Analysis of Brand Resonance Amongst Young

“ANALYSIS OF BRAND RESONANCE AMONGST YOUNG
CONSUMERS WITH REFERENCE TO SELECT PRODUCT

CATEGORIES”
By
Umesh Ramchandra Raut
PhD Dissertation in Business and Management Studies
Under Thesis Co-Supervision Agreement
Advised by
Prof., Dr. Prafulla Arjun Pawar,
Department of Management Sciences, Savitribai Phule Pune University, India
Prof., Dr. Pedro Quelhas Brito

Faculty of Economics, University of Porto, Portugal
2015
AUTHOR‟S BIOGRAPHY
Name: Umesh Ramchandra Raut
Email: [email protected]
Academic Degrees:
Master of Business Administration (MBA) in Marketing Management, Savitribai Phule

Pune University; MBA in International Business Management, Savitribai Phule Pune
University; B.Sc.(Geology, Chemistry Botany), Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University.
Qualify JRF &NET (Junior Research Fellowship and National Eligibility Test) in
Management Conducted by University Grant Commission (UGC) in June-2010.
Research Grants
Doctoral grant from University Grants Commission New Delhi, India Junior Research
Fellow, and Senior Research Fellow at Department of Management Sciences (PUMBA),
Savitribai Phule Pune University.
Two years Doctoral Fellowship awarded by Erasmus Mundus-European Commission

under India4EU Project
Paper Publication:
Paper published in International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, Journal
of Management and Science, Vishwakarma Business Review and Inventi Impact: Business
Research & Reviews.
Paper Presented in Conferences:
Research paper presented at MAG Scholar Global Business, Marketing and Tourism
Conference-2014 Yogyakarta, Indonesia. IRMBAM-2014 Nice, France. ICEB-2014,
Madrid, Spain.
I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
While a completed dissertation bears the single name of the student, the process that
leads to its completion is always accomplished in combination with the dedicated work of
other people. I wish to acknowledge my appreciation to certain people.
I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Prafulla Pawar, for the patient guidance,
encouragement and advice he has provided throughout my time as his student. In
particular I would like to thank my co-supervisor Prof. Pedro Quelhas Brito, Faculty of
Economics (FEP) University of Porto-Portugal for the suggestions he made in this work.
I have been extremely lucky to have a supervisor who cared so much about my work, and
who responded to my questions and queries so promptly. I would also like to thank all the
members of staff at Department of Management Sciences (PUMBA), Savitribai Phule
Pune University, who helped me in the completion of my doctorate. I must express my
gratitude to my father, mother and brother Rajesh for their continued support and
encouragement and who experienced all of the ups and downs of my research.
Completing this work would have been all the more difficult were it not for the support
and friendship provided by the other members of the Faculty of Economics and
Management (FEP), University of Porto. I am indebted to them for their help.
Those people, such as the postgraduate students at Department of Management Sciences

(PUMBA), Savitribai Phule Pune University, who provided a much needed form of
escape from my studies, also deserve thanks for helping me keep things in perspective.
I would like to thanks, University Grand Commission, India and Erasmus Mundus,
Inidan4EU project for granting the financial support for this study.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge my friends, colleague and everyone who helped me
in the completion of this doctoral dissertation.
Umesh Ramchandra Raut
II
ABSTRACT
The relationship between consumers and brands has garnered considerable attention in
the marketing and the consumer behavior literature. Branding literature state that brand
resonance is the extent to which a consumer develops strong behavioral, psychological,
and social bonds with the brands s/he consumes. The present investigation analyzes the
relationship between young consumers and their preferred brand. To analyze this
relationship we employ existing conceptual model of brand resonance. Research also
states the objective to understand the impact demographic profile of consumers on their
relationship with a brand. To achieve stated objectives of this research we exercise
qualitative and quantitative research approach. The research design for this research
divided into two phases in first phase we developed measures to measure brand
resonance through pilot study and in second phase we performed final study with
collection of final data and test hypotheses of present study. From qualitative research,
researchers employ expert interviews and focus group discussion techniques while from a
quantitative research use survey method. As researching the brand resonance literature
we noticed that, there is no measurement scales available to measure a brand resonance,
however branding literature provide the guideline for the development of brand
resonance scale. Consider this as research gap we set an objective to an operationalization
of brand resonance scale. The present study provides thirty-four empirically developed
brand resonance measures; with this research we also ensure the validity and reliability of
operationalized measures of brand resonance. Research findings showed that the brand
resonance model act in experimentally too as explained in theoretically. The findings of
this research present implication for the academician and brand managers as well.
III
RESUMO
A relação entre os consumidores e as marcas tem atraído uma notável atenção no que diz
respeito à literaturade marketing e comportamento do consumidor. Através da literatura é
possível constatar que a ressonância da marca é uma extensão para o qual o consumidor
desenvolve fortes laços comportamentais, psicológicos e sociais com as marcas que
consome.A presente investigação analisa a relação entre os consumidores jovens e sua
marca preferida. Para analisar esta relação utilizou-se num modelo conceptual de
ressonância da marca já existente. A pesquisa também possui como objetivo
compreender, o impacto do perfil demográfico dos consumidores na sua relação com a
marca. Para alcançar os objetivos desta pesquisa foi utilizada uma abordagem de pesquisa
qualitativa e quantitativa. O estudo foi dividido em duas fases: na primeira fase,
desenvolveram-se medidas para avaliar a ressonância da marca, através de um estudo
piloto, na segunda fase foi realizado o estudo final com recolha de dados e testesde
hipóteses. Na pesquisa qualitativa, foram efetuadas entrevistas e focusgroup, na pesquisa
quantitativa foi utilizado o método de inquéritos. Através da pesquisa efetuada na
literatura ressonância da marca, percebeu-se que não existem escalas de medição
disponíveis para medir uma ressonância marca, no entanto,a literatura fornece orientação
para o desenvolvimento de uma escala. Considerando a não existência de uma escala
como um gap na literatura, definiu-se como objetivo a operacionalização de uma escala
de ressonância da marca. Assim, o presente estudo fornece trinta e quatro medidas
ressonância da marca empiricamente desenvolvidas; com esta pesquisa foi possível
garantir a validade e confiabilidade das medidas operacionalizadas da ressonância da
marca. Os resultados da investigação mostraram também que o modelo da ressonância da
marca atua também experimentalmente, tal como explicado teoricamente. Os resultados
desta pesquisa apresentam implicações para os académicos assim como para os gestores
da marca.
IV
CONTENTS
AUTHOR‘S BIOGRAPH....................................................................................................I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..................................................................................................II
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................III
RESUMO...........................................................................................................................IV
CONTENTS........................................................................................................................V
LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................X
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................XIII
LIST OF GRAPHS..........................................................................................................XV
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.........................................................................................XVI
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................1-13
1.1 Theoretical Framework of the Study.......................................................................2
1.2 Brand Relationship and Research on Brand Relationship...................................9
1.5 Overview of the Chapters......................................................................................13
2 LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................14-60
2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................14
2.2 Brand Resonance Model........................................................................................14
2.3 Brand Resonance: Relationship Approach............................................................21
V
2.4 Brief Discussion of Brand Resonance Dimensions...............................................26
2.4.1 Brand Loyalty............................................................................................26
2.4.2 Brand Attachment......................................................................................29
2.4.3 Brand Community......................................................................................34
2.4.4 Brand Engagement.....................................................................................37
2.5 Factors Influencing Brand Relationship................................................................40
a. Brand Awareness.......................................................................................41
b. Brand performance.....................................................................................44
c. Brand Image...............................................................................................46
d. Brand Judgment.........................................................................................47
e. Brand Feelings...........................................................................................47
2.6 The Role of Brand Trust and Brand Satisfaction in Building Brand Resonance...48
2.7 Young Generation and Brand Relationship...........................................................51
2.8 Relation Between Brand Resonance and Consumer Demographics.....................55
2.9 Measurement Considerations for Brand Resonance..............................................58
3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY...................................61-86
3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................61
3.2 Statement of the Proble..........................................................................................62
3.3 Significance of the Study.......................................................................................64
3.4 Purposes of the Study.............................................................................................66
VI
3.5 Research Questions................................................................................................69
3.6 Research Aims and Objectives..............................................................................70
3.7 Research Design.....................................................................................................71
3.7.1 Sampling Design........................................................................................72
3.7.2 Young consumer consideration..................................................................74
3.7.3 Research Instrument Development............................................................74
3.7.4 Data Collection Design..............................................................................75
3.8 Product Category Selection....................................................................................75
3.9 Hypothesis Generation...........................................................................................79
4 DEVELOPMENT OF SCALE TO STUDY BRAND RESONANCE..........87-113
4.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................87
4.2 Theory....................................................................................................................88
4.3 Steps to Developed Brand Resonance Measures...................................................89
4.3.1 Specify the Construct Domain...................................................................90
4.3.2 Generation of Items and Collection of Data..............................................90
4.3.3 Purification of Scale...................................................................................98
4.3.4 Assessment Reliability and Validity........................................................109
4.4 Concluding Remark.............................................................................................112
5 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION..........................................114-169
VII
5.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................114
Sample Characteristic......................................................................................................115
Hypothesis Testing For Cell Phone Product Category....................................................116
Hypothesis Number-1..........................................................................................116
Hypothesis Number-3 and 4................................................................................122
Hypothesis Number- 7,8,9 and 10.......................................................................131
Hypothesis Testing For Soft Drink Product Category.....................................................140
Hypothesis Number- 7,8,9 and 10.......................................................................155
Present Study Model Analysis.............................................................................163
Hypothesis Number-11........................................................................................165
6 FINDINGS, IMPLICATION AND SUGGESTIONS.................................170-177
7 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY AND FUTURE RESEARCH

DIRECTION.................................................................................................178-179
VIII
8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION..........................................................180-181
9 REFERENCES.............................................................................................182-205
APPENDIX..............................................................................................................206-216
IX
LIST OF TABLES
Table-1: Relationship Drivers............................................................................................40
Table-2: Selected Empirical Studies on Gender and Brand Relationshi...........................56
Table-3: Descriptor of research design..............................................................................71
Table-4: Past research on brand relationship and selected product category....................77
Table-5: Specified Domain of Construct...........................................................................93
Table-6: Generation of Items.............................................................................................94
Table-7: Brand Resonance Measures Analysis Qualitative study and EFA...................101
Table-8: Descriptive Statistics for Assessment of Normality..........................................104
Table-9: Brand Resonance Items for Final Study............................................................111
Table-10:Correlation Matrix and Discriminant Validity Assessment.............................112
Table-11: Select Characteristics of Survey Sample for Cell Phone and Soft Drink........115
Table-12: Group Statistics...............................................................................................116
Table-13: Independent Sample Test................................................................................116
Table- 14: Descriptive Statistics......................................................................................118
Table-15: Test of Homogeneity of Variances..................................................................118
Table-16:ANOVA............................................................................................................119
Table-17: Multiple Comparisons.....................................................................................120
Table-18: Pearson Correlation Coefficient......................................................................123
Table-19: Model Summary..............................................................................................124
X
Table-20: ANOVA...........................................................................................................125
Table-21: Coefficients.....................................................................................................126
Table-22: Existing Model of Brand Resonance Analysis................................................134
Table-23: Squared Multiple Correlations: (R-square).....................................................134
Table-24: Mediation Model of Brand Resonance............................................................136
Table-25: Model Fit Indices and R-Square.....................................................................137
Table-26: Mediation Path Analysis of Brand Trust and Satisfaction (Cell Phone).........138
Table-27: Path Analysis Between Brand Satisfaction and Brand Trust..........................139
Table-28: Group Statistics...............................................................................................140
Table-29: Independent Sample Test................................................................................140
Table-30: Descriptive.......................................................................................................142
Table-31: Test of Homogeneity of Variances..................................................................143
Table-32: ANOVA..........................................................................................................143
Table-33: Multiple Comparisons.....................................................................................143
Table-34: Pearson Correlation Coefficient......................................................................147
Table-35: Model Summary..............................................................................................148
Table-36: ANOVA..........................................................................................................149
Table-37: Coefficients.....................................................................................................150
Table-38: Existing Model of Brand Resonance Analysis................................................157
Table-39: Squared Multiple Correlations: (R-square).....................................................157
Table-40: Mediation Model of Brand Resonance............................................................159
XI
Table-41: Model Fit Indices and R-Square.....................................................................160
Table-42: Mediation Path Analysis of Brand Trust and Satisfaction (Soft Drink)..........161
Table-43: Path Analysis Between Brand Satisfaction and Brand Trust..........................162
Table-44: Paired Samples Statistics.................................................................................165
Table-45: Paired Samples Correlations...........................................................................165
Table-46: Paired Samples Test........................................................................................165
Table- 47: Hypothesis Testing For Cell Phone Product Category...................................167
Table- 48: Hypothesis Testing For Soft Drink Product Category...................................168
Table-49: Hypothesis for Both Product Categories testing relationship.........................169
XII
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure-1: Customer-Based Brand Equity Pyramid………………………………………..4
Figure-2: Sub dimension of brand resonance Pyramid…………………………………..16
Figure-3: Brand Resonance Network……………………………………………………19
Figure-4: Brand Attachment: Construct, consequence and causes……………………....30
Figure-5: The Pyramid of Brand Attachment…………………………………………....31
Figure-6: Dimensions of Brand Awareness……………………………………………...43
Figure-7: Measures of Brand Resonance………………………………………………...59
Figure-8: Conceptual Model of Brand resonance for Present study……………………..67
Figure-9: Required Sample size (The Research Advisors-2006)………………………..73
Figure-10: Scale Development Process………………………………………………….92
Figure-11: Initial Form of Brand Resonance Measurement Model……………………106
Figure-12: Accepted Brand Resonance Measurement Model………………………….107
Figure- 13: Existing Model of Brand Resonance and New Model of Brand Resonance
(Cell
Phone)…………………………………………………………..……….…130
Figure-14: Statistically tested SEM Existing Model of Brand Resonance……………..133
Figure-15: Mediation Model of Brand Resonance-Cell Phone (Mediator-Brand

Satisfaction and Brand Trust)………………………………………….…..135
Figure-16: Existing Model of Brand Resonance New Model of Brand Resonance……154
Figure-17: Statistically tested SEM Existing Model of Brand Resonance……………..156
XIII
Figure-18: Mediation Model of Brand Resonance-Soft Drink (Mediator-Brand
Satisfaction and Brand Trust)…………………………….………………..158
Figure-19: Present Study Brand Resonance Model for Cell Phone Product Category…164
Figure-20: Present Study Brand Resonance Model for Soft Drink Product Category…164
XIV
LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph-1: Scree Plot to Confirm Number of Factors……………………………………100
Graph-2: Mean Plot of Brand Resonance………………………………………………121
Graph-3: Scatter Plot between Brand Resonance and Satisfaction……………………122
Graph-4: Scatter Plot between Brand Resonance and Satisfaction…………………….122
Graph-5: Histograms of Normally Distributed Residuals……………………………...128
Graph-6: P–P Plots of Normally Distributed Residuals………………………………..128
Graph-7: Homoscedasticity‘ and ‗Linearity‘ of Standardized Residuals against

Standardized Predicted Value……………………………………………….129
Graph-8: Mean Plot of Brand Resonance………………………………………………145
Graph-9: Scatter Plot between Brand Resonance and Satisfaction…………………….146
Graph-1o: Scatter Plot between Brand Resonance and Brand Trust…………………...146
Graph-11: Histograms of Normally Distributed Residuals………………………….…152
Graph-12: P–P Plots of Normally Distributed Residuals………………………………152
Graph-13: Homoscedasticity‘ and ‗Linearity‘ of Standardized Residuals against

