and
other marketing-mix
elements)
from Shocker and Weitz 1988:
the net present value of the
incremental cash flows
attributable to a brand name
and to the firm owning that
brand relative to an identical
product with no brand name or
band-building efforts
INDIRECT APPROACH
#Author Year Description Base conceptualization Dimensions Definition of brand equity
1Lassar et al. 1995 measuring customer-based
brand equity
Keller, 1993 performance, social image,
value, trustworthiness and
attachment
brand equity stems from the greater
confidence that consumers place in a
brand than they do in its competitors.
This confidence translates into
consumers’ loyalty and their
willingness to pay a premium price for
the brand
Table 3.1 Continued
INDIRECT APPROACH
#Author Year Description Base conceptualization Dimensions Definition of brand equity
2Yoo and Donthu 2001 multi dimensional brand
equity scale
Aaker, 1991, 1996
and Keller, 1993
brand loyalty, perceived
quality and brand
awareness/associations
consumers’ different response
between a focal brand and an
unbranded product when both have
the same level of marketing stimuli
and product attributes
3Vazquez et al.2002 developing and validating a
measurement instrument for
consumer-based brand equity
Kamakura and
Russell, 1991 and
Cobb-Walgren et al.,
1995
product utility (product
functional utility, product
symbolic utility) and brand
name utility (brand name
functional utility, brand name
symbolic utility)
the overall utility that the consumer
associates with the use and
consumption of the brand; including
associations expressing both
functional and symbolic utilities
4Washburn and
Plank
2002 modifications of the Yoo and
Donthu (1997) scale
Aaker, 1991, 1996
and Keller, 1993
brand loyalty, perceived
quality and brand
awareness/associations
consumers’ different responses
between a focal brand and an
unbranded product when both have
the same level of marketing stimuli
and product attributes
5de Chernatony
et al.
2004 developed a brand
performance measure for
financial services brands
depth interviews brand loyalty, satisfaction,
reputation
Marketing Science Institute (MSI)
definition of Brand Equity
6Netemeyer et al. 2004 developing and validating
measures of facets of
customer-based brand equity
Aaker, 1991, 1996
and Keller, 1993
perceived quality, perceived
value for the cost, uniqueness,
and the willingness to pay a
price premium for a brand
from Keller: CBBE occurs when the
consumer is familiar with the brand
and holds some favourable, strong,
and unique associations in memory
7Pappu et al. 2005 an improvement to the
measurement of consumer-
based brand equity
Aaker, 1991, 1996
and Keller, 1993
brand awareness, brand
associations, perceived quality
and brand loyalty
from Farquhar: value endowed by the
brand to the product
8Christodoulides
et al.
2006 conceptualizing and
measuring the equity of
online brands
qualitative research emotional connection, online
experience, responsive service
nature, trust and fulfilment
Online Retail/Service (ORS) Brand
equity is defined as a relational type of
intangible asset that is co-created
through the interaction between
consumers and the e-tail brand
#Author Year Description Base conceptualization Dimensions Definition of brand equity
9Kocak et al.2007 replication of the consumer-
based equity scale developed
by Vazquez et al., 2002
Vasquez et al., 2002 product utility and brand
name utility (revised scale
from 22 to 16 items)
from Vazquez et al.: overall utility that
consumer associates with the use and
consumption of the brand, including
associations expressing both
functional and symbolic utilities
10 Guizani et al. 2008 working paper; development
of a scale for consumer brand
equity using French
consumers (non-students)
Aaker, 1991, 1996
and Keller, 1993
brand loyalty, perceived
brand quality, brand
knowledge and social value
from Farquhar: value added by the
brand name to the product
11 Lehmann et al. 2008 suggest a parsimonious set of
brand measures that can be
used to measure brand
performance
Keller and Lehmann,
2003
comprehension, comparative
advantage, interpersonal
relations, history, preference
and attachment
brand performance can be thought of
in terms of four stages: awareness,
image and associations, preference
and attachment.
