Pros And Cons Of Measuring Brand Equity

After an exhaustive review of the then existing conceptualizations of brand equity and measurement procedures, an executive decision was made to create a proprietary model applicable to all major PepsiCo brands, both domestically and globally, that could be used to track brands over time. Model development focused on PepsiCo?s three primary businesses in the early1990s, namely, soft drinks(Pepsi-Cola), snack foods (Frito-Lay), and quick service restaurants (KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell),

Since an increasing number of people focus on brand names instead of product, brands become important elements for customers to choose products (Carroll, 2008). When customers trust the brand, the benefits for the manufactures are generated. In the first place, brands can be used by products as the tool to identify and differentiate themselves from various products. Secondly, brands are helpful for companies to build a competitive advantage (Bick, 2009). Therefore, organisations take more attention to branding.

Brand equity increases as brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality brand associations, and number of brand-related proprietary assets increase and become stronger and more positive.

The value given to the brand by the consumer is the brand’s equity. The brand obtains its

The brand loyalty of the customer base is often the core of a brand's equity. If customers are indifferent to the brand and, in fact, buy with respect to features, price, and convenience with little concern to the brand name, there is likely little equity. If, on the other hand, they continue to purchase the brand even in the face of competitors

A company (in this case, a coffee shop) needs to establish a clear and consistent brand identity by communicating its brand attributes in a way that can be easily understood by prospective customers. One of the firm’s most valuable assets for improving marketing productivity is the customers’pre-existing knowledge of the brand from the firm’s investment in previous marketing programs (Keller, 1993). According to Keller (1993), the differential effect of brand knowledge upon customers’ response to brand marketing is known as brand equity. Brand equity is related to customer satisfaction and brand loyalty (Nam, Ekinci, and Whyatt, 2011). Customer satisfaction is a mediating variable between brand equity and brand loyalty, while brand loyalty itself is the biased (non-random) behavioral response (purchase) expressed over time by some decision-making unit with respect to one or more particular brands out of a set of brands and is a function of psychological processes (Jacoby, 1971). Considering the importance of brand equity in companies’ efforts to develop positive customer perception and win the tight competition in their industry by achieving customer satisfaction and loyalty, this study aims to investigate

The framework is used to evaluate the strategic position of the business brand portfolio and its potential. It classifies business portfolio into four categories based on industry attractiveness (growth rate of that industry) and competitive position (relative market share). These two dimensions reveal likely profitability of the business portfolio in terms of cash needed to support that unit and cash generated by

It has been asserted (Kennedy, 2012) that, a brand collects name, symbol, design, logo and term together, intended to identifies and differentiates a product or service. Consumers regard brands as an essential element of the

Recently, brand equity has increasingly been defined in customer-based contexts. It defines brand equity as the value of a brand to the customer (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993) defines brand equity as “a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or to that firms’ customers." Brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality, brand loyalty and other proprietary assets were the five assets of brand equity. Keller (2003) argued that the power of a brand lies in the minds of the customers and what they have experienced and learned about the brand over time. He defines customer-based brand equity as “the differential effect that brand knowledge has on

A brand is not only a combination of names, slogans, logos, packaging, advertising and marketing that together give a particular product or service a physical, recognisable form, brands have a cerebral dimension, which is the reputation they a consumer’s mind. Brands must engender trust and loyalty if they are ultimately to be purchased. (Williams 2000). Therefore, what would be considered a successful brand is one that signifies the relationship between the company and the customer and requires intelligent, strategic and coordinated decisions in many areas of marketing (D et al. 2008). A brand identity serves as a way to communicate the values of a company or service to people and for this reason, is a vital part of any business. (Markovich 2016)

There are two ways of evaluating brand strategies. The first is a research-based evaluation. The aim of this approach is to put a financial value on the brand measured by customer’s behaviours and attitudes towards the brand itself. Components of the measurement are: awareness, knowledge, familiarity, relevance, satisfaction, and recommendation (Robert Vitale). Second approach is financially driven. This time brand valuation is used to approximate the value of the brand and it is based on subjective judgments of people within the organization in question. The earnings stream is estimated then divided by those attributable to the brand, to the fixed assets, and to other intangible assets. Next there’s an estimation of value for the brand in the market (Robert Vitale). These tools are so important because without checking up on ones brand image, it could possible take a turn down a path in the minds of the market in a direction the company does not want to go.

Some analysts see brand as the promise of something. That something is intangible, but it could be a guarantee of quality, a sense of prestige, or of heritage. Everything the customer experiences in the process of evaluation, trial, purchase, and adoption is a verification of

Brand is “a name, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them, intended for the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers to differentiate them from other sellers competitively” (Kevin and Keller, 2008, cited in Saleem et al., 2015). Brand can be the tools to deliver the message about the quality of the products and services to the customers and give them the confidence for buying the right quality as the organizations promised (Erdem 1998; Wernerfelt 1988, cited in Rahinel and Redden, 2012) and also lead customer to buy product from specific firm (Keller 1993; Park, Jaworski, and MacInnis 1986, cited in Rahinel and Redden, 2012). Thus, the company should build a strong brand in order to have an intermediary to convey the quality message to customer. Additionally, Berry (1988) said strong brand is considered as valuable and gives firm’s ability to set a high price products and allowing firms to enjoy continuously revenues from year to year. Because of a premium price the company could set, it gives the power to compete with other brand too. This implied that brand has a power to differentiate the company’s product from competitors.

Brand awareness is an important and sometimes undervalued component of brand equity. Awareness can affect perceptions and attitudes. It can make peanut butter taste better and instill confidence in a retailer. In some contexts, it can be a driver of brand choice and even loyalty. Brand awareness reflects the salience of the brand in the customers mind, (CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL 38. NO. 3 SPRING, 1996). There are levels of awareness, of course, which include:

The study followed Bae (1997), Scott-Morton (1999), Rudholm (2001) and Daunfeldt et al (2005) and used sales revenue as proxy for profit. Elements of branding mostly used in empirical researches include logo (Schmitt &Smionson, 1997), packaging (Garber et al, 2003; Folk and