Standardized Predicted Value……………………………………………...153
XV
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym Meaning
AGFI Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index
AMA American Marketing Association
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
AVE Average Variance Extraction
BA Brand Awareness
BAT Brand Attachment
BC Brand Community
BE Brand Engagement
BESC Brand engagement in self-concept
BF Brand Feelings
BI Brand Image
BJ Brand Judgment
BL Brand Loyalty
BMW Bayerische Motoren Werke
BP Brand Performance
BR Brand Resonance
BS Brand Satisfaction
CBBE Consumer-Based Brand Equity
CD-ROM Compact Disc Read-Only Memory
CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis
CFI Comparative Fit Index,
CMIN Minimum of discrepancy function
CPG Consumer-Packaged Goods
CR Composite Reliability
C.R. Critical Ratio
DF Degree of Freedom
EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis
FGD Focus Group Discussion
XVI
GFI Goodness of fit index
HOELTER Hoelter‘s Critical N
HOG Harley Owners Groups
IFI Incremental Fit Index
KMO Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin
Lac A lakh or lac, is a unit in the Indian Numbering System equal to one
hundred thousand (100,000; Scientific notation: 105)
M Mean
MI Modification Indices
N Sample Size
NFI Normed fit index
PCA Principal Component Analysis
PCFI Parsimony-adjusted Comparative Fit Index
PCLOSE PCLOSE is the alternative ways of assessing model, which gives a
test of close fit while P gives a test of exact fit.
PGFI Parsimony-adjusted Goodness of Fit
PNFI Parsimony-adjusted Normed Fit Index
P-P Plot Probability–Probability Plot
PRATIO The parsimony ratio
PTI Press Trust of India
r Correlation
RFI Relative Fit Index
RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
RMR Root Mean Square Residual
Rupee The rupee is the common name for the currencies of India
SAP Systems, Applications & Products in Data Processing
SE Standard Error
SEM Structural Equation Modeling
Sig. Significance
SPSS- Statistical Package for Social Sciences
XVII
TOM Top of Mind
TLI Tucker-Lewis Index
TV Television
USD United States Dollar
VIF Variance Inflation Factor
Y Generation Young Generation
XVIII
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Brands have debatably presented for thousands of years (Moore and Reid, 2008),
however the modern idea of brands originated in the late 19th century with the
introduction of trademarks and attractive packaging (Fullerton, 1998), which was actually
developed as ‗a guarantee of authenticity‘ (Feldwick, 1991). There has been a significant
amount of work done in the field of consumer brand relationships in the past decade and
it is still an emerging area of study of researchers (Fournier, 1998; Sahay and Sharma,
2010). More than the course of the decade, we have learned a many new things about the
nature and functions of consumers‘ relationships with brands, and the processes whereby
they develop in the hands of consumers and marketers. In a broader sense, brand
relationship research, grounded as it is in the notion of consumers as active meaning-
makers, helped pave way for the paradigm of co-creation embraced in brand marketing
today (Allen et al., 2008). Some authors consider brand as a partner in a dyadic
relationship with the consumer (Aaker, 1995; Aaker et al., 2004). The relational approach
may provide a better and broader understanding of the phenomena that arises between the
customer and the brand. Investigating branding as a variable of consumer loyalty and
customer retention may reduce influences resulting from symbolic consumption since
loyalty may considered as a particular kind of a relationship (Chestnut, 1978). Knowing
the brand relationship is nothing but to know how people make long-term commitments
to inanimate objects that they buy and use, as well as help make, sell, and distribute
(Kumar, 2006).
Investigating brand relationship metaphor is quite complex, as the brand relationship

construct related to many different disciplines of social sciences, such as human
psychology, anthropology, sociology and many others. The brand relationship concept
represents the bonding or attachment between consumers and their brand. The
development of brand relationship is not an easy task, as it influenced by different
marketing as well as other than marketing factors, such as consumer demographics,
consumer knowledge, and attitude, etc.
1
1.1. Theoretical Framework of the study:
A significant contribution to branding theory was that made by Kevin Keller (1993;
2001; 2003) with his introduction of the concept of customer-based brand equity (CBBE)
or brand resonance (Keller, 2001) and the brand hierarchy (Keller, 1993). Brand equity,
according to Keller, is the effect that brand knowledge has on consumer response to the
marketing of a brand, with the effect occurring when the brand known and when the
consumer possesses favorable, strong and unique brand associations (Keller, 1993). The
Customer-Based Brand Equity model identifies four steps that denote questions asked by
customers and represent a ‗branding ladder‘, with each step dependent on achieving the
previous one (Keller, 2001). These steps consist of six brand building blocks, with a
number of sub-dimensions (Keller, 1993). To build a strong brand, the aim is to reach the
pinnacle of the pyramid where a harmonious relationship exists between customers and
brand.
The foundation for the conceptual model in this study is extract from brand resonance
model, which was developed by Keller in 2001. The model divided into six distinct
drivers: brand salience, brand performance, brand imagery, consumer judgments,
consumer feelings, and consumer-brand resonance. The conceptualization of the six
drivers based upon, brand resonance model that posits brand relationships built
sequentially through the six drivers. A particular feature of Keller‘s pyramid is that one
level must achieve before a consumer could experience or engage in the next. However,
there are some fundamental differences in the conceptualization of this study and the
original consumer-based brand equity pyramid that was posited by Keller (2001).
1.1.1. Keller‟s (2001) Brand Resonance Model: Customer-Brand Relationship

Approach:
The consumer-based brand equity pyramid or brand resonance model provide

chronological structure for building a strong brand and it includes four steps, each of
which needs to be successfully accomplished to reach the next.
2
The first step in building a strong brand is creating brand saliency in the mind of the
consumer. Brand salience refers to aspects of the awareness of a brand such as the top-of-
mind awareness of the brand, retrievability of the brand, and the overall strength of
awareness. A brand with high saliency can characterize as a great amount of depth and
breadth of brand awareness. In most cases, brand awareness is not a sufficient condition
for consumers to purchase. Instead, brand awareness acts as the launch point for building
the meaning of the brand in the mind of the consumer.
The second step in the construction of a strong brand is the creation of a product that
meets or exceeds the functional and psychological or social needs of the consumer. Brand
performance and brand imagery are essential aspects of achieving this step in building a
strong brand. The key aspect of achieving this goal is to build strong, favorable, and
unique brand associations related to the functional and experiential aspects of the brand.
Overall, greater amounts of brand knowledge will lead to a better understanding of a
brand‘s meaning on behalf of consumers. The meaning of the brand is what elicits
responses to the brand on the part of the consumer.
The third step in building a strong brand is eliciting consumer responses to the brand by
means of brand judgments and brand feelings. Brand judgments refer to the cognitive
evaluation of the overall superiority, quality, credibility, and consideration of the brand.
This aspect of brand response evaluates the functional and symbolic aspects of the brand
in reference to its competition to determine which product is superior. Another aspect of
this step is the elicitation of an active response from the consumer. Brand feelings refer to
evocation of feelings and emotions from consumers to themselves and others due to the
brand. The judgments and feelings toward the brand on behalf of the consumer impact
the relationship and level of identification that the consumer has the brand and fellow
consumers.
3
Figure-1: Customer-based Brand Equity Pyramid (Source: Keller, 2001)
The final step, brand resonance, refers to the characteristics of the relationship between
the consumer and the brand and the level of time and effort spent on behalf of the
consumer towards the consumption of the target brand. Brand resonance can be
characterized by the bond the consumer shares with the brand as well as the amount of
effort the consumer exerts to consume the brand. These Four dimensions have defined
brand resonance; behavioral loyalty, attitudinal attachment, sense of community, and
active engagement. Brand loyalty and brand attachment are characterized as the
psychological bond the consumer shares with the brand as well as the intensity with
which the consumer intends to consume the brand. Brand community refers to the level
of connection or engagement that the focal consumer shares with other consumers of the
brand. The engagement in these brand communities illustrates the affinity and level of
effort the consumer is willing to engage in due to the brand. Finally, brand engagement
refers to the resources consumers are willing to invest on behalf of the brand beyond
purchase and consumption (Keller, 2001; Keller, 2008).
4
1.1.2. Brand Resonance:
In congruence with the views of several leading branding scholars (Aaker, 1995; Keller,
2008), it was recognized that brand resonance encompasses a range of brand-related
activities and orientations from mere repeat purchase to deep emotional ties.This model
treats brand equity as a development process of brand relationship. Strong brands have to
achieve the final level of development called resonance that is the approach as loyalty.
The advantage of ―Brand resonance‖ lies in the duality of brand equity concept –
consumer perceives brand equity on a basis of emotional and rational factors. It is
important to mention that this model includes brand equity attributes, as well as their
links. According to Keller Brand resonance is characterize in terms of intensity or the
depth of the psychological bond that customers have with the brand as well as the level of
activity engendered by this loyalty (Keller, 2001). The theoretical framework of this
study is base on the consumer based brand equity model called the ‗brand resonance
model‘ developed by Keller (2001).
Following are the same definitions of brand resonance; some are operational definition
written by authors for particular research in the branding area.
• “Brand resonance refers to the nature of the relationship that customers have with the
brand and the extent to which they feel that they are “in synch” with the brands” (Keller,
2008)
• “Brand resonance can be defined as how well you connect with your customer both
formally and casually. Creating resonance with your brand means your message has to
permeate consumers‟ minds and lives” (Stratfold, 2012).
• Brand resonance is the extent to which a consumer develops strong behavioral,

psychological, and social bonds with the brands s/he consumes (Rindfleischet al., 2005).
• Brand Resonance refers to the nature of the relationship that the consumer has with
the brand (Bourbab and Boukill, 2008).
A number of concepts have also been put forth as fundamental indicators or

consequences of the relationship a consumer forms with a brand. Brand engagement
5
(Brodie et al., 2001), brand attachment (Park et al., 2010), brand love (Batra et al., 2011);
and soon have all been put forth as outcomes of a brand relationship with conceptual and
empirical implications (Keller, 2001).
Brand resonance can usefully characterize in terms of two dimensions: intensity and
activity. Intensity refers to the strength of the brand attachment to the brand and brand
community with others. In other words, how deeply felt is brand loyalty? What is the
depth of the psychological bond that customers have with the company behind the brand
and other brand users? Activity refers to the behavioral changes engendered by this
loyalty. How frequently do customers buy and use the brand? How often do customers
engage in other activities not related to purchase or consumption? In other words, in how
many different ways does brand loyalty manifest itself in day-to-day consumer behavior?
For example, to what extent does the customer seek out brand information, events, and
other loyal customers? Brand resonance is posited to result from the sequence of steps, a
process in which each step is contingent on successfully achieving the previous step. All
the steps involve accomplishing certain objectives with customers — both existing and
potential.In short, brand resonance stresses the importance of understanding the
cognitive, affective, and conative consequences of brand relationships — how consumers
think, feel, and act — to guide research and planning for marketers. It also emphasizes a
hierarchy in brand development and the importance of sequential steps in brand-building
(Keller, 2012).
Initially brand resonance concept originated by Kevin Keller in 2001, according to Keller
brand resonance refers to the nature of the relationship that customers have with the
brand and the extent to which they feel that they are ―in synch‖ with the brands‖. With
the consideration of the definition of brand resonance that was coined by Keller brand,
resonance is the nature of relationship and level of identification the customer has with
the brand. The meaning of brand resonance reveals that the brand resonance is nothing
but the relationship between consumer and their preferred brand (Keller, 2001). Brand
resonance plays a crucial role in customer relationship management and the development
of sustainable brand equity between customers and the brand (Moore and Wurster, 2007).
With true brand resonance, customers have a high degree of loyalty marked by a close
6
relationship with the brand such that customers actively seek means to interact with the
brand and share their experiences with others. Examples of brands, which have had high
resonance, include Harley-Davidson, Apple, and eBay. The importance of the brand
resonance model is in the roadmap and guidance it provides for brand building. It offers a
yardstick by which brands can assess their progress in their brand building efforts as well
as a guide for marketing research initiatives (Keller, 2009). The above literature of brand
resonance states that the brand resonance is nothing but the brand relationship and also it
is a notable think that, many management researchers use brand resonance concept as a
brand relationship (Keller, 2001; Moore and Wurster, 2007; Keller, 2008; Ruzeviciute
and Ruzevicius, 2010; Aziz and Yasin, 2010; Pawar and Raut, 2012).
1.1.3. Dimensions of Brand Resonance:
a. Brand Loyalty: Once viewed as a distinct component of brand equity, (Aaker, 1991;
Aaker, 1995) brand loyalty has repositioned as a potential consequence of brand equity.
Keller (1993) did not include brand loyalty as a distinct component of brand knowledge.
He believed that brand knowledge only composed of brand associations and brand
awareness. Yoo et al., (2000) noted that brand loyalty may be more related to brand
equity than some of the components of brand equity. By that, it was meant that loyalty
represents a more holistic perspective and may, in fact, mediate the relationship between
brand awareness, brand associations and brand equity.
b. Brand Attachment:
The pioneering work on attachment in the realm of parent-infant relationship defined an

attachment as an emotion-laden-target-specific bond between a person and particular
object. The bond varies in strength, with some individual exhibiting a weak bond with an
attachment object and other exhibiting strong bond (Bowlby, 1982). The concept of
―brand attachment‖ represents a particular kind of consumer-brand relationship. Brand
attachment is the strength of the bond connecting the brand with the self (Park et al.,
2010) attached to a brand means the consumer buys the same brand in a given product
category almost exclusively (McQueen et al., 1993).
7
c. Brand Community: Brand communities are most likely to form around products that
consumed publicly and had consumers who share a high level of commitment to the
target brand (Muniz and Guinn, 2001). Additionally, brand communities are most likely
to form around highly publicized brands that exist in highly competitive markets.
McAlexander et al., (2002) believed that brand communities function to strengthen the
relationship between consumer and the brand. In addition, consumer‘s relationship and
knowledge of the product itself will be changed once engaged in the community. The
exchange of brand stories and the celebration of the brand's heritage should strengthen
the connection between brand and consumer. As a result, brand communities may lead to
the formation of favorable, strong brand associations due to this increase in knowledge
regarding the brand and the development of social ties with other consumers. Finally,
numerous authors have posited that there is a link between consumer loyalty and brand
community (Oliver, 1999; Muniz and Guinn, 2001;McAlexander and Schouten, 2002).
Brand loyalty is a holistic concept that is closely related to brand equity and may
moderate the relationship between the dimensions of brand equity and outcome measures
of brand equity. Therefore, it is plausible that the integration into brand community may
affect brand loyalty thus impacting brand equity. Empirical evidence has shown that
brand community may share a relationship with brand equity and its dimensions(Yoo et
al., 2000).
d. Brand Engagement: According to Keller (2003), the strongest indication of brand

loyalty is when consumers are willing to give up their time, effort, and money in pursuit
of the consumption of the brand. These types of expenditures exceed the usual amount
that it takes to consume the brand and indicate a willingness to give up aspects of
personal performance in a dogged pursuit of the single target brand. This concept is
similar to Oliver‘s (1999) description of an action loyalty. Action loyalty represented the
highest stage of consumer loyalty toward a product and characterized by an intense
oppositional brand loyalty. Actively loyal consumers have committed themselves to
rebuy or repatronize a single brand and have the wherewithal to block the marketing
communications of competitor brands. Furthermore, actively loyal consumers can ―self-
8
isolate‖ themselves from the competitive marketplace due to the manner in which the
brand resonates with them (Oliver, 1999; Keller, 2008).
1.2. Brand Relationship and Research on Brand Relationship:
The construct of a brand relationship is quite complex. Numerous types of brand

relationships can identify, and each of them associated with different emotions and
norms. Although marketers may be interested in developing profound and lasting
relationships between consumers and their brands, not all relationships are regard as
―committed partnerships.‖ Some are like best friends, others like casual flings,
codependences, or secret affairs. Brand relationships, much like committed partnerships,
take many forms (Fournier, 1998). There is no a single definition of brand relationship
that will elucidate the exact meaning and interpretation of brand relationship, following
the some conceptual definitions of brand relationship that was presented by management
researchers.
Brand relationship defined as the relationship between the customer and brand, and it is
related to personal identification of the customer with the brand (Jokanovic, 2005).
Brand relationship Brands may become an active relationship partner for the consumer
and provide meanings in a psycho-socio-cultural context (Fournier, 1998).
The domain of brand relationships is extremely complex. There are numerous types of
brand relationships and multiple dimensions that characterize them. They involve varying
types and intensities of emotions and normative processes. They vary in the motivations
that drive them, the strength of the connection bonding the consumer with the brand, and
the role of various meaning makers in creating, establishing, and expanding the brand‘s
relationship to the self. Moreover, the psychological and behavioral outcomes of brand
relationships are also numerous and complex. Our move toward a science of consumer-
brand relationships presents many challenges. Many doubts that something so
idiosyncratic can bring to the level of generalizability that science require. However, even
though relationships may best be revealed by studying individual or collective
9
relationship instantiations, this does not mean that actionable relationship systems cannot
result. Individuals and communities manifest relational principles that with dedication
can be shown to be generalizable; we just need to apply ourselves to these goals. To have
an impact, consumer-brand relationship theory must progress beyond thick description to
the provisions of models that not only advance science, but prove to be actionable for
firms (Aggarwal, 2004; MacInnis et al., 2009).
Susan Fournier (1998), a pioneer in the field of brand relationships, identifies three
central tenets on the usefulness of brand relationships, their complexity, and their
evolution. These tenets can help to guide research on brand relationships. First, brand
relationships are purposive; they provide resources and meaning that help people live
their lives. Acknowledging that research on personal and brand identity has contributed
much to our understanding of brand relationships, Fournier (2009) cautions that a broader
lens should applied to understanding the functions of such relationships. In essence,
brand relationships serve as means to higher-level goals (e.g., ―getting by,‖ connecting
with others, and emotional comfort); goals that include but also go beyond identity. The
meaning of brands and brand relationships is thus informed by understanding how the
brand ―resonates‖ with those needs and goals. The second principle refers to the
complexity of brand relationships, which are characterized by numerous dimensions and
take various forms.
Fournier (2009) identifies over 50 such dimensions. Brand relationships can characterize
as cooperative or competitive, emotional or functional, deep or superficial. They can take
forms that are active (committed partnerships, best friendships), neutral (casual
acquaintances), or negative enslavements. Fournier (2009) argues that a contractual lens
on the relationship phenomenon can also provide insight into brand relationships since
that lens affords a consideration of the rules and norms that guide the development,
maintenance, and dissolution of relationships. This perspective leads to the third tenet,
which describes the process of how relationships form and evolve. The evolving nature of
brand relationships has been largely unexplored. Fournier concludes with an important
point—if the work on brand relationships is to advance, we must move beyond mere
descriptions of such relationships and offer insight for managers for measuring and
10
influencing these relationships. That insight, she argues, can be realized through the
integration of discipline-based perspectives on relationships (Fournier, 2009).
Pankaj Aggarwal (2009)reviews his program of research on relationship norms. He