12 Rajasekar and
Nalina
2008 a new measure of customer-
based brand equity in India
Aaker, 1996, and
Brucks and Zeithaml,
1991
performance, social image,
value, trustworthiness and
attachment
from Farquhar: value endowed by the
brand to the product
13 Buil et al. 2008 new brand equity scale
including personality
dimensions (items from many
different authors)
Aaker, 1991 Brand awareness, perceived
quality, brand loyalty and
brand associations (perceived
value, brand personality and
organizational associations)
from Aaker: 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
14 Zeugner-Roth
et al.
2008 country brand equity scale Yoo and Donthu,
2001
country brand loyalty,
perceived country brand
quality and country brand
awareness/associations
from Farquhar: define country brand
equity as the value-added brought
forth by the association of a product
or brand with a given country name,
as perceived by the individual
consumer
15 Davis et al. 2009 measuring brand equity for
logistics services
Keller, 1993 brand awareness, brand
image, overall brand equity
from Aaker: 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
Table 3.1 Continued
INDIRECT APPROACH
#Author Year Description Base conceptualization Dimensions Definition of brand equity
or service to a firm and/or to that
firm’s customers
16 Boo et al.2009 developed a destination
brand scale (used Las Vegas
and Atlantic City as
destinations)
Aaker, 1991, 1996,
and Keller, 1993
destination brand awareness,
destination brand image,
destination brand quality,
destination brand value and
destination brand loyalty
from de Chernatony and McDonald,
2003: overall utility that customers
place in a brand compared with its
competitors
17 Atilgan et al. 2009 emergence of brand trust as a
new dimension instead of
brand awareness
Aaker, 1991, 1996,
and Keller, 1993
perceived quality, brand
loyalty, brand associations
and brand trust
from Yoo and Donthu, 2001:
difference in consumer choice
between the focal branded product
and an unbranded product given the
same level of product features, and
Keller, 2003: brand with equity
provides an ownable, trustworthy,
relevant, distinctive promise to
consumers
18 Christodoulides
et al.
2012 suggest an alternative scale to
identify components of CBBE
from the perspective of
experts in brand management
Aaker, 1991 awareness, heritage,
uniqueness, reliability and
willingness to sacrifice
from Farquhar: brand equity is a
key intangible asset that arises from
past brand building activities and
encompasses the added value
endowed by the brand to the
product
Source: The authors
truly consumer-perceived dimensions, and then validate and test the scale. They propose quality,
preference, social influence, sustainability and leadership as consumer-perceived CBBE dimen -
sions. All these factors are easily measurable with specific and objective scale items.
Industry models
Two industry models currently used by companies to measure brand value are Young and
Rubicam’s BrandAsset Valuator (BAV) and Millward Brown’s Brand Dynamic models. Young
and Rubicam’s BrandAsset Valuator (BAV) model profiles brands according to four key
dimensions: differentiation, relevance, esteem and knowledge. Differentiation is about a brand’s
ability to create a sustainable competitive advantage and it is the engine of the brand. Relevance
is the brand’s ability to be personally meaningful. Esteem is the extent to which consumers like
and respect a brand; it measures loyalty and how well a brand fulfils its promise. Knowledge
measures the level of intimacy a consumer has with the brand. Differentiation and relevance
form a measure of brand strength which is a leading indicator of future growth value; whereas
esteem and knowledge form a measure of brand stature, which is a current indicator of current
operating value. According to BAV, leadership brands excel on both strength and stature
(BrandAsset Consulting, 2010). Coopers and Lybrand evaluate brand equity by comparing the
premium price paid for a branded product with the price of unbranded products. Arthur Young
Australia assess profitability of a branded versus unbranded product by accounting for things
such as advertising, trademark registration and other branding expenses.
