Existing Measures of Brand Equity Keller and Lehmann (2001) divide existing measures of brand equity into

three categories. The first category, which they call "customer mind-set," focuses on assessing the consumer-
based sources of brand equity. The second and third categories, which they call "product market" and
"financialm arket,"f ocus on the outcomes or net benefit that a firm derives from the equity of its brands.
Customer mind-set. Customer mind-set measures assess the awareness, attitudes, associations, attachments,
and loy-alties that customers have toward a brand and have been the focus of much academic research (e.g.,
Aaker 1991, 1996; Ambler and Barwise 1998; Keller 1993, 2003) and industry offerings (e.g., Millward Brown's
Brand Z, Research Inter-national's Equity Engine, Young & Rubicam's Brand Asset Valuator). These measuresa re
rich in thatt hey assess several sources of brand equity, have good diagnostic ability, and can be used as input to
predict a brand's potential. Thus, they are well suited for the first three purposes of brand equity measurement
listed previously. However, because the measures are typically based on consumer surveys, they are not easy to
compute and do not provide a single, simple, objective measure of brand performance. Furthermore, because
they do not culminate in a dollar value for the brand, they are not appealing for financial valuation proposes.
Even marketers argue that it is not enough to assess brand image, attitudes, and so on; the dollar-value connec-
tion to the bottom line is imperative (Kiley 1998; Schultz 1997). Product-market outcomes. The logic underlying
product-market measures is that the benefit of brande quity should ultimately be reflected in the brand's
performance in the marketplace. The most commonly mentioned such mea-sure is price premium, that is, the
ability of a brand to charge a higher price than an unbranded equivalent charges (Aaker 1991, 1996; Agarwal and
Rao 1996; Sethuraman 2000; Sethuraman and Cole 1997). Price premium is measured either by asking
consumers how much more they would be willing to pay for a brand than for a private label or an unbranded
product or by conducting conjoint studies in which brandn ame is an attribute.O therp roduct-market out-come
measures include market share, relative price (Chaud-hurl and Holbrook 2001), share of category requirements
(Aaker 1996), markets hare adjustedb y a "durability"fa ctor (Moran 1994), the constant term in demand models
(Srini-vasan 1979), the residual in a hedonic regression (Hjorth- Andersen 1984), or an economic theory-based
measure of the difference between the brand's profit and the profit it would earn without the brand name
(Dubin 1998). The advantages of such measures are that they are more "complete" than any single customer
mind-set measure because they reflect a culmination of the various mecha-nisms by which the brand name adds
value and that they can be given a dollar value, which is appealing to senior man-agement and is critical for
financial valuation. Many such measures are also rooted in the conceptual definition of brand equity because
they quantify the incremental benefit due to the brand name. The disadvantages are that some of the measures
rely on customer judgments of what they would buy in hypothetical situations rather than actual purchase data
and are subject to several biases, such as context effects (Simonson and Tversky 1992). Other measures, such as
conjoint-based measures, require fairly complicated statistical modeling, which makes them time consuming
and impractical to monitor on a regular basis, or are sensitive to model specification (Steenkamp and Wittink
1994). In addition, some product-market measures can result in an incomplete and therefore misleading
estimate of brand equity. For example, a brand might have high mar-ket share,b uti f thats hares imply has been
"bought"b y severe price cuts, market share will overestimate brand equity. Other brands might not command a
price premium, but that does not mean they do not have equity. Indeed, in today's value-conscious consumer
market, there are many examples of strong, value-priced brands (e.g., Southwest Airlines, Wal- Mart, Suave).
Finally, because of their focus on outcomes rathert han sources of brande quity, all product-market mea-sures
have limited diagnostic ability: They are diagnostic to the extent that they can flag when a brand is in trouble or
when it is strong, but they cannot explain the reasons for either situation. Thus, they are more suited for the last
three purposes of brand equity measures that we listed previously. Financial market outcomes. Financial market
measures assess the value of a brand as a financial asset; such mea-sures include purchase price at the time a
brand is sold or acquired (Mahajan, Rao, and Srivastava 1994) and dis-counted cash flow valuation of licensing
fees and royalties. The Interbrandc onsultancy combines both product-market and financial market measures to
adjust a brand's current profits for growth potential. Simon and Sullivan (1993) determine the residual market
value after other sources of firm value are accounted for. same advantages and disadvantages as do customer
mind-set measures and product-marketo utcomes, they differ in one key respect. In general, product-marketo
utcomes quantify the current strength of a brand, whereas financial market outcomes also attempt to quantify
future potential. However, this difference introduces a substantial element of subjectiv-ity and/or instability
into the measures. Future potential is assessed by means of subjective judgment (e.g., the multi-ples Interbrand
applies) or stock market value, which is highly volatile (e.g., Snapple's sale price went from $1.7 bil-lion in 1994
to $300 million in 1996, and then back to $1 billion in 2000), and has less immediate relevance to mar-keting,
because many things other than marketing activities influence it.

Responset o a MajorP olicy Changei n the MarketingM ix: Learningfr omP &G'sV alueP ricingS trategy,"Jo urnal
of Mar-keting,6 5 (January),44 -61.

Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty," Journal of Marketing,
65 (April), 81-93. Dekimpe, Marnik

The use of corporate societal marketing (CSM) appears to be on the rise in accordance with the increasing
recognition of the vast potential of CSM programs (e.g., Drumwright 1996; File and Prince 1998; Varadarajana nd
Menon 1988). Corporates ocietal market-ing is defined to "encompass marketing initiatives that have at least
one non-economic objective related to social welfare and use the resources of the company and/or one of its
part-ners" (Drumwright and Murphy 2001, p. 164). One factor driving this growth in CSM is the realization that
con-sumers' perceptions of a company as a whole and its role in society can significantly affect a brand's
strength and equity. For example, the 1999 Cone/Roper Cause-Related Trends Report revealed that among U.S.
residents (1) 80% have a more positive image of companies that support a cause that they care about, (2) nearly
two-thirds report that they would be likely to switch brands to one associated with a good cause, and (3) almost
three-quarters approveo f cause programs as a business practice. Corporate societal marketing has been used to
satisfy multiple objectives. Goals for companies that implement successful CSM programs include "creat(ing) a
differential advantage through an enhanced corporate image with con-sumers" (Lichtenstein, Drumwright, and
Braig 2000, p. 4) and "differentiat(ing) themselves from the competition by building an emotional, even spiritual,
bond with consumers" (Meyer 1999, p. 29). Other benefits exist too. For example, the Muscular Dystrophy
Association's (2001) Web site lists the following benefits of affiliation for corporate partners: "It's good business
to do business with MDA. The Associa-tion's programs can (1) Enhance your company's public image; (2) Boost
employee morale; (3) Draw attention to a product or service; and (4) Contribute to an increase in sales."
Moreover, CSM programs may provide a reservoir of goodwill that will help deflect criticism and overcome
negative publicity from an unexpected event or tragedy (Dawar and Pillutla 2000). Although the potential
benefits of CSM programs are vast, we focus on the specific benefits of CSM programs with regard to the
shaping of brand equity. Corporate soci-etal marketing programs are poised to play a more important role in
brand marketing. For that to happen, however, mar-keters must understand what to expect and what not to
expect from CSM programs. Accordingly, the goal of this article is to examine some critical decisions associated
with establishing an effective, brand-buildingC SM program.W e outline six ways that CSM programs can affect
brand equity. With that broad background, we next turn to three crucial CSM issues. First, we consider in
greater detail the factors that determine the manner in which CSM programs affect brand equity. Second, we
examine the choice of which cause to support-for example, a cause that has much in common with the current
image of the brand versus a cause that could complement and augment what the brand already stands for.
Third, we address the branding strategy for the CSM program itself, that is, whether it is more appropriate to
link the brand to an existing cause (cobranding, as with American Airlines' official sponsorship of the Susan G.
Komen Breast Cancer Foundation), create a new program or cause (self branding, as with McDonald's Ronald
McDon-ald House Charities), or use some combination of the two (joint branding, as with American Express's
Charge Against Hunger program in conjunction with the Share Our Strength foundation). The article also
develops a series of research propositions and concludes by outlining a set of possible future research
directions.

andP atrickE . Murphy( 2001), "CorporateSo cietalM ar- keting," in Handbook of Marketing and Society, Paul N. Bloom
and Gregory T. Gundlach, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub-lications, 162-83.

onsumers purchase products to obtain benefits, and products deliver benefits at least in part through the
attributes they possess. It is commonly assumed that em-phasizing a product's favorable attributes increases its
at-tractiveness and enhances brand equity, even when those attributes have a negligible effect on objective
product per-formance (Brown and Carpenter 2000) or are nondiagnostic of brand superiority (Hoch and
Deighton 1989). We argue that although product attractiveness is likely to be enhanced by the promotion of
favorable attributes, an accompanying decrease in brand equity can occur.

Brown, Christina L. and Gregory S. Carpenter (2000), "Why Is the Trivial Important?A Reasons-Based Account for the Ef-fects
of Trivial Attributes on Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (March), 372-385.

Competition for equity between brand and attribute is inconsistent with spreading-activationth eories, which
hold that the learning of an association from one cue to an out-come should be unaffected by associations from
other cues to that same outcome (van Osselaer and Janiszewski 2001). The predictions made by cue-interactive
models are not widely espoused in consumer research but are prominent in influential theories of animal
learning (Pearce and Bouton 2001), are prominent in some models of human causal judg-ment (Shanks, Medin,
and Holyoak 1996), and have even been invoked in the study of brand equity (van Osselaer and Alba 2000).
However, no research has properly investigated the directt rade-offb etween brande quity and attributee quity
(i.e., the zero-sum assumption). To do so requires a design in which the learning of brand-benefit information is
con-trasted with the simultaneous learning of brand-attribute-benefit information. Moreover, there is no
research in any context that investigates this critical trade-off across judg-ment categories, such as when brands
extend into new prod-uct classes. These issues are examined in the following experiments: We find support for
cue-interactive models, but we also can accommodate anecdotal evidence regarding the advantages to be
gained from the promotion of benefit-inducing attrib-utes. In the end, we argue that the validity of different
mod-els is contextually determined, and we offer supporting ev-idence for one important moderating factor.

Pearce, John M. and Mark E. Bouton (2001), "Theories of As-sociative Learning in Animals," Annual Review of Psychol-ogy,
52, 111-139.