argues that just as consumers have norms that guide human relationships, they also have
norms that guide brand relationships. Two types of brand relationship norms can identify.
Some brand relationships viewed from a transactional perspective. Such relationships
dictate norms such as prompt repayment for specific benefits received, a desire to receive
payments for benefits soon after their receipt, and tracking the input and output that
relationship partners have traded over the course of the relationship. In contrast, other
relationships are viewed from a communal perspective. Such relationships dictate norms
such as rendering help when needed (with no expectation of monetary payment), less
tracking of the relative inputs and outputs of relationship partners, and considerable
leeway with regard to when repayments expected. Aggarwal‘s studies show that
consumers‘ evaluations of brands are impacted by whether the brand‘s (marketer‘s)
behavior is consistent or inconsistent with the norms that guide that type of relationship.
Thus, consumers in transactional relationships are more sensitive to monetary repayment
and repayment that is immediate (vs. delayed). Aggarwal shows that relationship norms
not only impact consumers‘ reactions to norm violations, they also affect how consumers
treat and interact with the brand and its representatives. Consumers in communal
relationships are more sensitive to issues of procedural fairness, and that is, how these
consumers treated as opposed to consumers in transactional, or exchange, relationships.
In contrast, consumers in transactional relationships are more sensitive to issues of
distributive justice; that is, how benefits allocated to consumers. Consumers in communal
relationships also tend to process information about the brand on a more abstract level.
Reimann and Aron (2009) expand on Fournier‘s (2009) first tenet—the purposive nature
of brand relationships. The authors suggest that brand relationships are fundamentally
motivating because they help consumers fulfill their goals. Aron‘s self-expansion theory
posits that people are (consciously or unconsciously) motivated to expand themselves by
enhancing their ability to achieve various higher and lower order goals. Relationships
with other people are important mechanisms by which individuals expand the self;
11
through a relationship with a partner, one comes to see the partner‘s resources, identities,
and perspectives as one‘s own. Although empirical work using self-expansion theory in a
brand relationship context is limited, Reimann and Aron posit that, like people, brands
afford opportunities for consumers to expand their sense of self; hence the self-expansion
construct may afford a useful mechanism for explaining why consumers become brand
loyal. Moreover, consumers may value brands because the resources, identities, and
perspectives the brand offers also seen as part of the self (perhaps fostering a brand-self
connection). The authors hypothesize that new brand relationships can be emotionally
intense and can create the strong potential for self-expansion (although this self-
expansion potential may wane as the relationship evolves). This reduction in self-
expansion may be particularly acute for low-involvement products.
Wegener et al., (2009), investigate the correlation between attitudes and behavior as
suggested by research on the specificity of measuring attitudes and behaviors, the impact
of social others (Theory of Reasoned Action), and the sense of personal control over
behavioral enactment (Theory of Planned Behavior). The authors suggest that similar
factors may involve in the relationship between consumers‘ attitudes toward a brand
relationship and their willingness to have a sustained relationship with a brand. Literature
on attitude strength reviewed, noting that strong attitudes based on thoughtful processing
and that they better predict attitude-behavior linkages, and attitude resistance and
persistence over time. Properties that go along with strong attitudes include the extent of
knowledge about the attitude object, the attitude‘s accessibility, and the certainty with
which the attitude held. The Elaboration Likelihood Model and the role of persuasion
variables in attitude formation and change processes reviewed, about the level of
elaboration (high vs. moderate vs. low) and whether processing is biased or unbiased.
The authors assess the role of metacognition (thoughts about thoughts). With respect to
attitudes (the primary cognition), consumers can have thoughts (metacognition) regarding
the target of the thought, its origin, its valence, the amount of thought, and whether it is
good or bad to hold such an attitude. Assessments of the confidence with which an
attitude held can also considered as a form of metacognition. Certainty can be affected by
direct experience with the attitude object, repeated expression of the attitude, ease of
generating attitude-consistent thoughts, and consensual support for one‘s attitude. When
12
people believe they have resisted a persuasion attempt but realize that they have done so
based on weak arguments, the confidence in their attitude can decrease. People‘s
confidence can increase when they are asked to find fault with very strong
counterarguments for why a brand is good.
1.3. Overview of the Chapters:
The subsequent content organized in the following manner. In Chapter 2, the conceptual
background of brand resonance was presented based upon a thorough examination of
previous literature. Research on the various components of brand relationship, brand
loyalty, brand community, brand attachment, brand engagement, brand relationship with
young consumers and brand measurement reviewed. Following the literature review, the
conceptual and theoretical foundation for this study was present. In Chapter 3, a
description of the research methodology that utilized to completion for this research
presented. The chapter heading development of the scale to study brand resonance is the
details of the development of measures to measure brand resonance nine constructs. Also,
a description of how the research hypotheses were generated and tested was provided in
research methodology and data analysis chapters.
13
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction:
Consumers form relationships with brands, because they serve a purpose. One critical
purpose is that they help consumers develop and communicate something about them:
who they were, who they are, who they want to be, and who they do not want to be. The
development of an individual‘s identity is only one motivation for forming brand
relationships. Brands also provide utilitarian and emotional benefits to consumers. Brand
relationships help consumers to solve problems, feel better, look better, act according to
their values, and maintain harmonious relationships with others. In short, brands provide
resources to consumers that meet their needs, help them to attain goals, and motivate
them. The basic proposition of relationship marketing is that selling the organization
should take a longer-term view of customers‘ relationship to ensure that those customers
converted are also retained (Dibb and Simkin, 2008). The concept of brand resonance is
not new for academician and marketers as it use increases not only in academics but also
in practice. According to Rindfleisch et al., (2006), brand resonance is the extent to which
a consumer develops strong behavioral, psychological, and social bonds with the brands
s/he consumes, while Bourbab and Boukill (2008), state that brand resonance refers to the
nature of the relationship that the consumer has with the brand.
2.2. Brand Resonance Model:
The Customer Based Brand Equity model designed to be comprehensive, cohesive, well
grounded, up to date, and actionable. The premise of this model is that the power of a
brand lies in what customers have learned, felt, seen, and heard about the brand over
time. The power of a brand is what resides in the minds of customers. Marketers'
continuing challenge in building a strong brand is to ensure customers have the right
types of experiences with products and services and their accompanying marketing
programs so the desired thoughts, feelings, images, perceptions, and attitudes become
linked to the brand (Keller, 2001).
14
The first step in building a strong brand is creating brand saliency in the mind of the
consumer. Brand salience refers to aspects of the awareness of a brand such as the top-of-
mind awareness of the brand, retrievability of the brand, and the overall strength of
awareness. A brand with high saliency can characterize as a great amount of depth and
breadth of brand awareness. In most cases, brand awareness is not a sufficient condition
for consumers to purchase. Instead, brand awareness acts as the launch point for building
the meaning of the brand in the mind of the consumer (Keller, 2001).The second step in
building a strong brand is the creation of a product that meets or exceeds the functional
and psychological or social needs of the consumer. Brand performance and brand
imagery are key aspects of achieving this step in building a strong brand. The key aspect
of achieving this goal is to build strong, favorable, and unique brand associations related
to the functional and experiential aspects of the brand. Overall, greater amounts of brand
knowledge will lead to a better understanding of brands meaning on behalf of consumers.
The meaning of the brand is what elicits responses to the brand on the part of the
consumer (Keller, 2008). The third step in building a strong brand is eliciting consumer
responses to the brand by means of brand judgments and brand feelings. Brand judgments
refer to the cognitive evaluation of the overall superiority, quality, credibility, and
consideration of the brand. This aspect of brand response evaluates the functional and
symbolic aspects of the brand in reference to its competition to determine which product
is superior. Another aspect of this step is the elicitation of an effective response from the
consumer. The judgments and feelings toward the brand on behalf of the consumer
influence the relationship and level of identification that the consumer has the brand.
Brand feelings refer to evocation of feelings and emotions from consumers to themselves
and others due to the brand.
The final step, brand resonance, refers to the characteristics of the relationship between
the consumer and the brand and the level of time and effort spent on behalf of the
consumer towards the consumption of the target brand. Brand resonance can be
characterized by the bond the consumer shares with the brand as well as the amount of
effort the consumer exerts to consume the brand. These Four dimensions have defined
brand resonance: behavioral loyalty, attitudinal attachment, sense of community, and
active engagement. Brand loyalty and brand attachment are distinguished as the
15
psychological bond the consumer shares with the brand as well as the intensity with
which the consumer intends to consume the brand. Brand community refers to the level
of connection or engagement that the focal consumer shares with other consumers of the
brand. The engagement in these brand communities illustrates the affinity and level of
effort the consumer is willing to engage in due to the brand. Finally, brand engagement
refers to the resources consumers are willing to invest on behalf of the brand beyond
purchase and consumption (Keller, 2001; Keller, 2008).
Building a strong brand, according to the CBBE model, can be thought of as a series of
steps, where each step is contingent on successfully achieving the previous step. The first
step is to ensure identification of the brand with customers and an association of the
brand in customers' minds with a specific product class or customer need. The second
step is to firmly establish the brand meaning in the minds of customers (i.e., by
strategically linking a host of tangible and intangible brand associations). The third step is
to elicit the proper customer responses to this brand identity and brand meaning. The
final step is to convert brand response to create an intense, active loyalty relationship
between customers and the brand.
Figure-2: Sub-dimension of brand resonance Pyramid (Source: Keller, 2008)
16
The steps in this "branding ladder" follow an order, from identity to meaning to responses
to relationships. Meaning cannot establish without first creating identity; responses
cannot occur unless companies develop the right brand meaning, and a relationship
cannot be forging without getting the proper responses from customers (Keller, 2001).
Brand Relationship:
The final step focuses on the relationship and level of personal identification the
customer has with the brand. Brand resonance refers to the nature of the relationship
customers have with the brand and whether they feel coordinated with the brand. The
depth of the psychological bond customers have with the brand as well as how much
activity this loyalty engenders characterizes it. Brand resonance can be broken down into
four categories Repeat purchases and the amount or shares of category volume attributed
to the brand are the main attributes of behavioral loyalty. How often do customers
purchase a brand and how much do they purchase? For bottom-line profit results, the
brand must generate sufficient purchase frequencies and volumes. Some customers may
buy out of necessity if the brand is the only product readily accessible or is the only one
they can afford to buy. To create resonance, the brand must perceive as something special
in a broader context. Identification with a brand community may help customers feel a
kinship with other people associated with the brand. These connections may involve
fellow brand users or customers or instead may be employees or representatives of the
company. Perhaps the strongest affirmation of brand loyalty is when customers are
willing to invest time, energy, money, or other resources into the brand beyond those
expended in purchase or consumption (Keller, 2008).
Brand relationships involve two dimensions—intensity and activity. Intensity is the

strength of the Brand attachment and sense of community. Activity refers to how
frequently the consumer buys and uses the brand, as well as engages in other activities
not related to purchase and consumption on a day-to-day basis. Examples of brands with
high resonance include Harley-Davidson, Apple, and eBay.
17
Brand-Building Implications:
With the CBBE model, the strongest brands excel in all six of the brand-building blocks.
The most valuable building block, brand resonance, occurs when all the other brand-
building blocks are completely in synch with customers' needs, wants, and desires.
Simply put, brand resonance reflects a completely harmonious relationship between
customers and the brand. A brand with the right identity and meaning can result in a
customer believing the brand is relevant to them. The strongest brands will be the ones to
which those consumers become so attached that they, in effect, become evangelists and
actively seek means to interact with the brand and share their experiences with others.
A carefully constructed and sequenced brand-building effort based on the CBBE model
can help companies achieve brand resonance. Firms that can achieve resonance and
affinity with their customers should reap a host of valuable benefits, such as greater price
premiums and more efficient and effective marketing programs. Using the CBBE model,
marketers can better assess how brand-building efforts are progressing and can create
successful marketing research initiatives (Keller, 2001).
Brand Relationship Network:
The brand resonance network depicts four key relationships that profoundly influence the
four dimensions of brand resonance. Although from a marketer‘s perspective, the most
important relationship may be ultimately between the consumer and the brand, the fact is
that it is increasingly the case that relationships among consumers, between consumers
and the company and the company and the brand, strongly influence that consumer–
brand relationship. Managing these relationships thus becomes of primary importance
too. For each type of relationship, the focus is on the manner or form of the interaction
involved. Here are just a few key considerations for each of the four types of
relationships in the brand resonance network.
(1) Consumer–Company Relationship: What do consumers know and feel about the
company behind the brand and how it treats consumers?
18
(2) Consumer–Consumer Relationship: How much interaction occurs among consumers
on-line and off-line such that they can learn from and teach others, as well as express
their loyalty and observe the loyalty of others?
(3) Company–Brand Relationship: Is the company viewed as a good brand steward and
ensuring that the brand lives up to its promise, delivers on consumer expectations and
exhibits the right brand values in the marketplace?
(4) Consumer–Brand Relationship: Finally, how much and how often do consumers use
the brand, and how strongly do they feel attached to it? Different communication options
can differentially affect these four types of relationships and connections. For example, a
TV ad that is also placed by a company on its website – and that ends up being
voluntarily passed along to many consumers on-line as a result – may actually help all
four types of relationships. Strengthening each of these relationships and connections
singularly or in combination increases customer loyalty and brand resonance (Keller,
2009).
Figure-3: Brand Resonance Network (Source: Keller, 2009)
Fournier (1998), suggest that a brand can view as a relationship partner. One way to
achieve this is by understanding ―the ways in which brands animated, humanized, or
19
somehow personalized‖. She mentions three brand-animating processes: through the
spirit of a past or present other, by using brand-person associations, and through a
complete anthropomorphization of the brand. Brand relationships happen ―at the level of
consumers‘ lived experiences‖. These relationships offer meanings to the consumer;
some being functional and utilitarian while others are psychological or emotional. The
relationships often provide consumers with a sense of structure, order, and predictability.
In addition to these self-brand relationships, brands also appear capable of enhancing
certainty by helping consumers establish meaningful connections with fellow brand
users.
Brand is much more than a ―recognition‖ factor, much more than a conveyor of
additional information about unseen qualities of company products. Brand is a ―feeling
good‖ factor, resonating with customer emotion and serving as a source of meaning for
customers. International is striving for a comprehensive approach to branding that
generates a powerful customer-brand relationship, creating a strong ―feeling good‖ factor.
In time, the invigoration of International‘s brand must lead to a change in customer
behavior, creating demand for International‘s products and services and ultimately
business success (Boatwright et al., 2009).An intimate customer-brand relationship
cannot be established without well-perceived quality of the brand. The familiarity with
the brand quality may be more helpful to gaining brand resonance. The non-significant
relationship between quality perception and repurchase intention indicates that quality
perception alone is unable to induce customers to repurchase the product. A strong
customer-brand relationship can also make customers more receptive to new products or
extensions under the same brand. For global businesses, brand management can arguably
be put forward as the most important element of the marketing mix. Gaining customer
buy-in, establishing and maintaining brand relationships, fostering opportunities for re-
purchase and customer advocacy – such is the stuff of the brand manager‘s job (Wang et
al., 2008).It also implies that consumer awareness contributes to building the meaning of
the brand, which will influence consumer responses towards the brand, which, in turn,
will contribute to the establishment of consumer-brand relationship (Aziz and Yasin,
2010).
20
2.3. Brand Resonance: Relationship Approach
Building a strong brand has been shown to provide numerous financial rewards to firms,
and has become a top priority for many organizations. Brand resonance, focused upon the
ultimate relationship and level of identification that the customer has with the brand.
Brand resonance model treats brand equity as a development process. Strong brands have
to achieve the final level of development called resonance that is approached as loyalty.
The advantage of ―Brand resonance‖ lies in the duality of brand equity concept –
consumer perceives brand equity on a basis of emotional and rational factors. It is
important to mention that this model includes brand equity attributes, as well as their
links (Keller, 1993). Brand resonance is characterized in terms of intensity or the depth
of the psychological bond that customers have with the brand as well as the level of
activity engendered by this loyalty (Keller, 2001).
Following are the same definitions of brand resonance; some are operational definition
written by authors for particular research in the area branding.
“Brand resonance refers to the nature of the relationship that customers have
with the brand and the extent to which they feel that they are “in synch” with the brands”
(Keller, 2001; Keller, 2008).
“Brand resonance is the extent to which a consumer develops strong behavioral,

psychological, and social bonds with the brands s/he consumes” (Rindfleisch et al.,
2005).
“Brand Resonance refers to the nature of the relationship that the consumer has
with the brand” (Bourbab and Boukill, 2008).
“Brand resonance can be defined as how well you connect with your customer
both formally and casually. Creating resonance with your brand means your message
has to permeate consumers‟ minds and lives” (Stratfold, 2012).
21
The basic level of brand resonance described as brand loyalty and stronger level of brand
resonance described as active engagement. With the interpretation of brand resonance
model, the final step focuses on the relationship and level of personal identification that
customer has with the brand. Brand resonance refers to the nature of the relationship
customers have with the brand and whether they feel synchronized with the brand. The
depth of the psychological bond customers have with the brand as well as how much
activity this loyalty engenders characterizes it. Brand resonance can be broken down into
four categories;
Brand loyalty represents the repeat purchases and the amount or shares of category
volume attributed to the brand are the main attributes of behavioral loyalty. How often do
customers purchase a brand and how much do they purchase? Brand loyalty can gauge in
terms of repeat purchase and the amount or share of category volume attributed to the
brand, that is, the ―share of category requirement.‖ For bottom-line profit results, the
brand must generate sufficient purchase frequencies and volumes.
Brand attachment is like some customers may buy out of necessity if the brand is the
only product readily accessible or is the only one they can afford to buy. To create
resonance, the brand must be perceived as something special in a broader context.
Customer should go beyond having a positive attitude to viewing the brand as something
special in a broader context. For example, customers with a great deal of brand
attachment to a brand may state they "love" it and describe it as one of their favorite
possessions or view it as a "little pleasure" they look forward to.
In brand community the brand may also take a border meaning to the customer by
conveying a sense of community. Identification with the brand community may reflect an
important social phenomenon in which the customer feels a kinship or affiliation with
other people associated with the brand, whether fellow brand users or customers,
employee or the representative of the company.
Brand engagement is the strongest affirmation of brand loyalty is when customers are
willing to invest time, energy, money, or other resources into the brand beyond those
expended for purchase or consumption. For example, customers may choose to join a
22
club centered on a brand or receive updates and exchange correspondence with other
brand users or formal or informal representatives of the brand. They may visit brand-
related Web sites or participate in chat rooms. In this case, customers themselves become
brand evangelists and help to communicate about the brand and strengthen the brand ties
of others. Strong Brand attachment and brand community are typically necessary for
brand engagement with the brand to occur (Keller, 2001).
Keller (2001), proposed four main constructs, namely, brand identity, brand meaning,
brand responses and brand relationships. These four constructs consist of six ―brand
building blocks‖, which he assembled as a brand pyramid. The basic premise of the
model is that the power of a brand lies in what customers learned, felt, saw and heard
about the brand over time. The creation of brand equity involves reaching the top of the
brand pyramid. According to Keller (2001), the six building blocks are: (1) Brand
salience, which relates to how often the brand is evoked in purchasing and consumption
situations, (2) Brand performance, the extent to which the product meets customers‘
functional needs, (3) Brand imagery, which relates to the extrinsic properties of the
product, (4) Brand judgments, which focus on customers‘ personal opinions and
evaluations, (5) Brand feelings that are customers‘ emotional responses and reactions
towards the brand, and (6) Brand resonance, which refers to the nature of the customer-
brand relationship and the extent to which customers feel that they are ―in sync‖ with the
brand (Keller, 2001; Keller, 2008).
Brand resonance refers to the relationship between brand and its users including
consumers‘ willingness to purchase and to recommend to others. The power of a brand
lies in the minds of consumers, in the effect of what they have experienced and learned
about the brand on their responses to the brand over time (Keller, 2000). Brand resonance
could help predict repurchase intention, future earnings and firm value in various markets
(Aaker and Jacobson, 2001). Moreover, brand resonance, i.e. the interactive relationship
between customers and brand, can lead to repeat purchase, which can help produce more
profits by reducing the cost. A strong customer-brand relationship can also make
customers more receptive to new products or extensions under the same brand. A
pyramid is identified in which corporation ability association and brand awareness are in
23
the first level, quality perception is at the second level and brand resonance sits at the top
of the pyramid in level three. It is a simple way to view the relationships and ascertain
cause and effect for a given brand (Wang et al., 2008).In the brand resonance model,
customers with true brand resonance, have a high degree of loyalty and actively seek
means to interact with the brand and share their experiences with others (Atilgan et al.,
2005). A strong brand should satisfy the customer. The most powerful block is brand
resonance. Therefore, the strongest brands will be those to which customers become so
attached that they, in effect, become evangelistic and actively seek means to interact with
the brand and eagerly share their experiences with others (Keller, 1993).
The model, which was originated by Keller (2001), that is consumer based brand equity
or brand resonance model, the model represents the phenomenon of brand equity. The
above literature shows that the concept of brand resonance correlated with the brand
equity by many management researchers. The concept of brand equity is defined
ambiguously in the scientific literature. There are two major approaches to treating brand
equity – financial approach and consumer-based approach. Brand equity treated by
consumer-based perspective; analyze consumer perception and behavior models that have
an influence on a final purchase decision.
As above literature shows that brand resonance has four dimensions, that captures a
number of different aspects of brand loyalty such as;
(1) Brand loyalty – customers‘ repeat purchases and the amount or share of category
volume attributed to the brand.
 How often do customers purchase the brand?