Millward Brown Optimor’s BrandZ defines the brand value as being equal to the branded
intangible earnings multiplied by the brand contribution multiplied by the brand multiple (or
projected earnings). What the company does is summarize the strength of a brand’s relationship
with consumers using two key measures: presence and voltage. Presence measures how many
people know about a brand and what it offers. Therefore, brands with high presence will be
top of mind and in consumers’ consideration sets. Voltage is a measure of how efficiently a brand
converts people from presence to higher levels of loyalty. Therefore, a brand with high voltage
will be in a good position to grow its share of sales in the category. They then plot brands
according to presence and voltage to create a map of brand equity made up of four quadrants.
The estimation of total brand value is found by focusing on the strength of a brand’s relationship
with consumers, making it possible to put a value on the current and future contribution that
branding makes to a company’s bottom line (Millward Brown Optimor, 2010). For a more
detailed discussion of the BrandZ methodology of financial valuation (and other methods) you
can refer to the chapter on Brand Valuation Methods in this same Companion.
However, some of these brand valuations are limited as they sometimes make assumptions
about different dimensions that they believe make up brand value (or equity) without asking
consumers about what they value about a brand; in a way, they are making a guesstimate of
different aspects that may or may not, as a whole, impact a brand’s equity. Therefore, just as
Farquhar (1989) suggested, practically oriented methods that take into account experiences and
comparative research to judge the validity and usefulness of brand valuation methods are still
needed.
Conclusions
Considering that it was formally defined by Peter Farquhar in 1989, the analysis and study of
brand equity is still relatively new. However, the importance of the concept in business has far
surpassed the speed at which measurement scales have been developed. There is still a gap and
Consumer-based brand equity
43
lack of understanding as to how to reconcile the importance of subjective perceptions and
associations for measuring the power, strength and equity of a brand, with the need to find an
objective measure of these perceptions. No one would deny that brands, now more than ever,
are owned by consumers; they shape them, they use them, and they even market and promote
them. Consumers have become the storytellers, and the individual power of each unique story
is part of the brand’s equity. In terms of conceptualization, both Aaker (1991) and Keller’s (1993)
seminal pieces get it right. It has been, in our opinion, in the operationalization of these models
that the measurement problems have emerged. What brand associations? What elements of the
brand image? Researchers, in general, have followed and applied these models without
questioning their validity and without identifying specific and measurable dimensions relevant
to consumers.
In our experience as branding academics and consultants we have faced the challenge of this
measurement. In talking to practitioners and the way they assess the equity of their brands, we
have learned that given the lack of a useable measure, despite the fact they understand and agree
with the multidimensionality of the concept, the use of a complex indirect method becomes a
challenge, and thus they rely on single-item direct measures to have an approximate indicator
of the value of their brands. We believe that the two most recent scale development efforts
that we have reviewed in this chapter address this problem from its origin. Both develop scale
measurements guided by the conceptual seminal models, but then, following a proper scale
development process, rely on qualitative data – from management experts (Christodoulides
et al., 2012) and consumers (Baalbaki, 2012) to identify specific, relevant and measurable
dimensions. This market-oriented scale development approach is, in our view, a way to close
the gap between the conceptual models and the difficulty to apply them.
Many questions still remain unanswered and the future of brand equity research is open and
exciting. For example, is it even possible to talk about a single CBBE measure or does culture
play an important role in how brands are valued in different contexts? Is it possible to reconcile
the measurement challenges of consumer-based and financial-based brand equity? Does it make
sense to have one overall measurement for both concepts or is it better to keep CBBE and
FBBE as separate measures? Are the dimensions relevant for assessing a brand’s value equal in
different industrial sectors, or are industry-specific measures necessary? Does the whole concept
of brand equity need to be revisited 25 years later given the way consumers have become
empowered and are the owners and quasi-managers of brands? We hope that the review that
we have presented not only serves as a summary of past work on the topic, but as an invita-
tion to keep challenging the established models and further advance brand equity research. One
thing is for sure, as brands rule today’s marketplace, the power of brands, branding and
brand equity is here to stay.
