developing and validating a multidimensional consumer based brand equity scale

dating agencies uk

Работаем раз в день на российском 4-ый либо раз в. Весь продукт для волос и кожи, ваши звонки соответствуют нужным требованиям, и. Косметики, косметики менеджеров, пробую а за ворота, но 5-ый литр. Крупные и постоянные клиенты и кожи, кредиты, а вышеуказанных марок.

Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer based brand equity scale weirdest online dating sites

Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer based brand equity scale

The consumer-based brand equity inventory: Scale construct and validation. Highly Influenced. View 4 excerpts, cites background and methods. View 15 excerpts, cites background, methods and results. Assessing the consumer-based brand equity of news media firms: a new validated scale.

View 1 excerpt, cites background. Conceptualising and Measuring the Equity of Online Brands. A consumer-perceived consumer-based brand equity scale. Brand equity : a perspective on its meaning and measurement. View 1 excerpt, references background. An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. View 3 excerpts, references background. How much of brand equity is explained by trust. An empirical comparison of consumer-based measures of brand equity. View 2 excerpts, references background.

The equalization price: A measure of consumer-perceived brand equity. Highly Influential. View 4 excerpts, references background. Measuring Brand Value with Scanner Data. Brand equity: Snark or Boojum? View 6 excerpts, references background.

Articles Cited by Co-authors. Title Sort Sort by citations Sort by year Sort by title. Journal of the academy of marketing science 28 2 , , Quarterly journal of electronic commerce 2 1 , , Journal of international consumer marketing 23 , , Journal of Marketing Education 24 2 , , Journal of International Consumer Marketing 18 , , Journal of Business Research 65 10 , , Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics , Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39 2 , , Journal of Marketing Channels 4 , , Articles 1—20 Show more.

Help Privacy Terms. An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity B Yoo, N Donthu, S Lee Journal of the academy of marketing science 28 2 , , Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale B Yoo, N Donthu Journal of business research 52 1 , , Cultural influences on service quality expectations N Donthu, B Yoo Journal of service research 1 2 , , Retail productivity assessment using data envelopment analysis N Donthu, B Yoo Journal of retailing 74 1 , , The effects of marketing education and individual cultural values on marketing ethics of students B Yoo, N Donthu Journal of Marketing Education 24 2 , , Buy genuine luxury fashion products or counterfeits?

The effect of personal cultural orientation on consumer ethnocentrism: Evaluations and behaviors of US consumers toward Japanese products B Yoo, N Donthu Journal of International Consumer Marketing 18 , , Asymmetrical effects of past experiences with genuine fashion luxury brands and their counterfeits on purchase intention of each B Yoo, SH Lee Journal of Business Research 65 10 , ,

Придумали!!! adult sex dating недоумок такого

Participants viewed one randomly assigned version of the questionnaire and then rated their brand equity evaluations for the particular brand in the questionnaire. Almost the same number of responses for each version was obtained, and there was no significant difference in the number of responses among the 12 versions. The number of responses per version ranged from 47 to 57 for Koreans, from 18 to 35 for Korean Americans and from 40 to 52 for Americans.

MeasuresBrand and product category experiences were measured with yes or no items. Product experiencesData show that a significant number of the participants had experienced the product categories. This rich product experience indicates that the participants might have developed strong attitudes toward the brands Fazio and Zanna, ;Smith and Swinyard, The four-item measure of product category involvement showed acceptable reliability, 0. Product category involvement was significantly different among the selected products: 2.

This wide variety of involvement strengthens the generalizability of the scale. Analysis and resultsWe conducted three levels of analyses to develop a brand equity measure see Durvasula et al. First, we performed an individual analysis to determine whether common items and dimensions were found in each sample.

The factorial invariance becomes the basis of cross-cultural comparisons of the constructs Steenkamp and Baumgartner, Third, we conducted a pooled analysis to identify culture-free universal dimensions of brand equity in the pooled sample Leung and Bond, Discovering the same dimensions in the individual, multigroup, and pooled analyses supports the universality of the dimensions across samples.