 How much do customers purchase of the brand?
(2) Brand attachment – when customers view the brand as being something special in a
broader context.
 Do customers ‗love‘ the brand?

 Do customers describe the brand as one of their favorite possessions?
 Do customers view the brand as a ‗little pleasure‘ they look forward to?
24
(3) Brand community – when customers feel a kinship or affiliation with other people
associated with the brand.
 Do customers interact with fellow brand users or employees or representatives of the

company?
 Does this customer interaction occur on-line and off-line?
(4) Brand engagement – when customers are willing to invest personal resources in the
brand – time, energy, money, etc. – beyond those resources expended for purchase or
consumption of the brand.
 Do customers choose to join a club centered on a brand?

 Do customers receive updates, exchange correspondence with other brand users or
formal or informal representatives of the brand itself?
 Do customers visit brand-related websites, participate in chat rooms and so on?
To create brand resonance, marketers must first create a foundation on which resonance
can be built. According to the customer-based brand equity model, resonance is most
likely to result when marketers are first able to create:
 Proper salience and breadth and depth of awareness;

 Firmly established points-of-parity and points-of-difference;
 Positive judgments and feelings that appeal to the head and the heart.
With a firm foundation in place, marketers can then optimize the four dimensions of
brand resonance. There is a number of marketing communications activities that can be
put into place to impact any one dimension of resonance. Any marketing communication
may also affect more than one dimension of brand resonance. For example, when BMW
created its on-line video series, the driver, featuring top film actors and directors, it
arguably enhanced brand attachment, community, and engagement. In fact, there may be
interactive effects such that, for example, higher levels of attachment lead to greater
engagement. To maximize brand resonance, levels of both the intensity and activity of
loyalty relationships must be increased (Keller, 2009).
25
On the basis of above literature it was found that the brand Resonance is nothing but the
brand relationship (Keller, 2008; Bourbab and Boukill, 2008; Stratfold, 2012; Rindfleisch
et al., 2005). Brand relationship is one of the component or element of brand equity as the
model presented by different management researchers or experts. As brand resonance
model, suggest that the brand resonance is nothing but the brand relationship between
consumers and their preferred brand. The above literature of brand resonance indicates
that there is a four kind of relationship that consumers has with brands such as brand
loyalty (Behavioral Loyalty), brand community(Sense of Community), brand
attachment(Attitudinal Attachment), and brand engagement(Active Engagement). As
many management researchers define brand resonance as nature of the relationship that
customers have with the brand (Keller, 2001; Keller, 2008), association between
consumers and their brand (Stratfold, 2012), strong behavioral, psychological, and social
bonds between consumers and their brands (Rindfleisch et al., 2005), and level of
identification of the customer with a brand and nature of the relationship that the
consumer has with the brand (Bourbab and Boukill, 2008).
2.4. Brief Discussion of Brand Resonance Dimensions:
 Brand Loyalty
 Brand Attachment
 Brand Community
 Band Engagement
2.4.1. Brand Loyalty:
Brand loyalty is ―a deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred

product/service consistently in the future, causing repetitive same brand or same-brand-
set purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to
cause switching behavior‖ (Oliver, 1999).According to Aaker(1991) brand loyalty,
reflects how likely a customer will be to switch to another brand, especially when that
brand makes a change, either in price or product features. Aaker also suggests that brand
loyalty leads to brand equity, which leads to business profitability. Aaker divides brand
26
equity into five major asset categories: brand name awareness, perceived quality, brand
associations, brand loyalty and other proprietary brand assets (Aaker, 1991).Researchers
have done lots of research on the single dimension and two-dimensional approach of
brand-loyalty. In two-dimensional approach, they divided brand loyalty into attitudinal
brand loyalty and behavioral brand loyalty. Attitudinal brand loyalty means the
consumers‘ psychological commitment to repurchasing the brand; whereas behavioral
brand loyalty is concerned with the action of repurchase (Rundle and Bennett, 2001;
Bandyopadhyay and Martell, 2007: DeWitt et al., 2008).Repeat customers are valued
customers. In addition, much of consumer behavior is repetitive. Panel data investigations
have identified periodic patterns in consumer purchase and consumption (Khare et al.,
2006; Ehrenberg, 1991). For example, considerable inertia-like repeated purchases of the
same brands are evident across different shopping episodes (Seetharaman, 2004). Self-
report studies of the items consumers purchase revealed a similar pattern of repetition
(Bettman, and Zins, 1977). By estimates from these studies, a substantial proportion of
consumer purchases are repetitive.
The importance of understanding repeated patronage is illustrated by brand performance

data. Market researchers have noted that repeated patronage has long-term financial and
brand performance advantages, including increases in market share for a brand, customer
lifetime value, and share of wallet (Ehrenberg et al., 1990; Baumann et al., 2005). These
relationships between repeated purchasing and marketing outcomes highlight the
importance of understanding the psychological factors that promote repeated purchasing.
By understanding these psychological processes, marketers may leverage important brand
outcomes (Wirtz et al., 2007). What is the psychology behind the repeated purchase or
consumption of a particular brand? The traditional answer invokes brand loyalty or some
other positive brand relationship. When people develop a fondness for particular brands
and form attachments to them, these favorable evaluations lead to repeated purchase and
consumption. Often, people repeatedly purchase and consume out of habit (Tam et al.,
2009).Marketers are intensely concern about brand loyalty, even though, the literature is
confused about the importance, as well as the relative consequence, of loyalty as a brand
relationship measures. The explosion of similar products makes it very difficult for
customers to develop brand loyalty and has led to an overall decrease in the amount of
27
brand loyalty (Wielbacher, 1993). But regardless of whether the details are in dispute, the
concept of brand loyalty is useful in that it still represents the best manifestation of a
successful, enduring brand relationship. The theory behind brand loyalty is based on an
acquisition- the retention continuum. Customer acquisition is focused on getting as many
new customers as possible to try a brand. It is often the focus of programs that are driven
by short- term, transactional objective resulting in one-time sales. At the other end of the
continuum is customer retention, which is driven by an emphasis on creating and
maintaining customer relationships over time by building high level of commitment and
bonding. Thump rule of brand loyalty is costs five to ten times as much to get a new
customer as it costs to keep existing customers (Giep and Moriarty, 2009).
Many time marketers and researchers think on the questions is to what degree can brand
loyal purchasing behavior be traced back to a customer‘s underlying commitment (bond
or relationship), or does it happen out of sheer habit? In other words, to what degree is
there a ‗real ‗brand loyalty? And to the degree that there is one, how durable is the
behavioral components? How unfaltering are consumers in their loyalty to the brands?,
and can brand loyalty behavior be predicted from brand attitude (Giep and Moriarty,
2009). With this concern the Baldinger and Rubinson (1996), found that there is a strong
relationship between behavior and attitude, if the consumer with weak attitude then it‘s
not truly loyal toward the brand and if the consumer with strong attitude then it‘s truly
loyal toward the brand.
Brand Loyalty Research:
Much of the research on brand loyalty has been developed from the marketer‘s view and
focused on the value of customer loyalty to the firm and how loyalty should be managed.
Less work has been done on the consumer side asking why and how consumers become
loyal and remain loyal to brands (Schultz and Bailey, 2000).The research done by W.
T.Tucker (1964) shows that some consumers will become brand loyal even when there is
no discriminate difference between brands other than the brand itself. The brand loyalty
established under such conditions is not trivial, although it may be based on what are
apparently trivial and superficial differences. Consumers vary greatly in their
susceptibility to brand loyalty. Brand loyalty and preference for particular product
28
characteristics are quite different considerations that together makeup what is normally
referred to as brand loyalty. While it is difficult to identify exploratory consumer
behavior, it seems clear that some consumer selections are largely exploratory in nature
and may indicate that a repeat purchase is highly unlikely. Brand loyalty is a relevant
construct in the relationship marketing literature, which considers trust and commitment
or loyalty to be "key mediating variables" in relational exchanges (Morgan and Hunt,
1994). Findings of brand loyalty research suggest that brand trust and brand affect are
separate constructs that combine to determine two different types of brand loyalty—
purchase loyalty and attitudinal loyalty—which in turn influence such outcome-related
aspects of brand equity as market share and relative price, respectively (Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2001).
The research done by Ioan (2009) suggests that, in order to create brand loyalty, a high-
intensity level of distribution should be established and maintained, especially in the case
of consumables. Brand loyalty depends upon the quality of the product/service. If it is as
per the perception of the customer and it meets money value, which he/she expects, then
it creates the loyalty towards the brand (Ahmed et al., 2011).A high level of brand
satisfaction is not necessarily preconditioned by high levels of brand associations‘
favorability (perceived quality, brand prestige, brand popularity etc.). Instead, satisfaction
is given by the conformity between user experience and expectations, expectations that
can derive from a variety of personal, environmental and contextual factors. Still, brand
satisfaction is strongly correlated with the intention to repurchase and recommend, and,
therefore, it was found that brand satisfaction is an intrinsic dimension and a pre-requisite
of both attitudinal and behavioral brand loyalty. Consequently, it was found that these
two components constitute an extended part of brand loyalty (Moisescu and Allen, 2010).
2.4.2. Brand Attachment:
The pioneering work on attachment in the realm of parent-infant relationship defined an

attachment as an emotion-laden-target-specific bond between a person and specific
object. The bond varies in strength, with some individual exhibiting a weak bond with an
29
attachment object and other exhibiting strong bond (Bowlby, 1982). The concept of
―brand attachment‖ represents a specific kind of consumer-brand relationship. Brand
attachment is the strength of the bond connecting the brand with the self (Park et al.,
2010) to be attached to a brand means the consumer buys the same brand in a given
product category almost exclusively (McQueen et al., 1993).Research in psychology
concentrate on individuals attachments to other individuals like infants, mothers,
romantic mates (Weiss, 1988), extent research in marketing (Belk, 1998)suggest that
attachment can extend beyond the persons- person relationship context. Research shows
that consumers can develop attachment to gifts, place of residence, brands (Schouten and
McAlexander, 1995) and other types of special or favorite objects (Richins, 1994).
Causes Construct Consequence

(Under Control of Firm) (To Customer and Firms)
Trust
(Reliability and
Benevolence)
Brand Name
Attachment
and Strategic Brand Brand
Based Brand Equity
Exemplars Resources Attachment
Commitment
Figure-4: Brand Attachment: Construct, consequence and causes

(Source: Park et al., 2008)
Past research on brand relationships has indirectly touched on the construct of brand
attachment. Researchers in the field of management research define the brand attachment
as, the strength of the cognitive and affective bond connecting the brand with self (Park et
al., 2008). Attachment denotes psychological state of mind in which a strong cognitive
30
and affective bond connects a brand with an individual in such a way that brand is viewed
as an extension of the self. Consistent with some prior literature, brand attachment is
characterized by a strong linkage or connectedness between the brand and the self
(Schultz et al., 1989). According to Park et al., (2008), brand attachment developed
through branding strategies which used brand resources, such as name, sign, image, etc.
branding resource developed customer trust which leads brand attachment. Brand
attachment creates some commitment towards the brand in the mind of consumers which
developed brand equity. The branding strategies and branding resource are in control of
firm, while brand attachment, customer commitment and development of brand equity
are in the control of customer.
Figure-5: The Pyramid of Brand Attachment (Source: William, 2005)
William,(2005) developed the Pyramid of Brand Attachment, as the following pyramid

reveals, emotional bonds consist of four related perceptual components that build to an
overall emotional link that ties a customer to the brand. These four perceptual
components are Confidence, Integrity, Pride, and Passion. Each is part of the overall
31
emotional link that is forged by and shaped by the customer‘s ongoing experience with a
company‘s products and services. And each of these four components can be reliably
measured by a simple pair of rating scale.
Confidence and integrity are the essential foundations for brand marriage. They represent
consumer beliefs regarding a company‘s brand performance and its ability to keep its
promise always, even when the going gets tough. There can be no real brand relationship
if customers have doubts as to the brands capacity or commitment to continue delivering
on its promises. Confidence and integrity reflect consumer‘s beliefs about how a
company treats buyers and users of its branded products and services. The next two levels
of the ―brand attachment‖ relationship hierarchy, Pride, and Passion, reflects something
even more important: how that treatment makes these customers feels (McEwen, 2005).
Brand Attachment Research:
The past study reveals that the importance of brand personality in the formation of brand-
consumer relationships. In particular, it empirically proves that consumers establish more
intense brand commitment through the experiences of love, joy, and pride induced by the
process of brand attachment or self-esteem (Kim et al., 2005). The feeling of joy is a
starting point in forming an emotional bond with the brand and in developing more
profound emotions such as love. Oliver (1999) refers to the commitment based on love as
‗unfailing commitment,‘ emphasizing its qualitative difference from attitudinal loyalty
based on other emotions (Oliver, 1999).Past research shows that more strongly a
consumer's attachment to a brand, the more willing they are to forsake personal resources
to maintain an ongoing relationship with the brand. They are willing to engage in difficult
behaviors -- "those that require investments of time, money and energy, so as to maintain
or deepen a brand relationship. Highly attached consumers are more motivated to devote
their own resources to the process of self-expansion, including paying more, defending
the brand, derogating alternatives, and devoting more time to the brand through brand
communities and brand promotion through social media (Science Daily, 2010).
32
Study supports that brand-self connection and prominence both contribute to the
measurement of brand attachment. It also supports a second-order representation of
attachment (with brand-self connection and brand prominence as separate indicators),
which in turn supports the notion that the two subscales are subsumed within the
attachment construct. Finally, it supports conceptualization of attachment and brand
attitude strength as related yet distinct constructs both from a measurement perspective
and in terms of their ability to predict separation distress. The results of study corroborate
the important role of brand attachment and strongly support the notion that brand
attachment and brand attitude strength are different constructs that have different
outcomes related to behavior, brand purchase share and need share (Park et al., 2010).
Attachment study has found, consumers have become so attached to brands that, if forced
to buy a competing product, they suffer separation anxiety. Researchers at the University
of Southern California surveyed users of prominent brands including the Apple iPod and
found the emotional bond was so powerful consumers were willing to go to great lengths
to keep their favorite name. They found the stronger a consumer's attachment to a
product, the more willing they were to give up other personal items to keep the brand and
the more motivated they were to waste time, money and energy to get more involved in
the brand. According to the study, consumers who are highly attached to a brand are
more likely to pay more, defend a brand, bag competitors and devote more time to the
product, including bragging about it via social media. A consumer who is strongly
attached to a brand of Soft Drinks is not only less likely to buy competing Soft Drinks,
but also less likely to buy other beverages (e.g.- tea, coffee, water, juice). Likewise, a
consumer who is attached to his/her I-Phone may not only be more likely to allocate
more of his/her monetary resources to the I-Phone, but also more likely to use his/her I-
Phone as a source of information and entertainment compared to competing need
categories (e.g., Newspapers, TV, magazines) (Bervanakis, 2010).
33
2.4.3. Brand Community:
In recent years, academic treatments of consumption activities have begun to move away
from a focus on the individual to considerations of the communal. We can sum up the
social context by stating that people are born into a world that they experience as the
world. However, the world as they experience it is only a social construct. Habits form
this social reality passed on from one generation to another. Children internalize this
social reality, so it becomes the reality from them. With the young people, this social
influence can manifest itself in the diverse clothing styles that are experienced as proper
by the different groups. Peer group have the tremendous impact on the brand choice of
young people, particularly for trendy products, such as clothing, music, movies, and
electronics. Such social influences can be death for a brand that is not favored by peer-
dominated group such as teenagers, who use social consensus information to arrive at
judgments and brand evaluation. Brand communities are a twentieth-century
phenomenon that reflects the power of a social relationship to confirm the value of a
brand (Giep and Moriarty, 2009). Harley-Davidson and its grassroots HOG (Harley
Owners Groups) is one of the most well-known examples of brand community and the
model for Lego‘s Lugnuts group. Less formalized groups are those loyal, almost cut-like
owners of Apple computers and Saab and Volvo cars (Muniz and Guinn, 2001) have
found three characteristics of these communities: consciousness of being connected not
only to the brand but to other members of community; legitimacy, achieved through
rituals and traditions that distinguish real members from marginal members; and
oppositional brand loyalties (Giep and Moriarty, 2009).
A brand community defined by American Marketing Association “A community formed

on the basis of attachment to a brand (product or service)” (AMA).
McAlexander and Schouten, (2002) define brand community as „Communities whose