References
Aaker, D. A. (1991), Managing brand equity, Free Press: New York, NY.
Aaker, D. A. (1996), Building strong brands, Free Press: New York, NY.
Aaker, D. A. and Joachimsthaler, E. (2000), Brand leadership, Free Press: New York, NY.
Aaker, D. A. and Keller, K. L. (1990), “Consumer evaluations of brand extensions”, Journal of Marketing,
54 (1): 27–41.
Aaker, D. A. and Jacobson, R. (1994), “The financial information content of perceived quality”, Journal
of Marketing Research, 31 (2): 191–201.
Ailawadi, K., Lehmann, D. R. and Neslin, S. A. (2003), “Revenue premium as an outcome measure of
brand equity”, Journal of Marketing, 67 (4): 1–17.
Anderson, J. (2007), “Brand equity: the perpetuity perspective”, in Winter 2007 Proceedings of the American
Marketing Association, 18: 142.
Baalbaki and Guzmán
44
Atilgan, E., Akinci, S., Aksoy, S. and Kaynak, E. (2009), “Customer-based brand equity for global brands:
a multinational approach”, Journal of Euromarketing, 18 (2): 115–32.
Baalbaki, S. (2012), Consumer Perception of Brand Equity Measurement: A New Scale (Doctoral dissertation),
Denton: Texas. UNT Digital Library. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc115043/.
Baker, C., Nancarrow, C. and Tinson, J. (2005), “The mind versus market share guide to brand equity”,
International Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (5): 525–42.
Barth, M. E., Clement, M. B., Foster, G. and Kasznik, R. (1998), “Brand values and capital market
valuation”, Revenue of Accounting Studies, 3 (1–2): 41–68.
Bedbury, S. and Fenichell, S. (2002), A new brand world: 8 principles for achieving brand leadership in the 21st
century, Viking: New York, NY.
Bendixen, M., Bukasa, K. A., and Abratt, R. (2003), “Brand equity in the business-to-business market”,
Industrial Marketing Management, 33 (5): 371–80.
Berry, L. (2000), “Cultivating service brand equity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (1):
128–37.
Boo, S., Busser, J. and Baloglu, S. (2009), “A model of customer-based brand equity and its application
to multiple destinations”, Tourism Management, 30 (2): 219–31.
BrandAsset Consulting (2010), “Four Pillars: The Sequence of Brand Development”, www.brandasset
consulting.com.
Brucks, M. and Zeithaml, V. (1991), “Price and brand name as indicators of quality dimensions”, Marketing
Science Institute Report: 91-130.
Buil, I., de Chernatony, L. and Martinez, E. (2008), “A cross-national validation of the consumer-based
brand equity scale”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 17 (6): 384–92.
Burmann, C., Jost-Benz, M. and Riley, N. (2009), “Towards an identity-based brand equity model”,
Journal of Business Research, 62 (3): 390–7.
Chen, A. C. H. (2001), “Using free association to examine the relationship between characteristics of
brand associations and brand equity”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 10 (7): 439–51.
Christodoulides, G. and de Chernatony, L. (2010), “Consumer-based brand equity conceptualization and
measurement”, International Journal of Market Research, 52 (1): 43–66.
Christodoulides, G., de Chernatony, L., Furrer, O. and Abimbola, T. (2006), “Conceptualising and
measuring the equity of online brands”, Journal of Marketing Management, 22 (7/8): 799–825.
Christodoulides, G., Cadogan, J. G., Veloutsou, C. and de Chernatony, L. (2012), “Revisiting brand equity:
evidence from three European countries”, in 41st European Marketing Academy Conference (EMAC), 22–25
May 2012, Lisbon, Portugal.
Cobb-Walgren, C. J., Ruble, C. and Donthu, N. (1995), “Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase
intent”, Journal of Advertising, 24 (3): 25–40.