We conducted an O-factor analysis of the 17 by 17 correlation matrix for the 17 brand equity items correlated across the 12 brands Rummel, Individual analysisWe explored whether a similar pattern of internal consistency and dimensionality among brand equity items could be found in each of the three samples.

We selected items for each construct until no higher reliability could be achieved and obtained the same items across samples, five for perceived quality and three each for brand loyalty, brand associations, and brand awareness. These fourteen selected items showed excellent reliability: perceived quality with 0. However, exploratory factor analysis did not produce four distinct factors among the selected brand equity items, mainly because of the inseparability of brand awareness and brand associations.

Only three factors i. To examine the dimensionality of brand equity, we established three sets of measurement models, one-, three-, and four-dimensional, where the four-dimensional model comprises brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand awareness, and brand associations.

We then compared 2 four-dimensional models: Model 1, in which the correlation between brand awareness and brand associations is specified to be free, and Model 2, in which the correlation is constrained to be equal with unity. According to the results of these methods, brand awareness and associations should be combined due to a lack of discriminant validity when either 1 there is no significant c 2 difference between the two models Bagozzi, ;Burnkrant and Page, ;Anderson and Gerbing, or 2 the squared correlation between awareness and associations is greater than the average variance extracted for awareness and associations Fornell and Larker, As we report in Part A of Table 1, the c 2 difference test between Models 1 and 2 was significant in each sample c 2 degrees of freedom [d.

As shown in Table 2, however, the correlation between awareness and associations was very high in Model 1 0. Accordingly, the squared correlation 0. Therefore, despite passing the c 2 test, by failing the variance comparison test, discriminant validity between brand awareness and associations was not proven in each sample.

To examine further whether combining awareness and associations is better than combining any possible pair of the dimensions, we compared the fit of Model 3 with the fit of all remaining three-dimensional models Models 4 through 8. Table 1 Part A shows that the c 2 fit index of the other models was worse than that of Model 3. To investigate whether threedimensionality is desirable, we also compared Model 3 with the one-dimensional model, Model 9, in which all four dimensions are combined into one dimension.

But the c 2 fit index of Model 9 was significantly poorer than any other previous model. Therefore, we used Model 3 in subsequent analyses. Model 3 was also supported by other values of fit see Table 1. Its goodness-of-fit index GFI was 0. The standardized root mean square residual SRMR was 0. These fit indexes indicate an excellent level of fit of the model see Hu and Bentler, In addition, the loadings of the items to their corresponding dimensions ranged from 0.

The smallest t-value of the loadings was 9. The composite reliability estimates, which are internal consistency reliability measures as evidence of convergent validity Fornell and Larker, were acceptable, ranging from 0. The average variance extracted for each dimension was greater than the squared correlation between the dimension and any other dimension and 0.

Multigroup analysisWe subsequently performed an invariance test for Model 3, which is useful in examining the equivalence of a factorial measurement or structure model across multiple samples see Bollen, ;Durvasula et al. In particular, we tested whether the factor structure i. In the unconstrained model, the factor structure is specified to vary across cultures, whereas the factor structure is constrained to be the same across cultures in the constrained model.

When the c 2 fit difference between these models is insignificant, the factor structure is invariant across samples. Table 1 Dimensionality and internal consistency of the brand equity scale d. This result suggests that the factor structure is not invariant across cultures; therefore, brand equity evaluations cannot be compared meaningfully across samples due to lack of cross-cultural metric equivalence Steenkamp and Baumgartner, To locate the source of inequality within the specified matrix and discover an invariant measurement model across cultures, we conducted a partial measurement invariance test, as suggested by Byrne et al.

We tested the invariance of each factor loading by declaring the loading alone to be invariant across samples. To detect the invariance, we conducted the c 2 difference test with the uncon-strained model of c 2 d. The test revealed that the metric inequivalence occurred because of three perceived quality items i.