primary basis of identification is either brands or consumption activities, that is, whose
meaningfulness is negotiated through the symbolism of the marketplace. A brand
community is a specialized, non-geographically bound community, based on a structured
set of social relations among admirers of a brand. It is specialized because at its center is
a branded good or service.
34
Muniz and O‟Guinn (2001) “define a brand community as a “specialized, non-
geographically bound community, and based on a structured set of relationships among
admirers or a brand” (Muniz and Guinn, 2001).
The social identity can also be a result of the perception of the typical users of a brand
(the user‘s image) with which people identify or which they reject. In extreme cases, a
brand community can come into being, defined by Carlson (2005) ―as a perceived social
bond that exists among a collective group of users of a brand. Such a brand-driven
affiliation results from a congruency between beliefs, attitude and values held by an
individual, those held by other users of the brand as a collective group, and those
projected by the brand itself‖ (Carlson, 2005). Online communities have reshaped the
way brands interact with their customers, as well as how customers interact with each
other. Intel found out when challenges to its chip circulated online and overwhelmed the
company‘s attempts to control or even respond to, theses very public complaints (Giep
and Moriarty, 2009).
Brand Community Research:
Brand communities offer a way to enmesh the customer in a network of relationships

with the brand and fellow customers as opposed to the traditional brand loyalty — a one-
to-one relationship between a brand and its customer. It is presumed that such an
approach would strengthen the bonds with the customer in a much superior fashion.
Recent studies have further succeeded in alerting marketers to the positive aspects of
brand community participation and engagement that ultimately influence the behavior of
a customer in the marketplace (Algesheimer et al., 2005). Past study suggests that the
relationship between ethnicity and membership of a brand community is a strong one.
The strength of this relationship indicates a variety of opportunities for marketers who
wish to exploit this connection. While Asian Indians may not constitute a ‗captive
audience‘ for marketers, their strong sense of ethnicity undoubtedly will result in
favorable outcomes for marketers who appeal to their sense of brand loyalty (Quinn and
Devasagayam, 2005).More critical appreciation of the roles of brands in our lives points
towards a brand community perspective that acknowledges the network of connections
between a brand's various publics. This perspective also avoids the pitfall of stretching
35
the interpersonal relationship metaphor too far and provides a strong foundation upon
which brand managers can build (Patterson and O‘Malley, 2006).Fournier (1998),
indicates that people buy brands because they have established loyal, long-term,
committed, affect-laden relationships with particular brands. Consumers not only form
relationships with their brands, but also they form relationships with other consumers that
have similar brand preferences. This network of consumer relationships is called a brand
community or consumption community (Fournier, 1998). Brand communities are
networks of consumer relationships that situate around a commonly used brand. These
communities create a sense of belonging among consumers and the brand becomes the
central purpose and meaning for group interaction (Hollenbeck et al., 2006).
Adding to existing consumer culture theory in brand communities, findings reveal that a
group of shared ideological distinctions- such as off-road capability versus environmental
irresponsibility, positive attention versus selfish vanity, and social superiority versus
excessive overconsumption-combined with knowledge about which side to favor forms
the social foundation of the brand community. These distinctions rather than intrinsic
communalities initially inspire brand community as well as protest community building.
A brand community considerably depends on, alludes to, draws on, and interacts with its
social environments. A brand community that builds on strong distinctions cannot escape
social attention if the brand is publicly consumed (Luedicke, 2006). A brand community
includes users of a brand who relate to each other in ways that include perceived
similarity, tradition, patterns of consumption, and a sense of responsibility for the brand‘s
welfare (Muniz and Guinn, 2001). Both ethnographic and quantitative empirical
researchers (McAlexanderand Schouten, 2002)demonstrate that, the strength of a brand
community and an individual customer‘s integration therein lie in a web of relationships
that customers perceive themselves to have with a brand, a company, its products, and it
is other customers. Individual integration in a brand community constitutes a powerful
form of customer loyalty with its entire attendant benefits to the marketer, including
customer initiated marketing, repeat purchasing and trading up, receptivity to brand
extensions, and higher tolerance for quality lapses. Participation in brand fests (marketer-
facilitated consumption activities) strengthens each of the component customer
relationships, increases individual customers‘ integration in a brand community, and
36
thereby strengthens the overall community. The impact of a brandfest is greatest for
customers who have less experience with the brand and less commitment to it, making
the brandfest a strategically powerful tool for building customer loyalty (Schouten et al.,
2007).
The research done by Dholakia and Vianello(2011), explorethat many company-run

brand communities fail because they target participants too narrowly, emphasize on
product-related discussions, and exert too much control. In fact, the level of control over
these communities by companies is often very high, with moderators that prevent
consumers from posting comments if they do not meet rules that are too stringent. As a
result, customers participate for selfish, functional reasons, without forming bonds or
relationships. The community remains anemic and has high participant turnover.
Customer enthusiast-run brand communities are more effective by: (1) welcoming a
diverse consumer base, (2) allowing participants to express themselves freely, and (3)
encouraging a broad range of activities beyond product discussions, such as networking
and socializing. This leads to consumer participation for intrinsic, emotional, and social
reasons, and the evolution of strong communities marked by consciousness of kind, a
sense of obligation, and rituals and traditions, in other words, ―real‖ communities.
2.4.4. Brand Engagement:
The engagement concept originates in disciplines including psychology, sociology and

organizational behavior (Brodie et al., 2011). It is hard to find a clear definition of brand
engagement since none of the agencies defines it, in the same way. For some, it is about
strengthening a brand's image in the eyes of consumers. For others, it is about engaging
your employees so that their behaviors are aligned with the brand promise. Either way,
brand engagement seems to be the latest way to talk about building meaningful, enduring
relationships. This is hardly new territory (Tipping, 2006). Brands have the power to
change the world. This means they can also change the (smaller) world of each (Rauch,
2011).
37
According to American Marketing Association, brand engagement is the process by
which a consumer develops an attachment to, or relationship with, a brand either
through advertising or other means, such as years of reliable service. The attachment
could be emotional, rational or both.
Brand engagement in self-concept (BESC) it means generalized tendency of a person to

include brands as part of his or her self-concept (Sprott et al., 2009).
Millward Browns (2009) define the engagement as willingness to spend time with a
brand, and then use the amount of time people spend as an engagement metric. However,
this idea is deeply flawed. People can be devoted users of particular brands but still lack
the desire to spend time interacting with either the brand or the product category. If
willingness to spend time with a brand were an appropriate definition of engagement, it
would tend to lead us toward particular channels and away from others. But the
willingness to spend time with a brand is highly category-specific. The definition of
brand engagement should not focus on time spent on a brand but rather on brand
associations. A brand that has successfully engaged consumers has planted and sustained
fresh, powerful brand associations in their minds. Those associations generate interest,
curiosity and expectations about the product or service. One measure that takes both
brand associations and category context into account is the Bonding level of the Brand
Dynamics TM pyramid.
In calculating bonding, two factors come into play: the relationship between various
brand associations and purchase intent, and the salience of the most important
associations (in terms of loyalty in the category) for each brand. By drawing on the
second factor, bonding takes account of the fact that a consumer may engage with more
than one brand in a category while choosing to purchase only one (Brown, 2009).
As the marketing and communication, literature describes five contextual dimensions of

engagement (consumer, customer, brand, advertising and media), the words and topics
associated with engagement show that consumer brand engagement is seen as the only
significant concept. The fact that concepts of customer/consumer engagement and brand
engagement predominate in our empirical analysis reveals an orientation towards an
38
integrated concept of engagement linked not to any particular medium or advertising
message, but to a comprehensive brand strategy (Gambetti and Graffigna, 2010).
Brand Engagement Research:
Brand engagement research has proven the importance of meaningful brand-consumer

engagement and interaction. People don‘t just consume or interact with brands, they
actually engage in relationships with them. With some brands, there are wild, short-term
flings, while others stay last a lifetime - like family. Some brands offer strictly utilitarian
relationships; they are in one's daily life, yet there is no emotional connection to them
(Halloran, 2014).
Charlene Li (2009), analyzed that brand on not only their breadth of engagement across
channels, but also their depth, such as whether they reply to comments made on blog
posts. Charlene Li (2009) are not claiming a causal relationship — but there is clearly a
correlation and connection. For example, a company mindset that allows a company to
engage broadly with customers on the whole probably performs better because the
company is more focused on companies than the competition. The time consumers spend
interacting with online ads is the best indicator of their benefits to a brand, according to
online measures of brand engagement.
The study also looks at the engagement best practices of four companies: Starbucks, Dell,
SAP, and Toyota. Some of the key findings include:
 Emphasize quality, not just quantity.

 To scale engagement, make social media part of everyone‘s job
 Doing it all may not be for you — but you must do something.
 Find your sweet spot (Li, 2009).
New research from Microsoft Advertising proves a clear connection between the level of
brand engagement a user has with an online ad and its subsequent impact on the brand.
Online measures of brand engagement such as branded search term activity, visits to
brand sites, and the number of pages viewed on those sites all increase significantly with
39
a user‘s brand engagement with online advertising. The findings suggest that the success
of brand campaigns can be reliably evaluated through the dwell scores.
The Dwell on Branding study, collaboration with Eye Blaster and comScore, looked at
the total dwell scores achieved by online brand advertising, which are calculated by
combining the amount of time a user spends actively engaging with an ad and the
proportion of ads they engage with. The study then compared the available online
measures of brand engagement for campaigns with high and low total dwell scores. Ads
with higher dwell scores consistently demonstrated a greater positive impact on brands.
In proving that greater levels of online engagement lead to uplifts in measurable brand
benefits, the study provides yet more evidence that click-through alone are an
unsatisfactory means of measuring advertising performance for brand advertisers. The
value of rich media advertising and the longer dwell times that rich media ads
consistently deliver is particularly likely to be undervalued when effectiveness is solely
measured in click-through. According to aggregated Eye Blaster data published in July
2009, consumers are 25 times more likely to spend meaningful time (an average of 53
seconds) with a rich media ad than to click on it (Omni channel retailing, 1970).
2.5. Factor influencing brand Resonance
Relationship is like a two hand clapping; there are factors that affect the management of
the relationship, as well as factors that govern the perception of the relationship. Some of
them overlap, and some are specific to the perceptive. Following the table shows these
kinds of factors that affect brand relationship. The stuff of brand relationship includes the
factors that create connection between people and inanimate objects such as brand and
companies, such as these brand relationship drivers (Giep and Moriarty, 2009).
Table-1: Relationship Drivers

Company Prospective Customer Prospective
Trust: Follow- through, deliver on promise Trust: Belief and confidence in brand to deliver
brand promise; familiarity, risk reduction
Interaction: The brand envisions Interaction: Practical, emotional and social
40
communication as a dialog: it knows how and experience related to use ; willing to initiate the
when to listen; it personalize the experience communication
Sincerity: Honest, integrity Commitment: conviction, loyal, bonded to the
brand, wiling to advocate on behalf of brand
Intimacy (Psychological Closeness):The brand Intimacy(Love): moves beyond liking and
gives the feelings of being close to the generalized positive feelings; the emotional
consumers and in tune with needs attachment that drives bonding
Involvement: Degree of attachment to product Involvement: degree of attachment to brand;
experience that create positive perception in the self-identification; personal interest; saliency
brand promotion and delivery and relevance to consumers‘ life
Appreciation support: Recognition, reaction, Satisfaction: Evaluation of brand experience as
appreciation of customers positive fulfillment of want or need ; delight
and surprise
Excitement: Delivers energy, vitality or arousal
leading to belief formation or action
Source: (Giep & Moriarty, 2009)
Literature and branding research proves that some other factors influence the relationship
between consumers and their brand such as brand awareness brand performance, brand
image, brand judgment and brand feelings. Following the brief description of these
factors that influence brand resonance
Brand Salience or Brand Awareness
Brand performance
Brand Image
Brand Judgment
Brand Feelings
Brand Awareness:
Product or brand awareness or brand salience is the propensity of the product or brand to
be noticed or thought of in buying situations (Romaniuk and Sharp, 2004). Brand
41
salience is more than the traditional top-of-mind brand awareness measure. It covers the
memory associations that a consumer will have for a product or a brand at one specific
point in time, (preferably) during his/her buying situation. The challenge for many brands
is to be thought of in as many situations and occasions as possible. In addition, the greater
a brand is thought of (or, the greater the number of attributes that come to mind
associated with a product), the greater is the chance for this brand to be chosen. Greater
salience leads to a greater likelihood of retrieving the cue in a purchase situation
(Romaniuk and Sharp, 2002). Salience is how many consumers regard it well, or ―well
enough,‖ or see it as ―salient‖ (L‘Aqua, 2012). The greater the salience of the brand, the
greater the probability the brand will be thought of and the greater the chance for the
brand to be purchased (Ehrenberg et al., 1997).
The need for brand resonance and social salience grows more acute. However, there are
differing views on what salience is. Salience as 'brand prominence in buyer memory' has
been well-documented. Moran (1990), positing that salience is the 'top of mind' ability to
stand out in consumers' consideration sets. Indeed, Ehrenberg et al., (1997), refer to
salience as "the common factor in how many people are aware of the brand (by any
measure), have it in their consideration set, regard it as value-for-money, buy it or use it
and so on." They emphasis that "by any measure" is key here, describing salience as not
merely having primary recall in a consideration set, but "broader than any single measure
of brand performance (Ehrenberg et al., 1997). This is repeat in Romaniuk and Sharp's
(2004), claim that brand salience is "based on the presence of links to a wider range of
attributes‖ not merely the strength of association as a product category cue. True,
sustainable brand salience is consistently and systematically relate to future customer
retention through brand loyalty, and loyalty can only built for long-term
company/customer synergy and mutual trust. On the other hand, according to Arnett et
al., (2003), the underlying strength of company/ consumer relationships is in the identity
salience accruing from relationship inducing- factors (participation, reciprocity, prestige,
satisfaction) together with non-relationship-inducing factors (such as income and
perceived need). The above literature illustrates that brand salience and brand awareness
are the similar concepts, which helps to enhance customer brand relationship.
42
Brand awareness is a marketing concept that measures consumers' knowledge of a
brand's existence (Business Dictionary, 2011). Brand awareness reflects the strength of a
brand‘s presence in a consumer‘s mind (Pappu et al., 2005) and is related to the strength
of the brand node or trace in memory (Rossiter and Percy, 1987). Brand awareness can be
demonstrated in the forms of brand recall and brand recognition (Keller, 1993). Brand
recall occurs when the brand-name is evoked by the memory given a cue such as a
product category name. Brand recognition refers to the consumer‘s ability to verify
previous exposure to the brand when the brand given as a cue (Keller, 1993). About an
individual consumer‘s recall and recognition of a brand, researchers have considered the
recall as a higher level of memory performance than recognition (Aaker, 1991). In other
words, if a consumer can recall a brand outside a store when given the product category
as a cue, then the consumer can surely recognize the brand when exposed to it in a store
(Keller, 1993). However, it is unclear whether this relationship between recall and
recognition remains at the market level. That is; the question of whether the brands
recalled by more consumers are also recognized by more consumers has not been
addressed in the literature (Dew and Kwon, 2010).
Brand Awareness Brand Awareness
Recall Recognition Identification Internalization
Keller s' (1993) Ross et al., s' (2008)

Conceptualization Conceptualization
Figure-6: Dimensions of Brand Awareness (Source: Gordon, 2010)
43
Branding literature has considered brand awareness and brand associations separate, yet
highly correlated entities (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993). For a consumer to form
associations about a brand, first, a brand node (e.g., brand name, logo, or sign) must exist
in the consumer‘s memory and should be retrieved when a cue is given, i.e., the
consumer is ‗‗aware‘‘ of the brand (Washburn and Plank, 2002). However, little research
has examined the effect of brand awareness on the favorability of brand associations.
That is, whether brands with higher awareness in the market are associated with more
attributes that are positive has not been directly addressed in research. Some indirect
evidence for this speculation has found in a few studies that examined the relationship
between brand associations and brand familiarity. Baker et al., (1986), argue that the
amount of time spent by a consumer to process information about a brand positively
influences the consumer‘s response to the brand. Positive associations about the brand
may be formed because of increased familiarity with the brand. Consumers‘ brand
awareness achieved when they became familiar with the brand through repeated direct or
indirect experiences with it. Therefore, a positive relationship may also exist between
brand awareness and favorability of brand associations.
Brand performance:
The product itself is at the heart of the brand equity, because it is the primary influence
on what consumers experience with the brand, what they hear about the brand from
others, and what the firm can tell customers about the brand in their communications. To
create a brand loyalty and resonance, marketers must ensure that consumers experience
with the products/ brands at least meet if not surpass, their expectations. Brand
performance describes how well the product or services meet customers more functional
needs. How well does brand rate on the objective assessment of quality? To what extent
does the brand satisfy utilitarian, esthetic, and economic customers‘ needs and wants in
the product or service category. Consumers may have associations with the product that
go beyond it is functional aspects to more esthetic considerations such as it is the size,
shape, materials, and color involved. Thus, performance may also depend on sensory
44
aspects such as how products look and feels and perhaps even, what it sounds or smell
like (Keller, 2001; Keller, 2008).
The performance attributes and benefits making up functionality will vary by category.
However, five important types of attributes and benefits often underlie brand
performance:
1. Primary characteristics and supplementary features: Customers have beliefs about the
levels at which the primary characteristics of the product operate (e.g., low, medium,
high, or very high). They also may have beliefs as to special, perhaps even patented,
features or secondary elements of a product that complement these primary
characteristics.
2. Product reliability, durability, and serviceability: Reliability refers to the consistency

of performance over time and from purchase to purchase. Durability is the expected
economic life of the product. Serviceability refers to the ease of servicing the product if it
needs repair. Thus, perceptions of product performance are affected by factors such as the
speed, accuracy, and care of product delivery and installation; the promptness, courtesy,
and helpfulness of customer service and training; and the quality of repair service and the
time involved.
3. Service effectiveness, efficiency, and empathy: Customers have performance-related