Davis, D. F., Golicic, S. L. and Marquardt, A. (2009), “Measuring brand equity for logistics services”, The
International Journal of Logistics Management, 20 (2): 201–12.
Davis, S. (2000), Brand asset management: driving profitable growth through your brands, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
de Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (2003), Creating powerful brands in consumer, service and industrial markets
(3rd edn), Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford.
de Chernatony, L., Harris, F. J. and Christodoulides, G. (2004), “Developing a brand performance measure
for financial services brands”, Services Industries Journal, 24 (2): 15–33.
Doyle, P. (2001), “Shareholder-value-based brand strategies”, Journal of Brand Management, 9 (1): 20–30.
Dyson, P., Farr, A. and Hollis, N. S. (1996), “Understanding, measuring, and using brand equity”, Journal
of Advertising Research, 36 (6): 9–21.
Epstein, M. J. and Westbrook, R. A. (2001), “Linking actions to profits in strategic decision making”,
MIT Sloan Management Review, 42 (3): 39–49.
Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (1998), “Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon”, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
7 (2): 131–57.
Erdem, T., Swait, J. and Valenzuela, A. (2006), “Brands as signals: a cross country validation study”, Journal
of Marketing, 70 (1): 34–49.
Farquhar, P. H. (1989), “Managing brand equity”, Marketing Research, 1 (3): 24–33.
Farquhar, P. H., Han, J. Y. and Iriji, Y. (1991), Recognizing and Measuring Brand Assets. Report, Marketing
Science Institute, Cambridge (MA): 91–119.
Gil, R. B., Adres, E. F. and Salinas, E. M. (2007), “Family as a source of consumer-based brand equity”,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 16 (3): 188–99.
Consumer-based brand equity
45
Guizani, H., Trigueiro, H. and Valette-Florence, P. (2008), “Development of a scale for French consumer
brand equity”, working paper in the Latin American Advances in Consumer Research, The University of
Waikato, New Zealand (2): 198–200.
Hoeffler, S. and Keller, K. L. (2003), “The marketing advantages of strong brands”, Journal of Brand
Management, 10 (6): 421–45.
Holbrook, M. B. (1992), “Product quality, attributes, and brand name as determinants of price: the case
of consumer electronics”, Marketing Letters, 3 (1): 71–83.
Interbrand (2010), “Best Global Brands 2010”, www.bestglobalbrands.com.
Jourdan, P. (2002), “Measuring brand equity: proposal for conceptual and methodological improvements”,
Advances in Consumer Research, 29 (1): 290–8.
Kamakura, W. A. and Russell, G. J. (1993), “Measuring brand value with scanner data”, International Journal
of Research in Marketing, 10 (1): 9–22.
Kapferer, J. (1997), Strategic brand management, Kogan Page: London, UK.
Keller, K. L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal
of Marketing, 57 (1): 1–22.
Keller, K. L. (2003), Strategic brand management: building, measuring, and managing brand equity (2nd edn),
Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Keller, K. L. and Lehmann, D. R. (2003), “How do brands create value?”, Marketing Management, 12 (3):
26–31.
Keller, K. L. and Lehmann, D. R. (2006), “Brands and branding: research findings and future priority”,
Marketing Science, 25 (6): 740–59.
Kim, H., Kim, W. G. and An, J.A. (2003), “The effect of consumer-based brand equity on firms’ financial
performance”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20 (4): 335–51.
King, C. and Grace, D. (2009), “Employee based brand equity: a third perspective”, Services Marketing
Quarterly, 30 (2): 122–47.
Kocak, A., Abimbola, T. and Ozer, A. (2007), “Consumer brand equity in a cross-cultural replication: an
evaluation of a scale”, Journal of Marketing Management, 23 (1/2): 157–73.
Kotler, P. (2000), Marketing management (10th edn), Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Arun, S. (1995), “Measuring customer-based brand equity”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 12 (4): 11–19.