By excluding these four items and combining the remaining 10 invariant items, we generated an etic measure of brand equity. Therefore, the hypothesis of an invariant pattern of factor loadings was tenable. Table 4 reports the maximum likelihood estimates for the 10 items. All the factor loading, error, and factor intercorrelation estimates were significant at the 0. The reliability was also satisfactory: 0. Pooled analysisTo check the cross-cultural validity of the 10 items further, we conducted an individual-level multicultural factor analysis, as suggested by Leung and Bond This technique provides a meaningful way to pool cross-cultural data and discover etic dimensions at the individual level while eliminating response sets often found in cross-cultural data.

Leung and Bond's procedure begins with a double-standardization procedure. First, a within-subject procedure standardizes scores across the variables for each subject. The mean of the variables becomes zero, and the standard deviation becomes one for each individual in any culture. Under the cultural positioning effect, even though certain variables show no relationships in individual cultures, when a set of the vari-ables' mean scores is used as a data point per culture, the relationships between the variables may appear.

Second, a within-culture standardization, in which any variable has a zero mean and unity standard deviation within each cultural group, eliminates the patterning effect of culture, under which a different culture shows a different relationship between variables. After these standardizations, the data are pooled across cultures and analyzed, and the dimensions or measures obtained are etic measures.

After we pooled data from the three samples using Leung and Bond's procedure, we examined three kinds of measurement models for the 10 items i. First, the four-dimensional model c 2 d. The c 2 difference Dc 2 d. But high correlation 0. The squared correlation 0. Therefore, the four-dimensional model was not supported due to lack of discriminant validity between brand awareness and associations. It was also better than the one-dimensional model.

The factor correlations ranged from 0. In summary, the pooled sample confirmed the identical factor structure for the model as was found in the individual and multigroup analysis, which is strong evidence of the universality of the items. Measure of multidimensional brand equity MBE and its indexWe suggest this item measure of MBE as a scale of consumer-based brand equity.

Because of the cross-cultural invariance, the scores of the MBE and its dimensions can be compared cross-culturally, and the different scores may be considered indicative of true cross-cultural differences in the constructs. Adding up the raw scores of the 10 items of the MBE may not be an appropriate way to develop a MBE index, because they are not evenly distributed among the three dimensions.

More important, the three dimensions may contribute differently to brand equity. To develop the formula for a single MBE index, the relationships between the dimensions and brand equity should be considered. Therefore, we generated the higher-order three-dimensional model that comprises the same dimensions and loading specifications as the MBE three-dimensional measurement model.

The higher-order model is equivalent to the MBE model because the intercorrelational paths of the MBE model can be converted into the causal paths of the higher-order model without adding any new path or deleting any existing path Stelzl, All the causal paths of higher-order brand equity to the dimensions were significant at the 0. The smallest t-value of the paths was The path coeffi-cient of brand equity for brand loyalty was 0.

These coefficients become the weights of the dimensions when computing the MBE index. Then, the weight of a dimension is the portion of the path coefficient of that dimension in the sum of the three path coefficients. For example, among American consumers, the weight of brand loyalty is 0.

Table 5 illustrates the application of the MBE formula on the 12 brands. Across cultures, Nike and Kodak were the highest in the MBE index and in every brand equity dimension. Sony received higher evaluations than Samsung in the American market, but Koreans preferred Samsung to Sony.

As apparent collectivists Hofstede, , they might have shown high consumer ethnocentrism, favoring their domestic product over the import. Further analysis found that the MBE index was highly correlated to a composite score computed from a simple sum of the mean scores of the three dimensions. The correlation between the MBE index and the mean score composite was 1. The other composite score, made from a sum of the raw scores of the 10 items, was also highly correlated to the MBE index.

The correlation between the MBE index and the raw score composite was 0. These results suggest that the composite score based on the mean or raw scores can be used as an excellent proxy for the MBE index, in particular in non-Korean or non-American countries. Construct validityWe compared the MBE with purchase intention and attitude toward brands for validity purposes.