associations related to service interactions they have with brands. Service effectiveness
refers to how completely the brand satisfies customers' service requirements. Service
efficiency refers to how these services are delivered in terms of speed and
responsiveness. Service empathy occurs when service providers are seen as trusting,
caring, and with customer's interests in mind.
4. Style and design: Consumers may have associations with the product that go beyond
its functional aspects to more aesthetic considerations such as its size, shape, materials,
and color involved. Performance also may depend on sensory aspects such as how a
product looks, feels, and even how it sounds or smells.
45
5. Price: The pricing policy for the brand can create associations in consumers' minds
with the relevant price tier or level for the brand in the category {e.g., low, medium, or
high priced) as well as with its corresponding price volatility or variance (e.g., frequently
or infrequently discounted).
Brand performance transcends just the "ingredients" that make up the product or service
to encompass aspects of the brand that augment these ingredients. Any of these different
performance dimensions can help differentiate the brand. Often the strongest brand
positioning involves performance advantages, and only rarely can a brand overcome
severe deficiencies here (Keller, 1993).
Brand Image:
Brand image is described as the sum of all tangible and intangible perceptions, inferences
and beliefs about a brand that consumers hold. Keller (1993) defines brand image ―as
perceptions about a brand reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory‖
(Keller, 1993). Brand image formation is a subjective learning process and is the result of
past total experiences. It consists of associations and attributes organized in some
meaningful manner that are activated from memory when recalled (Aaker, 1991).
Faircloth et al., (2001), found that positive brand image is more likely to be associated
with preferred brands than non-preferred brands. Positive brand image translates into
customer loyalty and develops favorable consumer-brand relationship. Brand image
provides an opportunity for brand extensions by creating a sense of fit between the
extended product and the parent brand. Other implications of brand image include (re-
)positioning and (re-)designing of a brand (Kaul and Rao, 1995).Brand image is the
current view of the customers about a brand. It can be defined as a unique bundle of
associations within the minds of target customers. It signifies what the brand presently
stands for. It is a set of beliefs held about a specific brand. In short, it is nothing but the
consumers‘ perception about the product. It is the manner in which a specific brand is
positioned in the market (Business Dictionary, 2012).
46
Brand Judgment:
Brand judgments focus on customers‘ personal opinions about the brand based on how
they put together different performance and imagery associations (Keller, 1993; Keller,
2008). Customers May makes all types of judgments with respect to a brand, but four
types are particularly important judgments about the quality, credibility, consideration
and superiority (Keller, 2008).
Brand Feelings:
Brand feelings are consumers‘ emotional responses and reaction to the brand. Brand
feelings also related to the social currency evoked by the brand. What feelings are the
evoked by the marketing program for the brand or the other means? How the brand does
affect consumers‘ feelings about themselves and their relationship with others? These
feelings can be mild or intense and can be positive or negative (Keller, 2008). The
emotion evoked by the brand can become a strongly associated that they are accessible
for product consumption or use.
Followings are six important types of brand- building feelings;
Warmth: The brand evoked soothing type of feelings and made consumers feel a sense of
calm or peacefulness. Consumers may feel sentimental, warmhearted, or affectionate
about the brand.
Fun: Upbeat types of feelings make consumers feel assumed, lighthearted, joyous,
playful, cheerful, and so on.
Excitement: The brand makes consumers feel energized, and they are experiencing
something special.
Security: The brand produces a feeling of safety, comfort, and self-assurance. Because of
the brand, consumers do not experience worry or concern that they might have otherwise
felt.
Social Approval: Consumers feel that others look favorably on their appearance,
behavior, and so on. This approval may be a result of direct acknowledgment of the
47
consumers‘ use of the brand by others or may be less overt and result of attribution of
product use to consumers.
Self-Respect: The brand makes consumers feel better about them; consumers feel a sense
of pride, accomplishment, or fulfillment (Kahle et al., 1988).
2.6. The Role of Brand Trust and Brand Satisfaction in Building Brand Resonance:
The existing model of brand resonance not considers important factors such as brand trust
and brand satisfaction even it associated with brand relationship. Branding literature
reveal that these two factors affect brand relationship actively as compare two other
brand relationship related factors. These two factors have an extract of many other factors
such as brand satisfaction can prove the customer expectations from the brand. After
studying extensive literature of branding researcher, think that brand trust and brand
satisfaction should consider for study of brand relationship (Raut and Brito, 2014).
Brand Satisfaction:
Brand satisfaction is defined as ―the consumer‘s response to the evaluation of the

perceived discrepancy between prior expectations and the actual performance of the
product as perceived after its consumption‖ (Tse and Wilton, 1988).
A high level of brand satisfaction is not necessarily preconditioned by high levels of

brand associations‘ favorability (perceived quality, brand prestige, brand popularity etc.).
Instead, satisfaction is given by the conformity between user experience and
expectations, expectations that can derive from a variety of personal, environmental and
contextual factors. Still, brand satisfaction is strongly correlated with the intention to
repurchase and recommend, and, therefore, we might say that brand satisfaction is an
intrinsic dimension and a pre-requisite of both attitudinal and behavioral brand loyalty.
Even though necessary, a high level of satisfaction is not sufficient for an overall high
level of brand loyalty mainly reflected by the behavioral intent to repurchase and promote
the brand among others. We may say that brand satisfaction, same-context repurchase
intention and the availability to recommend the brand to other, represent the essence of
48
brand loyalty (Moisescu and Allen, 2010). Brand satisfaction can be conceptualized as an
overall, summary evaluation of the entire brand-use experience (Delgado and Munuera,
2001). The relationship between brand satisfaction and repurchase continues to be well
researched, and there is general agreement that overall satisfaction-like evaluations are
positively related to customer retention (Szymanski and Henard, 2001). Although the
satisfaction is recognized as an important facet of marketing, there is no general
agreement on how the concept should be defined (Rogers et al., 1992). Oliver (1997)
defines satisfaction as the consumer‘s fulfillment response. It is a judgment that a product
or service feature, or the product or service itself, has provided (or is providing) a
pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment. This lack of a concise definition
further validates the supposition that satisfaction does not mean the same thing to
everyone (Oliver, 1980).
Customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction requires experience with the product or service and

is influenced by the perceived performance and the value of the products or services
(Anderson and Sullivan, 1993). With respect to perceived performance/ disconfirmation,
perceived performance indirectly affects satisfaction through disconfirmation (Wirtz,
1994), or influences it directly without parameters (Yi, 1993). Customer satisfaction is
closely related to brand trust (Delgado and Munuera, 2001). In e-commerce, the
dissatisfaction of customers leads to negative word of mouth regarding the inability of the
service provider to meet consumer needs (Halstead et al., 1993). On the contrary,
customer satisfaction is associated with positive word-of-mouth communications and
increases brand trust (Athanassopoulos et al., 2001). More explicitly, such findings
indicate that when customers experience a high level of satisfaction, they decide to stay
with the existing brand/product/ service and overrule their negative behavioral intentions.
Brand Trust:
Trust means expectation from others on a specific task, and expectations vary between
high and low. Variation of expectations is called a risk. For complete understanding of
brand trust, a brand must be examined, assessed and checked as to how much it is related
with brand loyalty (Lau and Lee, 1999). The academic community has not overlooked the
importance of understanding brands, and specifically brand trust. Many micro issues have
49
been the focus of academic research. For example, there have been wide varieties of
studies of the antecedents and consequences of trust or the impact of trust as a mediating
variable in an exchange system (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993).Trust has to be considered as
the cornerstone and as one of the most desirable qualities in the relationship both between
a company and its customers and in the relationship between a brand and its consumers.
The focus on brand trust is based on findings that there is a strong positive relationship
between brand trust and brand loyalty (Chaudhuriand Holbrook, 2001).
The brand trust defined as the „confident expectations of the brands reliability and
intentions‟ (Delgado et al., 2003).
Although the importance of brand trust has been theoretically emphasized in the branding
literature (Ambler, 1997), there has been little empirical research into it (Delgado et al.,
2005). It can be assumed that the difficulty in conceptualizing and measuring the
construct of brand trust is one of the reasons for the lack of empirical research.
Synthesizing different definitions of trust across various research disciplines, it can be
concluded that confident expectations or willingness to rely on as well as uncertainty and
risk are critical components of most trust definitions. In the branding literature, the
concept of brand trust is based on the idea of a brand-consumer relationship, which is
seen as a substitute for human contact between the company and its customers (Sheth and
Parvatiyar, 1995). Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001), define brand trust as ―the willingness
of the average consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function‖.
Across disciplines, there is also agreement that trust only exists in an uncertain and risky
environment. Trust is only relevant in a risky situation, when the outcomes of a certain
decision are uncertain and important for the individual (Matzler et al., 2006).
50
2.7. Young Generation and Brand Relationship:
Generation Y consumers are becoming a very important segment in today‘s market

because of their large size, their current significant amount of spending power and their
potential for huge amounts of future spending power (Wolburg and Pokrywczynski,
2001). The size of Generation Y is argued to be somewhere around 31-70 million people
worldwide (Wolburg and Pokrywczynski, 2001; Cui et al., 2003). Choosing to ignore this
segment could be risky for companies considering that they are the future dominating
segment of the market (Neuborne and Kerwin, 1999).
Generation Y consumers have a unique attitude towards brands. They have been raised in
a time where just about everything is branded and, therefore, they are more comfortable
with brands than previous generations and respond to them differently (Merrill, 1990).
Generation Y is the unique approach to brands and marketing stems from changes that
affect a whole generation of consumers. Their marketing know-how and brand
consciousness result from growing up in marketing and brand saturated environment
(Heaney, 2007). In addition, generation Y consumers utilize brands as an extension of
themselves unlike other generations, and this has implications for how they should be
marketed to (Novak et al., 2006). Therefore, generational theory is a useful framework to
determine the similar ways that this generational cohort responds to brands and marketing
that allows marketers to develop more effective marketing efforts. However, the response
of generation Y to brands and branding efforts has been under-researched (Phau and
Cheong, 2009).The generation Y consumer may display Brand loyalty by purchasing the
I-Pad Apple tablet computer when there are few alternatives available in the market but
the attitudinal loyalty component will mean they will not buy an alternative brand if it is
available or if the Apple I-Pad is not available. The attitudinal component is
psychological and evaluative, and this is where the congruency and relationship with a
brand will be considered in order to lead to the behavioral aspect of repeat purchase. It is
the attitudinal loyalty that drives most loyalty behavior and will ensure loyalty over time
not just with one purchase (Bandyopadhyay and Martell, 2007). Foscht et al., (2009),
found that feelings of loyalty in generation Y consumers were greatly associated with
repurchase intentions.
51
There is also research that shows that young consumers may change their loyalties
towards a particular brand depending on the situation and the role they play. When they
are independent, they also like to experiment with new brands whereas more serious and
responsible roles may make them switch over to the brand used by their parents (Bravo et
al., 2007). The younger age group is likely to be more emotionally involved with the
brand. The younger age group loves their brands and is more passionate about them
(Sahay and Sharma, 2010).
Developing a connection or relationship between the consumer and the brand is a critical
factor in building brand loyalty (Blackston, 2000). If a generation Y consumer perceives
the brand as congruent with their sense of self, they are more likely to develop a
relationship with the brand. Emotional connections with brands are vital to generation Y
consumers (Tsui and Hughes, 2001). When an emotional bond is created between the
generation Y consumer and the brand this leads to competitive advantage (Novak et al.,
2006). The generation Y consumer must feel appreciated and singled out by the
organization. This relationship development and maintenance can also be achieved
through the use of loyalty programs that distinguish the generation Y consumers from
other consumers and make them feel special; appealing to their self-esteem needs
(Gronbach, 2000). Loyalty programs can help to encourage and reward loyal patronage,
which is essential for generation Y consumers to want to repurchase (Sullivan and
Heitmeyer, 2008). The generation Y consumer should feel a connection with the brand to
want repeat purchase and exhibit other brand loyalty behaviors such as positive word of
mouth (Wood, 2004).
It was stated previously that generation Y consumers are innovators and trendsetters. This
may be the motivation for these consumers to be disloyal as they jump from brand to
brand depending on what is popular and new at the time (Morton, 2002). However, this
can be overcome with the introduction of periodic innovations and different product lines
within the one brand which will satisfy their novelty needs (Moore and Carpenter, 2008),
as well as increase their congruency with the brand. This means that the brand must
change with the consumer and constantly update itself. For example, Apple has
successfully done this by constantly innovating and coming up with new fun products
52
that match the self-image of their generation Y consumers. If a relationship is established
between the generation Y consumer and the brand this can overcome the typical disloyal
nature of generation Y as long as the brand continues to meet the values and the identity
of the generation Y consumer.
A sizeable amount of research has sought to examine the ―relationship‖ between a brand
and its customer as a source of meaning (Allen et al., 2008). The research has taken the
form of qualitative inquiries in order to ascertain possible typologies of consumer-brand
relationships (Fournier, 1998) or more quantitative research to ascribe a personality to a
brand as relationship partner (Aaker, 1997) and examine the effects of brand relationships
in an experimental setting (Aggarwal, 2004). It has also been used as part of an argument
that interpersonal attachment theory is applicable to brands due to the interpersonal-like
nature of the consumer-brand relationship (Park et al., 2008).
The young people in India are reaping the dividends of India's economic reforms. Gone
are the days of slow growth, frugal lifestyles and unbranded products. Indeed, the rise of
the young Indian urban consumer has been a feature of India's economic transformation
over the past decade. In their mid-twenties, members of this segment do not think twice
before spending on expensive global brands. They are comfortable buying on credit, have
bought a house and a car, something their parents could never have dreamt of doing in
their youth. The house is an investment for them and the car an indulgence. It is evident
that being a young Indian in 2007 is hugely different from what it was in 1991. The past
15 years have changed the way young people live their lives. Thriving activity in the
service sector has spawned a myriad of job opportunities in the cities. What the youth eat,
wear, movies they watch and the gadgets they carry are a world apart from the choices
available to their counterparts in the '90s Even kids in their teens are learning to augment
their allowances, something that was rare in late 1980s and early 1990s. Possessing US$
400 mobile phones is no longer unthinkable for this segment. These developments are a
direct result of the exponential growth of the Indian middle class, the backbone of the
India market story. An increasingly industrialized economy is opening new doors every
day for young people to embrace an affluent lifestyle. The large volume of young
consumers in India is providing a new market for merchandisers stuck in a sluggish world
53
economy. The country has now emerged as the next stop for luxury brands such as Gucci,
Christian Dior, and Versace. According to a Technopak report on ―India's Luxury Trends
2006‖ the upscale, premium and luxury market together at US$ 15.6 billion and high net
worth individual households at 1.6 million, is growing at around 14-15 percent.
The study done by O‘Cass and Lim (2002), argued that young consumers would hold
different perceptions of brands from different cultural origins, proposing culture of origin
as an important extrinsic cue in their evaluation of brands. Hence, the fact that brands of a
country origin are perceived more favorably implies that culture of origin is an important
factor in determining the favorability of the associations attached to brands. Interestingly,
young consumers favorably perceived a brand on emotional value with a high awareness
of the brand ultimately encouraging purchase intention. This implies that emotional value
may be critical for young consumers when making brand choices. In addition, good
quality brands can build emotional value and a prestigious image among young
consumers, which can lead to increased purchase intentions. Accordingly, creating and
maintaining brand images and relationships with young consumers requires appropriate
advertising media with sensory elements (e.g., music, color) and distribution channels
(e.g., upscale department stores) in the market (Kim et al., 2009). The young adults‘
perception of celebrity endorsers has a positive influence on their product switching
intentions, complaint intentions, positive word-of-mouth and brand loyalty. This suggests
that celebrity endorsers have an impact on young adults‘ decisions to switch brands, their
tendency to talk about brands in a positive manner and their inclination to complain about
products (Dix et al., 2010). Young consumers tend to be more involved with material
possessions (Belk, 1998).
India alone is home to 1.136 billion people out of which an estimated 350 million are in
the age bracket of 10-24 years. Their purchasing power has significantly increased, both,
in terms of salary and pocket money. Salaries in India rose by 14.4 percent in 2006 and
by 15.1 per cent in 2007 as surveyed by Hewitt Associates. An ASSOCHAM survey
revealed that the average monthly allowance of urban children in the age group of 10-17
years had gone up from Rs 300 in 1998 to Rs 1,300 in 2008. This segment is very
attractive due to its size, increasing spending power, and large exposure to media among
54
the existing studies, there is none in our knowledge that documents brand relationships
with young consumers in an emerging economy. Finally, young consumers the world
over are influenced by peers and family in their brand-related decisions (Singh et al.,
2003). For marketers, it is important to understand the impact all factors on brand
relationships and brand switching intentions amongst young consumers.
2.8. Relation between Brand Resonance and Consumer Demographics:
2.8.1. Role of Gender in Brand Relationship:
Gender differences have been marked across a wide variety of marketing practices.
Marketers use gender as an important segmentation variable to classify a product or a
brand for men or women. They also use brands to convey different gender images, either
masculine or feminine. For example, Marlboro is considered a masculine brand while
Chanel is regarded as a feminine brand. Furthermore, through factoring some gender-
related cues into brands, marketers help consumers develop certain implicit symbolic
meanings to associate the brands with their gender perceptions (Gainer, 1993; Eric and
Mello, 2005). As such, gender and brand perceptions are related to consumer attitudes
and behaviors. In fact, researchers have addressed gender and brand relationships in
several different ways. Given the abundance of literature addressed gender and brand
relationship, only selected literature that represents the major thoughts is reviewed.
Following Table-2 identifies some representative research illuminating the influential
role of gender in consumer research.
Gender is most commonly used as an important demographic variable to investigate male

and female differences relative to brand perceptions and brand choices. Previous research
suggested that gender difference plays an important role in the way consumers perceive
and relate to brands (Sirgy, 1982; Monga, 2002). Males and females are different in
processing brand information (Kempf et al., 1997), forming brand attitudes (Kasper,
1988), and building brand relationships (Putrevu, 2004). Though females may have
stronger responses toward brands, variations among male and females are likely. How
consumers perceive themselves and how they perceive brands under various usage
55
contexts may influence consumers‘ brand responses (Gainer, 1993; Dawar and Parker,
1994).
Table-2: Selected Empirical Studies on Gender and Brand Relationship