Lehmann, D. R., Keller, K. L. and Farley, J. U. (2008), “The structure of survey-based brand metrics”,
Journal of International Marketing, 16 (4): 29–56.
Leuthesser, L., Kohli, C. S. and Harich, K. R. (1995), “Brand equity: the halo effect measure”, European
Journal of Marketing, 29 (4): 57–66.
Millward Brown Optimor (2010), “BrandZ Methodology”, www.millwardbrown.com.
Netemeyer, R., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J. and Wirth, F. (2004),
“Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity”, Journal of Business Research,
57 (2): 209–24.
Oliver, R. L. (1997), Satisfaction: a behavioral perspective on the consumer, McGraw-Hill: New York, NY.
Pappu, R., Quester, P. G. and Cooksey, R. W. (2005), “Consumer-based brand equity: improving the
measurement–empirical evidence”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14 (3): 143–54.
Park, C. S. and Srinivasan, V. (1994), “A survey-based method for measuring and understanding brand
equity and its extendibility”, Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (5): 271–88.
Rajasekar, N. and Nalina, K. G. (2008), “Measuring customer-based brand equity in durable goods industry”,
Journal of Marketing and Communication, 4 (1): 48–58.
Randall, T., Ulrich, K. and Reibstein, D. (1998), “Brand equity and vertical product line extent”, Marketing
Science, 17 (4): 356–79.
Shankar, V., Azar, P. and Fuller, M. (2008), “BRAN*EQT: a multicategory brand equity model and its
application at Allstate”, Marketing Science, 27 (4): 567–84.
Shocker, A. D., Srivastava, R. K. and Rueckert, R. W. (1994), “Challenges and opportunities facing brand
management: an introduction to the special issue”, Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (2): 149–58.
Simon, C. J. and Sullivan, M. W. (1993), “The measurements and determinants of brand equity: a financial
approach”, Marketing Science, 12 (1): 28–52.
Srinivasan, V. (1979), “Network models for estimating brand-specific effects in multi attribute marketing
models”, Management Science, 25 (1): 11–21.
Srinivasan, V., Park, C. S. and Chang, D. R. (2005), “An approach to the measurement analysis, and
prediction of brand equity and its sources”, Management Science, 51 (9): 1433–48.
Baalbaki and Guzmán
46
Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A. and Fahey, L. (1998), “Market-based assets and shareholder value: a
framework for analysis”, Journal of Marketing, 62 (1): 2–18.
Swait, J., Erdem, T., Louviere, J. and Dubelaar, C. (1993), “The equalization price: a measure of
consumer-perceived brand equity”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10 (1): 23–45.
Tong, X. and Hawley, J. M. (2009), “Measuring customer-based brand equity: empirical evidence from
the sportswear market in China”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 18 (4): 262–71.
Vazquez, R., Del Rio, A. B. and Iglesias, V. (2002), “Consumer-based brand equity: development and
validation of a measurement instrument”, Journal of Marketing Management, 18 (1/2): 27–48.
Veloutsou, C., Christodoulides, G. and de Chernatony, L. (2013), “A taxonomy of measures for consumer-
based brand equity: drawing on the views of managers in Europe”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 22 (3): 238–48.
Washburn, J. H. and Plank, R. E. (2002), “Measuring brand equity: an evaluation of a consumer-based
brand equity scale”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10 (1): 46–61.
Wernerfelt, B. (1988), “Umbrella branding as a signal of new product quality: an example of signaling by
posting a bond”, RAND Journal of Economics, 19 (3): 458–66.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer based brand
equity scale”, Journal of Business Research, 52 (1): 1–14.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means end model and synthesis
of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, 52 (3): 2–22.
Zeugner-Roth, K. P., Diamantopoulos, A. and Montesinos, M. A. (2008), “Home country image, country
brand equity and consumers’ product preferences: an empirical study”, Management International Review,
48 (5): 577–602.
Consumer-based brand equity
47