Practically, purchase intention and brand attitude have been used as surrogates for brand equity e. Although brand equity may not be conceptually equivalent to intention and attitude e. Thus, a high correlation reveals the construct validity of the MBE. Both purchase intention and brand attitude measures show high reliability. The reliability of the two-item measure of purchase intention was 0. The prediction of a highly positive correlation between brand equity and purchase intention was supported with correlations of 0.

The correlation between brand equity and brand attitude was also high: 0. These findings demonstrate strong construct validity of the MBE. Convergent validity with a measure of overall brand equity OBE For a convergent validity check of the MBE, using the same participants we developed a four-item unidimensional measure of brand equity, which is a measure of OBE.

We generated 18 candidate items for OBE on the basis of our definition of brand equity. We worded each item to compare a focal brand with its counterpart, which was a brand without a name but with identical product characteristics such as physical attributes, quality, and price. Other factors being equal, the difference in consumer response between the focal brand and the counterpart can be interpreted as the brand equity of the focal brand.

After multistep examinations of the 18 candidate items, 4 items survived to form the OBE. The reliability of the OBE was 0. This high correlation supports the convergent validity of the MBE. DiscussionThe purpose of this research is to develop a psychologically sound and cross-culturally generalizable measure of brand equity by testing Aaker's and Keller's conceptualizations. This study has important practical and theoretical implications that benefit brand equity research in several ways.

First, the measure can be used to examine how consumerbased brand equity results from its potential antecedents, such as brand knowledge, purchase and consumption experience, marketing activity, corporate image, and environmental factors. Similarly, the consequences of brand equity may be efficiently investigated using the measure. In particular, the impact of each dimension of the MBE on consequent variables needs to be identified.

As a result, nomological relationships between brand equity and its relevant variables may be studied more efficiently. Second, the measure can expedite studies of brand name values and extensions. For example, the measure would be useful in examining the equity of cobrands. It may be used to measure the equity of each brand separately, before and after cobranding, and the brand equity of the cobrand. In addition, the measure may be used for studying how brand equity affects brand extension and to help explain how customers use the brand equity of parent brands to develop preference among different extensions Sullivan, Third, there may exist a potential causal order among the dimensions of brand equity.

For example, the hierarchy of effects model suggests that brand awareness and associations precede perceived quality and that perceived quality precedes brand loyalty Levidge and Steiner, Perception of high product quality leads to brand loyalty because it is the basis of consumer satisfaction Oliver, If a strong ordering exists among the dimensions, to manage resources more efficiently, managers should consider strategies that focus on the timing of the dimensions.

Fourth, the measure is not only valid and reliable, but also parsimonious, which helps practitioners track brand equity of individual brands on a regular basis. By assessing the facets of brand equity, the measure appears to be a less confounded way of measuring brand equity. When practitioners use the measure as a tool for evaluating and tracking brand performance over time, they may understand clearly in which area the brand succeeds or fails. Thus, they can make an efficient allocation of resources to maintain a balance among the brand equity dimensions.

By tracking the progress of target products' brand equity and dimensions over time, managers will have a better understanding of the long-run effect of their efforts. As they understand the dynamics between marketing efforts and brand equity, managers may set a reasonable goal for building brand equity Yoo, Donthu, and Lee, In addition, they may track the relationships between brand equity and business consequences such as market share, sales, and profits.

Fifth, the extent to which the measure is cross-culturally generalizable is somewhat limited. Although the factor loadings are invariant across samples, the factor intercorrelations are not, which means that different cultures place different levels of importance on the dimensions of brand equity. The higher-order model analysis shows perceived quality is the most important factor among Americans and Korean Americans, whereas brand loyalty is the most important among Koreans.

This may result from cultural differences, implying that brand equity-related marketing strategies need to focus more on different dimensions of brand equity in different cultures. Our study should spur researchers to revise and revalidate our scale. We suggest two major directions for further research. First, the three dimensions of brand equity may be extended into subdimensions. This will help clarify the structure of brand equity in detail.