Study Key Findings Methodology Product
Category
(Vitz and Consumers tend to maintain consistent behavior Survey Cigarette
Johnston, 1965) with gendered self-image. There is a significant T-Test
correlation between masculine role and
masculine rated cigarette brand.
(Alreck et al., Individuals view brands as distinctly masculine Survey Soap
1982) or feminine. Men report that masculine brand is Correlation
more masculine and feminine brand more
feminine that do women.
(Kasper, 1988) Brand loyalty is a differentiating factor between Survey Color TV
male and female consumers.
(Moutinho and Males tend to be more brand loyal than female. Survey Automobile
Goode, 1995) Regression
(Moutinho et There is a clear difference in brand attitudes of Neural Automobile
al., 1996) male and female consumers. The major Network (a
influences on female consumers‘ attitudes are psychology
rationality, expectations, and self-image while modeling
male consumers‘ attitudes are linked to price approach)
consciousness and confidence about products.
(Monga, 2002) Both males and females distinguish between MONOVA N/A
close and distinct brands. However, men may Experiment
not view brand relationship as a dyadic
interaction as much as women do.
(Luo, 2005) The effect of store brand loyalty is stronger for Survey Drugstore
female customers. Regression
(Heish et al., Females‘ brand attitude has a stronger impact on Survey N/A
2006) others‘ brand attitude than that of males. Regression
56
As semantic gender is derived from associative meanings, a brand‘s gender image may
have an impact on how consumers evaluate the brand. For example, (Alreck et al., 1982),
used soap as a neutral product with the name Tiger as a masculine brand and Rainbow as
a feminine brand. The result indicated that individuals can view brands as distinctly
masculine or feminine, and men and women respond differently to the masculine brand
and feminine brand. Research suggested that individuals apply masculine or feminine
associations with an object and transfer out the neutral residue of other associations.
Accordingly, the linguistic gender marking with a brand can influence consumers‘ brand
recalls and brand evaluations (Eric and Mello, 2005). A few other studies also suggested
that gendered brand image leads to different brand perceptions, and men and women tend
to respond differently to different gendered brand positioning (Stern, 1993).
By building strong gender and brand association, evoking consumers‘ sense of

masculinity, and creating unique gendered brand relationship, the brand group has made
Old Spice a popular choice (Krishnan, 1996). The case suggests that gender identity
should be manifested in brand relationship management, and brand perception issues,
including brand attitude, brand association, and brand relationship, should all be
understood to provide diagnostics of brand potentials to brand managers (Ye, 2008).
2.8.2. Role of Income in Brand Relationship:
India is not new to luxury. In a relatively short time span of last two decade, India has
moved from street markets to high-class malls, from frugal-minded consumers to those
wanting it all, and from a population largely obsessed with celebrity gossip to one which
desires to gain knowledge. India is taking wing. It is not simply because India is set to
become the fastest growing major economy in the world. The combination of a large,
young working population, rising income levels, overwhelming consumer optimism and
increasingly developed lifestyles is driving consumption growth in India.
The market potential of the world‘s second-largest population has not gone unnoticed.
International luxury brands have India on the radar. As developed markets continue to
battle economic turmoil, India offers luxury brand owners unrivaled growth
57
opportunities. The Indian luxury market is projected to reach USD 14.72 billion in 2015
(Kearney, 2011). It may represent only 1–2 percent of the global luxury market, but its
market growth rate of more than 20 per cent per annum promises positive returns for
luxury players. A flow of international luxury brands, from Giorgio Armani to Ferrari to
Sofitel Hotels, has entered the Indian market to claim a share of the luxury rupee. Many
others are waiting, watching and preparing. This is not just about today‘s market but a
key strategic market of the future (Atwal and Jain, 2012).
Research has found that the middle-income group tends to be involved and associate with
brands that lead to the purchase decisions (Slama and Tashchian, 1985). The individuals‗
sensitivity to price is conditioned by a series of factors like market share, level of
competition, activity in display, brand loyalty or other variables related to the consumer
like his income (Lambin, 1991). Higher Income Groups are more brands loyal: This
segment can afford more brand choices and hence base their behavior on their attitude.
For their attitudinal loyalty is high (brand commitment is more) rather than price factors.
This attitudinal loyalty also leads them to pay a higher relative price for the brand (Khan,
2011). While there was no significant difference between the income groups, the high-
income segment was more brands loyal, had more brand awareness, and had greater
perception of quality and with better brand association (Chen and Green, 2011). Branded
products still account for the bulk of consumer-packaged goods (CPG) purchases across
all income strata, and the variance among income levels is relatively minor (Marketing
Charts, 2012). There is perception that low-income consumers are not brand conscious
(Prahalad, 2006) other research findings suggest that brand is extremely important to
low-income class of consumers (Kearney, 2007), yet there is perception that low primary
concern of low-income class consumers is price.
2.9. Measurement Considerations for Brand Resonance
As suggested by above branding literature, four dimensions constructing brand

resonance: brand loyalty, brand attachment, brand community, and brand engagement.
As discussed by Oliver (1999) each dimension of the measure ―builds‖ upon the other in
58
that brand engagement represents the highest or ultimate form of loyalty. Therefore,
consumers may exhibit brand loyalty towards a preferred brand but that does not
necessarily mean they will actively engaged with the product or other consumers. Most
previous measures of the behavioral outcomes of brand equity only account for the items
in the brand loyalty dimension of this measure. They do not capture the time and effort
that consumers invest in building social relationships with other fans as well as actively
following and consuming information regarding their favorite brand. This illustrates how
this measure differs from previous attempts and exhibits its value in brand management
research. The four dimensions brand resonance such as brand loyalty, brand attachment,
brand community and brand engagement also considered in previous branding research
by conceptually and empirically (Keller, 2001; Aziz and Yasin, 2010; Gordon,
2010;Pawar and Raut, 2012 ).
Brand Resonance
Brand Loyalty Brand Attachment Brand Community Brand Enagement
Figure-7: Measures of Brand Resonance
59
Concluding Remarks:
The previous section described the empirical and conceptual work that has conducted in
regards to brand resonance. The present study will test new measures of brand resonance
in an attempt to provide scholars and practitioners, some new reliable and valid measures
of brand resonance. This study attempts to fill some considerable conceptual and
theoretical gaps in the literature by testing existing, as well as a new model of brand
resonance. The past studies address the lack of empirical evidence regarding, validation
of brand resonance measures; consideration of young consumer with brand resonance
construct and consideration of brand trust and brand satisfaction while evaluating brand
resonance, this study will attempt to fill this gap. In addition, this study will address the
call for further research regarding the role that the emotional component of a brand plays
in consumer decision-making. The present study will also provide some important factors
that responsible for brand resonance as well as affects brand resonance. Chapter three
will detail the methods for this study, which implemented to achieve the objectives of this
study.
60
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Introduction:
The present study examine the relationship between young consumers and their brand,
with this perception we use the existing brand resonance model, many time this model is
treated as brand equity model, for this study we consider the dimension or elements of
brand resonance model with the consideration of relationship perspective. The failure to
consider the young consumers and their relationship with their preferred brand is a
considerable gap in the literature. More specifically, theoretical consideration of the
young consumers and their relationship with the brand is absent in previous literature. In
Indian young consumers prospective past literature, not consider their relationship with
the brand. Also, the past literature not found the impact of demographics characteristics
of young consumers on brand relationship. The major concentration on this model is to
analysis of brand resonance dimension such as brand loyalty, brand attachment, brand
community and brand engagement. Furthermore, study analyzes the factors responsible
for a brand relationship and its devolvement. This study also examines the role of
demographic characteristics of young consumers in brand relationship. This study
examined the relationship between several constructs related to brand relationship.
In regards to brand relationship, the researcher constructed a measure based on a direct

elicitation of relationship from consumers with different product categories. Previous
attempts to measure brand relationship have focused solely on conspicuous and service
brands while ignoring other product categories. Therefore, as with the other measures in
this study, the goal of this research was to construct a generalizable measure of brand
relationship based upon the relationship derived from consumers for multiple product
categories. The brand relationship measure represented a culmination of the thoughts that
consumers hold for two different product categories.
61
3.2. Statement of the Problem
The relationship that consumers develop with brands has become a topic of increasing
interest and attention in the marketing literature. This interest stems from general
acceptance of relationship principles in product and service marketing, as well as
practitioner acceptance of the evidence of relationship benefits (Aaker, 1995; Fournier,
1998). Several brand researchers have advanced ideas about how and why consumer-
brand relationships develop (Aaker, 1997).
Current literature review does not reveal exploration of the area of consumer – brand
relationships of young adults with specific product categories. No specific research in
customer – brand relationships of young adults was track, despite the fact that in the
many sectors young people are advanced users and trendsetters such as Cell Phone users
(Antoine, 2004). Researchers claim that Generation Y has a unique attitude towards
brands (Lazarevic and Petrovic-Lazarevic, 2007), which makes them interesting as a
research target in the area of consumer – brand relationships (Jurisic et al., 2010).
Branding literature also not provide the reliable and validated scale for measuring brand
resonance and its elements.
Branding as a concept has been well established, but the generation Y consumer segment
responds to brands in ways that are previously unseen (Bakewell and Mitchell, 2003).
Brand loyalty has been extensively researched and shown to profit firms by saving them
money and creating fringe benefits such as positive word of mouth (Liu, 2007; Wood,
2004). The literature to date fails to address how to increase the loyalty of the typically
disloyal generation Y (Syrett and Lammiman, 2004). In other words, the literature does
not identify what marketing tools influence how generation Y consumers perceive
brands, develop a relationship with a brand and become loyal to brands. The study was
done by Lazarevic (2012), highlight how existing marketing tools can be used in new
ways to influence the brand loyalty of the generation Y consumers.
Considering increases in competition among organizations and slow growth new

consumers, companies seek new ways to raise their selling abilities. The most popular
trend is concentration on increasing purchases of existing customers through brand
62
relationship. In this way, companies must learn about customer performance, as this is
important for in persuading customers to purchase companies brands, which leads to
purchase repetition (Agarwal and Rao, 1996).
Estimate by the Census Bureau of India in 2008 India alone is home to 1.136 billion
people out of which an estimated 350 million are in the age bracket of 10-24 years. Their
purchasing power has significantly increased, both, in terms of salary and pocket money.
Salaries in India rose by 14.4 percent in 2006 and 15.1 per cent in 2007 as surveyed by
Hewitt Associates. This segment is very attractive due to its size, increasing spending
power and large exposure to media
As brand relationship concept not tested with young consumers‘ perspective, there is a
need to test the concept of brand relationship with concern of young consumers.
63
3.3. Significance of the study
The study intends to apply suitable conceptual model for brand resonance, based on
previous studies, to analyze the brand resonance in select product categories, which will
enhance the understanding of the phenomenon. Many brand relationship models
presented by management researchers but the past models are not useful for different
consumers‘ environment or different market environment as they are applicable for the
tested area. The literature review of brand relationship also reveals that, work done in the
developed countries on brand relationship is worthy of developed countries but in the
developing countries marketers not study brand relationship as like as developed
countries, so the phenomenon will differ if we consider different culture, demography
and economy etc.
The brand resonance construct is the conglomerate of different relationship constructs

such as brand loyalty, brand attachment, brand community and brand engagement. Even
though achieving brand resonance amongst consumers is associated with different
branding aspects, such as brand awareness, brand performance, brand image, brand
judgments and brand feelings. As branding literature showed that there is no reliable and
validated scale available for measuring this all construct with consideration of one model,
with this view, present study will provide the reliable and validated measures of brand
resonance.
The relationship theory shows that the development of the relationship is the long-term
process. Many factors will affect the development of brand relationship process; there is
the need to identify the factors responsible for and factors those affects the development
of brand relationship. Once marketers know the factors responsible for the development
of brand relationship or enhancement of brand relationship they can concentrate on these
factors. With the above reasons, the study will identify the key factors responsible for the
development of brand resonance amongst young consumers.
Brand resonance model shows that there are the different stages of devolvement of brand
relationship. First stage is brand loyalty, if the consumers become a brand loyal the
moves in to the brand attachment stage and then they attached with brand community of
64
their favorite brand, the last stage of formation of brand loyalty is brand engagement
when consumers start to spend their time, energy on for their favorite brand. As
mentioned above this present study will ascertain the brand resonance patterns amongst
young consumers with reference to select product categories.
The present study also explains the impact and relationship of demographic
characteristics of consumers with brand relationship. How the demographics
characteristics of consumers helps to build a brand relationship. The study will analyze
the whether there are associations between demographics of consumers and brand
relationship.
As branding study shows that the role of brand relationship in specific product category,
and the results and finding of this study limited to researched product category, but
present study of brand relationship aim to extend the a finding and suggestion which will
helpful to generalize the study findings through using different product categories for
testing the brand relationship.
65
3.4. Purposes of the Study
The purpose of this study involved two aspects. First, a theoretical model of brand
resonance established that related various aspects of brand equity to consumer behavioral
intentions. More specifically, a model of brand resonance proposed that examined the
relationship between consumers‘ awareness and associations held for the brand, their
cognitive evaluation and effective response to the brand, and their subsequent time and
effort put forth toward consuming the brand. Second, the constructs of brand resonance
operationalize and to empirically examine the relationships among the dimensions of
brand equity. The consumer-based brand equity model in this study was applicable to
multiple product categories thus the models will test with data from multiple product
categories and different consumer sets. As the branding literature revealed that there is no
reliable and validate scale of brand resonance available with consideration of brand
resonance model, while considering of this as a research gap the purpose of present study
is to developed reliable and validated measures of brand resonance.
The purpose of this study is to look at the concept of brand relationship with the
consideration of Indian consumers, more specifically to study the young Indian
consumers with reference to brand resonance concept. The study aims to demonstrate and
apply a conceptual model based on prior studies, to select product categories, which will
enhance the understanding of brand resonance concept in the area of brand management.
The following model is the base on the concept of brand resonance, which was
propounded by Kevin Lane Keller in 2001. This model shows the four kinds of brand
resonance that customers‘ exhibit with a brand (Keller, 2001).
66
Figure-8: Conceptual Model of Brand Resonance for Present study
67
On the basis of this model, the category of resonance that customers have with brand(s)
could be identified. The basic level of brand resonance is described as brand loyalty, and
stronger level of brand resonance is described as brand engagement. This conceptual
framework, though important, it appears from the contemporary literature review that has
not yet been considered while analyzing brand relationship in practice. Further, many of
the brand relationship concepts could not be made applicable to Indian consumers as they
are. Therefore, it would be appropriate to modify existing conceptual framework if
required, leading to an appropriate model for ascertaining the brand resonance in Indian
consumers.
The intention of the study is to analyze the brand resonance amongst young consumers
based on application of existing conceptual framework. To identify the key factors
responsible for the development of brand resonance amongst young consumers. To
ascertain the extent of brand resonance amongst young consumers and to generate leads
for marketers for developing better branding strategies.
68
3.5. Research Questions
After an in-depth review of the literature, six research questions were generated for the
general consumer context.
RQ1: Does the brand resonance measures measure what they intend to measure?
RQ2: Which factors influence the brand resonance, and it is the development amongst
young consumers?
RQ3: What role-plays by demographics of young individual consumers in the

development of brand resonance?
RQ4: What constitutes ―brand resonance‖ from the perspective of the young individual
consumer?
RQ5: Whether brand satisfaction and brand trust mediates the relationship between brand
resonance and its antecedent or not?
RQ6: Are there brand resonances that can be generalized to different product categories?
69
3.6. Research Aims and Objectives
The study aims to develop the reliable and validated measures of brand resonance. Study
also aims to demonstrate and apply a conceptual model based on prior studies, to select
product categories, which will enhance the understanding of brand resonance concept in
the area of brand management.
Objectives of the Study:
1. To develop the measures to measure the brand resonance and its dimension with
the help of existing framework.
2. To verify the determinants of brand resonance amongst young consumers for
different product categories.
3. To analyze the brand resonance amongst young consumers based on application
of existing conceptual framework.
4. To analyze the relationship of brand satisfaction and brand trust with brand
resonance (extension of existing model).
5. To analyze the role of consumer demographics in brand resonance.
70
3.7. Research Design:
The research design for this research actually divided into two phases, in first phase this
research developed measures for brand resonance through qualitative and pilot study
(Exploratory Factor Analysis), also in this phase researcher test reliability and validity of
accepted measures for final study. In the second phase, we used quantitative approach
and formulated well-structured questionnaire with the use of measures that validated in
the pilot test, and we test tentative hypotheses of this study in statistical ground. Simply
speaking research design is the outline, plan, or strategy used to answer a research
question. Research design is a plan of what to gather, from whom, how and when to
collect the data, and how to analyze the obtained; for valid results, the design must be
appropriate to answer the question or hypothesis being studied. The research design is
include type, purpose, period, scope, and the environment. The major elements of
research design are data collection design, sampling design, instrument development and
data collection and preparation (Cooper and Schindler, 2007).
Early in any research study, once faces the task of selecting the specific design to use. A
number of different design approaches exist, but, unfortunately, no simple classification
system defines all the variations that must be considered. Following table-3, classify
research design using eight different descriptors (Cooper and Schindler, 2007) for the
purpose of the present study.
Table-3:Descriptor of research design