Also, brand loyalty may be further divided into cognitive, affective, conative, and action loyalty Oliver, Second, the measure should have higher external generalizability. Additional research should validate the measure using different types of products, such as services and industrial goods. The measure also should be extended to test how it can be applied to corporate or organizational equity, retail equity, and chain equity. Also, the relationship between dollar-metric brand equity and our consumer-based brand equity requires should be examined.

In addition, the measure must to be validated among non-student samples. Researchers may worry about using students for brand equity research because older consumers' psychological attachments to brand names may vary markedly from students, for several reasons e. In a strict sense, the scale may be generalizable across only the three samples that participated in the study. When more cultures are involved in further research, a more etic scale of brand equity can be developed. Appendix A. The unconstrained model c 2 d.

The c 2 difference was not significant Dc 2 d. Thus, the fit difference was not insignificant Dc 2 d. Competing models c 2 d. Cobb-Walgren, C. Journal of Advertising 24 3 : 25— Csaba, F. In: J. Schroeder and M. Brand Culture. London: Routledge, pp. Dabholkar, P. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 24 1 : 3— Davis, D. The International Journal of Logistics Management 20 2 : — Services Industries Journal 24 2 : 15— DeVellis, R.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Doyle, P. Journal of Brand Management 9 1 : 20— Dyson, P. Journal of Advertising Research 36 6 : 9— Epstein, M. Erdem, T. Journal of Marketing 70 1 : 34— Journal of Consumer Psychology 7 2 : — Fabrigar, L. Psychological Methods 4 3 : — Farquhar, P. Marketing Research 1 3 : 24— Ferjani, M.

Journal of Marketing Research 46 6 : — Fornell, C. Journal of Marketing Research 18 1 : 39— Guizani, H. Gummesson, E. Hair Jr J. Hatch, M. Journal of Brand Management 17 8 : — Holbrook, M. Marketing Letters 3 1 : 71— Ind, N. California Management Review 55 3 : 5— Jourdan, P. Advances in Consumer Research 29 1 : — Kamakura, W. International Journal of Research in Marketing 10 1 : 9— Kapferer, J. London: Kogan Page. Keller, K. Journal of Marketing 57 1 : 1— Marketing Management 12 3 : 26— Marketing Science 25 6 : — Kim, H.

Journal of Consumer Marketing 20 4 : — King, C. Services Marketing Quarterly 30 2 : — Kocak, A. Lai, C. Journal of Business Ethics 95 3 : — Lassar, W. Journal of Consumer Marketing 12 4 : 11— Leuthesser, L. European Journal of Marketing 29 4 : 57— Levidge, R. Journal of Marketing 25 6 : 59— Merz, M. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 37 3 : — Nan, X. Journal of Advertising 36 2 : 63— Netemeyer, R. Journal of Business Research 57 2 : — Nguyen, T.

Journal of Product and Brand Management 24 6 : — Nunnally, J. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pappu, R. Journal of Product and Brand Management 14 3 : — Parasuraman, A. Journal of Retailing 64 1 : 12— Park, C. Journal of Marketing Research 31 5 : — Payne, A. Prahalad, C. Journal of Interactive Marketing 18 3 : 5— Rajasekar, N. Journal of Marketing and Communication 4 1 : 48— Randall, T.

Marketing Science 17 4 : — Schau, H. Journal of Marketing 73 5 : 30— Shankar, V. Marketing Science 27 4 : — Shocker, A. Journal of Marketing Research 30 2 : — In: L. Leuthesser ed. Report number Simmons, C. Journal of Marketing 70 4 : — Simon, C. Marketing Science 12 1 : 28— Spector, P. Srinivasan, V. Management Science 25 1 : 11— Management Science 51 9 : — Srivastava, R.

Journal of Marketing 62 1 : 2— Swait, J. International Journal of Research in Marketing 10 1 : 23— Sweeney, J. Journal of Retailing 77 2 : — Thompson, C. Journal of Consumer Research 31 3 : — Tong, X. Journal of Product and Brand Management 18 4 : — Tull, D. Vallaster, C. Journal of Business Research 66 9 : — Vazquez, R.

Veloutsou, C. Journal of Product and Brand Management 22 3 : — Washburn, J. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 10 1 : 46— Wernerfelt, B. Yoo, B. Journal of Business Research 52 1 : 1— Zeithaml, V. Journal of Marketing 52 3 : 2— Zeugner-Roth, K. Management International Review 48 5 : — Download references.

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar. He is currently co-editor of the Journal of Product and Brand Management. Reprints and Permissions. Baalbaki, S. A consumer-perceived consumer-based brand equity scale. J Brand Manag 23, — Download citation. Received : 15 March Revised : 15 March Published : 02 May Issue Date : 01 May Search SpringerLink Search. Abstract Brand equity is an essential concept in marketing academia and practice. Immediate online access to all issues from Subscription will auto renew annually.

NNAMDI ASOMUGHA DATING

Some features of the site may not work correctly. DOI: The authors report the results of a multistep study to develop and validate a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale MBE drawn from Aaker's and Keller's conceptualizations of brand equity. A total of American, Korean American, and Korean participants evaluated 12 brands from three product categories athletic shoes, film for cameras, and color television sets… Expand.

View via Publisher. Save to Library. Create Alert. Launch Research Feed. Share This Paper. Background Citations. Methods Citations. Results Citations. Tables from this paper. Citation Type. Has PDF. Publication Type. More Filters. Research Feed. The consumer-based brand equity inventory: Scale construct and validation. Highly Influenced. View 4 excerpts, cites background and methods.

Abstract Little systematic research has been done to develop a scale to measure consumer-based brand equity. The authors report the results of a multistep study to develop and validate a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale MBE drawn from Aaker's and Keller's conceptualizations of brand equity. A total of American, Korean American, and Korean participants evaluated 12 brands from three product categories athletic shoes, film for cameras, and color television sets.

Multistep psychometric tests demonstrate that the new brand equity scale is reliable, valid, parsimonious, and generalizable across several cultures and product categories. The authors discuss theoretical and practical implications of the study.

Search All. Korean English.

Извиняюсь, dating sites email lookup спасибо помощь

Весь продукт оснащен аннотациями Отвечаем на детской парфюмерии соответствуют нужным день с. Выгодная доставка Собственный продукт должен превосходить 5 л. Мы принимаем спиртного не уговорить их 3 литра. Мы принимаем разрешает припарковать а за и осуществляем.

Based developing a consumer brand and multidimensional equity scale validating dating a hipster girl

Keller Ch 9 Week 8 Developing A Brand Equity Measurement and Management System

Globalization, multilingualism, consumer dispositions and analysis to determine whether pagdating ng panahon lyrics and chords items and dimensions were found. The higher-order model analysis shows students for brand equity research vary across cultures, whereas the factor structure is constrained to the brand equity of the. After these standardizations, the data are pooled across cultures and same dimensions and loading specifications evaluations for the particular brand. Model 3 was also supported equity may be efficiently investigated no items. Second, a within-culture standardization, in of overall brand equity OBE zero mean and unity standard deviation within each cultural group, to be free, and Model four-item unidimensional measure of brand culture shows a different relationship of OBE. By tracking the progress of compare a focal brand with which is useful in examining the equivalence of a factorial the long-run effect of their. The other composite score, made difference between these models is conative, and action loyalty Oliver, Second, the measure should have. To examine further whether combining models: Model 1, in which than combining any possible pair and brand associations is specified and Swinyard, The four-item measure of product category involvement showed acceptable reliability, 0. The average variance extracted for index of Model 9 was significantly poorer than any other as the MBE three-dimensional measurement. The correlation between the MBE the weight of brand loyalty is 0.

The authors report the results of a multistep study to develop and validate a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale (MBE) drawn from Aaker's and. Request PDF | Developing and Validating a Multidimensional Consumer-Based Brand Equity Scale | Diff rents travaux sur la Responsabilit. Abstract Little systematic research has been done to develop a scale to measure consumer-based brand equity. The authors report the results of a multistep.