SN Category Type
1 The degree to which the research question has been crystallized Formal
2 The method of data collection Communication
Study
3 The power of the researcher to produce effects in the variable Ex Post Facto
under study
4 The purpose of the study Descriptive
5 The time dimension Cross-Sectional
6 The topical scope-breadth and depth- of the study Statistical Study
7 The research environment Field Condition
8 The participant perceptions of research activity Actual routine
Source: (Cooper & Schindler, 2007, p. 139)
71
A study viewed as exploratory or formal (Descriptive). The essential distinctions between
these two options are the degree of structure and the immediate objective of the study.
With this context, the present study is based on the formal study concept that is it, begins
with a hypothesis and research questions and involves precise procedures and data source
specification. The goal of the present research is to test the hypotheses and answer the
research questions posed (Cooper and Schindler, 2007). The type of research design used
for the present study is the descriptive research design, with the purpose of finding out
who, what, where, when, or how much (research question part explained this).
3.7.1. Sampling Design:
For the present research purpose, researcher implements non-probability type that is
Judgmental Sampling Method. The advantages of this type of sampling are the
availability and the quickness with which data can be gathered (Cooper and Schindler,
2007).
Sample plan:
The steps involved in developing a sampling plan are;
Universe: Young Consumers (Age group between 16-30 years)
Sampling Unit: Young consumers who use Cell Phone and drink branded Soft Drinks.
Sampling Element: Cell Phone users and Soft Drink Consumers.
Sampling Method: Judgmental Sampling
Sample Size: 560 for each Product Category
As the following figure-9 shows that there is the need to select at least 384 sample if the
population bigger than 300,000,000. Based on the presented table researcher collect data
of more than indication of table samples for each product categories (The Research
Advisors, 2006; Krejcie and Morgan, 1970)
72
For final data analysis, we consider 560 sample size. We collect data of 600 respondent
consider for final analysis while, 40 responses were discarded due to incomplete
information or visibly manipulative data. As proposed by (Hair et al., 2013), the
minimum sample to have at least five times as many observations as there are variables to
be analyzed, and the more acceptable size would be a ten-to-one ratio (Hair et al., 2013).
Based on item scale, a sample size of 560 was deemed appropriate.
Figure-9: Required Sample Size (Source: The Research Advisors, 2006)
73
3.7.2. Young Consumer Consideration:
Definition of youth
The National Youth Policy (NYP) document of 2003 covers the age group of 13-35
whereas the NYP 2012 aims to cover the age-bracket of 16-30 years. However, it needs
to be recognized that all young person‘s within this age-group are unlikely to be a
homogeneous group, sharing common concerns and needs and having different roles and
responsibilities. It is, therefore, necessary to divide this broad age-bracket into three
subgroups:
• The first sub-group of 16-21 years also covers adolescents whose needs and areas of
concern are substantially different from youth under the other age groups.
• The second sub-group of 21-25 years includes that youth who are in the process of
completing their education and getting into a career.
• The third sub-group of 25-30 years comprises of young women and men most of
whom have completed their education, including professional, and are, more or less,
settled in their job and in their personal life (National Youth Policy, Ministry of Youth
Affairs and Sports, Government of India, 2012; Sawant, 2012; Sahay and Sharma, 2010).
3.7.3. Research Instrument Development:
An initial draft of the questionnaire was crafted with validated measurement scales from
the pilot study. The questionnaire consisted of brand awareness, brand performance,
brand Image, brand judgment, and brand feelings, brand satisfaction, brand trust, brand
loyalty, brand attachment, brand community and brand engagement, and demographic
information. All items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Demographic information included gender, age,
education and profession of respondent.
74
3.7.4. Data Collection Design
Following is a summary of the data collection strategy
Data Collection Instrument: The questionnaire developed from the scales mentioned
above was used as the instrument. The questionnaire covered the constructs proposed in
the model and standard (and reliable) scales available were used for measuring each
construct.
Data Collection Process: The respondents were explained the purpose of the study in
brief and handed over the questionnaire. The researcher is also giving them enough time
to understand the questions and respond properly. At the end of this time, the
questionnaires were collected back.
3.8. Product Category Selection
Selection of product and product category is not an easy task as availability of large
number of products within the product category. For the presence study purpose,
researcher selects two product categories and one product from each category. The first
product category is Consumer Electronics and product selected from this category isCell
Phone. Second product category is Beverages, and the selected product is Soft Drink.
The basis of the selection for these two-product category and product explained in this
section. The product category as mentioned earlier has strong brands, particularly about
the young consumers and the above product category used in previous branding research
too.
Although academicians proposed various constructs of brand association, they did not
reach any consensus (Chang and Chieng, 2006). Some academicians focused mainly on
product associations (Keller, 1993), and others concentrated more on organization
associations (Brown and Dacin, 1997). Product associations representing different
meanings combine to describe brand associations (Aaker, 1995; Brown and Dacin, 1997;
Chen, 2001). To measuring product relationship and organization, relationship is the sum
up to measure the overall brand relationship (Chang and Chieng, 2006).
75
By building strong consumer–brand relationships based on trust and commitment,
companies are able to differentiate their increasingly commoditized product offerings and
to attract brand loyalty in a market that is increasingly ―deal-loyal‖ (Donath, 1994).
Despite the increase in relationship research, there have been few attempts to study
relationships in the consumer product and service domain, particularly at the brand level.
Following are the basis of selection of product category
 Repeated purchase: The selected product should make a repeat purchase of the
same product with considerable time span.
 Gender neutralized product: The selected product should be gender neutralized
product, which is the product selection by young consumers should not affected
by the gender perception.
 Affordable for the middle (Social and economic) class of the people: While
selecting a product, the product should be affordable in monetary consideration
for the middle class of the people.
 Presence of well-established online community: The selected product should have
established online community.
 Easily available goods: The selected product should easily available in the market.
 Different brand available within same product category: The product from the
product category should have different brand within the category.
 High variety of product available in the market.
76
Table-4: Past research on brand relationship and selected product category
Sr. Title and Author Year Product Findings
No
1 ―When Brand Personality April shoes, Research reveals that individuals who have an anxious attachment
Matters: The Moderating Role 2009 clocks, style (negative view of self) are more likely to discriminate between
of Attachment Styles‖ and brands based on their personality than those who are less anxious
 Vanitha Swaminathan clothing about relationships.
 Karen M. Stilley Research shows that brand personality can be most useful for forging
 Rohini Ahluwalia consumer brand connections in a domain where past literature in the
interpersonal relationship context suggests brand attachments are most
unlikely (high anxiety/high avoidance consumers).
2 My‖ Brand or ―Our‖ Brand: The May Consume The results indicate that brands are highly symbolic entities that are
Effects of Brand Relationship 2007 r intricately woven into the fabric of consumers‘ lives help shape and
Dimensions and Self- Construal Electronic communicate their individual, as well as their group identities.
on Brand Evaluations s
 Vanitha Swaminathan (Televisio
 Karen L. Page ns)
 Zeynep Gurhan-Canli
3 Building customer – brand February Consume Telecommunication services are frequently cited within the field of
relationships in the mobile 2010 r marketing strategies. Once customers have been acquired and connect
communications market: The Electronic to the telecommunications network through a particular operator, their
role of brand tribalism and brand s (Cell long-term links with their operator are of greater importance to the
reputation Phone) success of the company in such a competitive market than the links
 Brigita Jurisic they may establish with other service providers or manufacturers in
 Antonio Azevedo other sectors.
The present research reveals differences between corporate brands of
Portuguese mobile communication operators and demonstrates the
power of brand tribalism, reputation and satisfaction in predicting the
strength of customer – brand relationships.
4 Brand Relationships and March Consume Results suggest that young consumers develop relationships on all
Switching Behaviour for Highly 2010 r brand relationship dimensions – the first study to do so empirically. It
Used Products in Young Electronic is also interesting to note that, though young consumers develop
Consumers s relationships with the brand, there is a difference in the relationships
 Arvind Sahay that the younger age group develops as compared to the older age
77
 Nivedita Sharma group.
Peer influence reduces brand-switching intentions; this relationship is
moderated by the magnitude of price change suggesting that price can
dominate peer influence.
The results suggest that family influence is higher than peer influence;
Indian youth still have a very strong bonding with the family, which
makes them more likely to consume the brands under family
influence.
5 Toward Understanding the Septembe Apparel This study argued that young Singaporean consumers would hold
Young Consumer‘s Brand r 2002 different perceptions of brands from different cultural origins,
Associations and Ethnocentrism proposing culture of origin as an important extrinsic cue in their
in the Lion‘s Port evaluation of brands.
 Aron O‘Cass Brand associations indicated that a particular brand association will
 Kenny Lim result in a specific preference, intention to purchase via a consumer‘s
ability to identify a brand under different conditions, and is related to
the strength of the brand node or trace in memory.
6 Building Consumer–Brand Novembe Coffee Individual and shared experiences were all found to be positive but
Relationship: A Cross-Cultural r 2006 with different influences on brand associative network. Specifically,
Experiential View the effect of shared experience in brand association was lower than
 Pao-Long Chang that of individual experience.
 Ming-Hua Chieng It was found that both brand association and brand personality
significantly influenced brand attitude and brand image.
This study also finds that brand association, brand personality, brand
attitude, and brand image yield to different mediating effects between
brand experience and consumer–brand relationship.
7. Brand Love March Consume Respondents of the research stated that although they genuinely loved
 Rajeev Batra, 2012 r some brands, this was a different form of love than interpersonal love.
 Aaron Ahuvia, electronic The noted difference in this research was that brand love was often
 Richard P. Bagozzi s product described as a less important relationship than interpersonal love.
category Almost all (89%) respondents in Study 2 reported truly loving at least
( iPod and one brand.
iPhone )
78
3.9. Hypothesis Generation:
The following section will detail how the research hypotheses were developed and how
they will be tested.
Gender and Brand resonance:
Through factoring some gender-related cues into brands, marketers help consumers
develop certain implicit symbolic meanings to associate the brands with their gender
perceptions (Gainer, 1993; Eric and Mello, 2005). Previous research suggested that
gender difference plays an important role in the way consumers perceive and relate to
brands (Monga, 2002; Sirgy, 1982). Males and females are different in processing brand
information (Kempf et al., 1997), forming brand attitudes (Kasper, 1988), and building
brand relationships (Putrevu, 2004). Though females may have stronger responses toward
brands, variations among male and females are likely. How consumers perceive
themselves and how they perceive brands under various usage contexts may influence
consumers‘ brand responses (Gainer, 1993; Dawar and Parker, 1994). By building strong
gender and brand association, evoking consumers‘ sense of masculinity, and creating
unique gendered brand relationship, the brand group has made Old Spice a popular
choice (Krishnan, 1996). The case suggests that gender identity should be manifested in
brand relationship management, and brand perception issues, including brand attitude,
brand association, and brand relationship, should all be understood to provide diagnostics
of brand potentials to brand managers (Ye, 2008). Basis on above literature researcher
state following propositions;
H-C11: There is no difference in the level of brand resonance amongst Cell Phone users
according to their gender.
H-S12: There is no difference in the level of brand resonance amongst Soft Drink
consumers according to their gender.
1
H-C: Hypothesis for Cell Phone Product
2
H-S: Hypothesis for Soft Drink Product
79
Income and brand resonance:
Research has found that the middle-income group tends to be involved and associate with
brands that lead to the purchase decisions (Slama and Tashchian, 1985). The individuals
sensitivity to price is conditioned by a series of factors like market share, level of
competition, activity in display, brand loyalty or other variables related to the consumer
like his income (Lambin, 1991). Higher Income Groups are more brands loyal: This
segment can afford more brand choices and hence base their behavior on their attitude.
For their attitudinal loyalty is high (brand commitment is more) rather than price factors.
This attitudinal loyalty also leads them to pay a higher relative price for the brand (Khan,
2011). While there was no significant difference between the income groups, the high-
income segment was more brands loyal, had more brand awareness, and had greater
perception of quality and with better brand association (Chen and Green, 2011). With
consideration of above literature researcher state following propositions;
according to their Income.
consumers according to their Income.
Relation of Brand resonance with Brand Satisfaction and Brand trust
Brand satisfaction can be conceptualized as an overall, summary evaluation of the entire

brand-use experience (Delgado and Munuera, 2001). The relationship between brand
satisfaction and repurchase continues to be well researched, and there is general
agreement that overall satisfaction-like evaluations are positively related to customer
retention (Szymanski and Henard, 2001). We may say that brand satisfaction, same-
context repurchase intention and the availability to recommend the brand to other,
represent the essence of brand loyalty (Moisescu and Allen, 2010).
The focus on brand trust is based on findings that there is a strong positive relationship
between brand trust and brand loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001).Although the
importance of brand trust has been theoretically emphasized in the branding literature
80
(Ambler, 1997), there has been little empirical research into it (Delgado et al., 2005). The
concept of brand trust is based on the idea of a brand-consumer relationship, which is
seen as a substitute for human contact between the company and its customers (Sheth and
Parvatiyar, 1995). Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001), define brand trust as ―the willingness
of the average consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function‖.
Across disciplines, there is also agreement that trust only exists in an uncertain and risky
environment. Trust is only relevant in a risky situation, when the outcomes of a certain
decision are uncertain and important for the individual (Matzler et al., 2006). Basis on
above literature researcher state following propositions;
H-C3: There is no positive correlation between brand satisfaction and brand resonance
amongst Cell Phone users.
H-C4: There is no positive correlation between brand trust and brand resonance amongst
Cell Phone users.
H-S3: There is no positive correlation between brand satisfaction and brand resonance
amongst Soft Drink consumers.
H-S4: There is no positive correlation between brand trust and brand resonance amongst
Soft Drink consumers.
Brand Resonance and its Antecedents:
According to brand resonance model (Keller, 2001) the different construct shows the
positive relationship between brand resonance, the construct such as brand awareness,
brand performance, brand Image, brand judgment, and brand feelings. Keller suggests
that these are the pillars of brand resonance; if you want to build brand resonance
amongst your consumers then we need to think equality about every pillar, it like brand
resonance stands on these pillars. In the process of development of brand resonance,
these construct are associated with brand resonance at every stage (Keller,
2008).Researcher in the field of the branding state that the brands trust and brand
satisfaction plays the key role in the development of brand resonance. Brand trust
(Morgan and Hunt, 1994) and brand satisfaction (Moisescu and Allen, 2010) leads to
81
brand loyalty because trust and brand satisfaction creates exchange relationships that are
highly valued (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). In the branding literature, the concept of
brand trust is based on the idea of a brand-consumer relationship, which is seen as a
substitute for human contact between the company and its customers (Sheth and
Parvatiyar, 1995). Brand satisfaction is strongly correlated with the intention to
repurchase and recommend, and, therefore, we might say that brand satisfaction is an
intrinsic dimension and a pre-requisite of both attitudinal and behavioral brand loyalty
(Moisescu and Allen, 2010). With consideration of above literature researcher state
following propositions;
H-C5: Brand awareness, brand performance, brand Image, brand judgment, and brand
feelings, are not strongly and positively associated with brand resonance amongst Cell
Phone users.
H-S5: Brand awareness, brand performance, brand Image, brand judgment, and brand
feelings, are not strongly and positively associated with brand resonance amongst Soft
Drink consumers.
feelings, brand satisfaction and brand trust are not strongly and positively associated with
brand resonance amongst Cell Phone users.
brand resonance amongst Soft Drink consumers.
SEM-Path Model Building Hypothesis
Brand awareness, brand performance, brand Image, brand judgment, and brand feelings.
To build brand resonance amongst consumers in that case there is need to think equality
about every pillar. These construct are associated with brand resonance at every stage
(Keller, 2008; Keller, 2001). According to Kim (2012), the dimensionality of the brand
experience can be manipulated through the CBBE constructs, including brand awareness,
82
brand performance, brand imagery, customer judgment, customer feelings, and customer-
brand resonance. Brand experiences also provide a hierarchical composition of
customers‘ cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions according to the CBBE
constructs. Findings of research by Choudhury and Kakati (2014), suggest that in testing
of brand resonance model, brand loyalty and brand performance positively contribute
towards brand resonance; also relationship exists between brand imagery and brand
resonance.
Brand trust and brand satisfaction developed brand reliability, as trust and satisfaction
responsible for relationship and to increase the value of relationship (Morgan and Hunt,
1994; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Moisescu and Allen, 2010). Branding literature
suggests that the idea of brand trust is based on the consumer-brand relationship (Sheth
and Parvatiyar, 1995), and brand satisfaction also affect the brand relationship in quiet
similar manner of brand trust loyalty (Moisescu and Allen, 2010). The relationship
between brand satisfaction and repurchase continues to be well researched, and there is
general agreement that overall satisfaction-like evaluations are positively related to
customer retention (Szymanski and Henard, 2001). The focus on brand trust is based on
findings that there is a strong positive relationship between brand trust and brand
relationship (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Across disciplines, there is also agreement
that trust only exists in an uncertain and risky environment. Trust is only relevant in a
risky situation, when the outcomes of a certain decision are uncertain and important for
the individual (Matzler et al., 2006). The variation in brand resonance is explained by its
antecedents to some extent, but there may be other factors which may be explaining
brand resonance in the context of different goods and services (Gautam and Kumar,
2012). Its need to test, brand resonance model with present market setting, also we need
to add more variables that are associated with brand relationship, such as brand
satisfaction and brand trust (Raut and Brito, 2014).
According to literature from different field such as relationship marketing, branding,

retail and many others, there is a significant relationship between satisfaction and trust
(Johnson and Auh, 1998; Caceres and Paparoidamis, 2007; Martinez and Del, 2013). The
research findings of Garbarino and Johnson (1999), suggest that the satisfaction leads
83
trust in the different way in different products and services. If the consumers are satisfied
with product or services, they will be likely to trust on that particular product or services
(Ganesan 1994; Helfert and Gemuenden 1998; Geyskens et al., 1999). Research done by
Selnes (1998) revealed that satisfaction has a significant effect on trust. With these
findings of past research researcher formulate following prepositions;
H-C7: A Brand resonance antecedents (brand awareness, brand performance, brand

Image, brand judgment, and brand feelings) does not have a positive effect on brand
resonance outcomes (brand loyalty, brand attachment, brand community, and brand
engagement) amongst Cell Phone users.
H-S7: A Brand resonance antecedents (brand awareness, brand performance, brand
Image, brand judgment, and brand feelings) does not have a positive effect on brand
resonance outcomes (brand loyalty, brand attachment, brand community, and brand
engagement) amongst Soft Drink consumers.
H-C8: Brand satisfaction does not mediate the relationship between brand resonance
antecedents (brand awareness, brand performance, brand Image, brand judgment, and
brand feelings) and brand resonance outcomes (brand loyalty, brand attachment, brand
community, and brand engagement) amongst Cell Phone users.
H-S8: Brand satisfaction does not mediate the relationship between brand resonance
antecedents (brand awareness, brand performance, brand Image, brand judgment, and
brand feelings) and brand resonance outcomes (brand loyalty, brand attachment, brand
community, and brand engagement) amongst Soft Drink consumers.
H-C9: Brand trust does not mediate the relationship between brand resonance antecedents
(brand awareness, brand performance, brand image, brand judgment, and brand feelings)
and brand resonance outcomes (brand loyalty, brand attachment, band community, and
brand engagement) amongst Cell Phone users.
H-S9: Brand trust does not mediate the relationship between brand resonance antecedents
(brand awareness, brand performance, brand image, brand judgment, and brand feelings)
and brand resonance outcomes (brand loyalty, brand attachment, band community, and
brand engagement) amongst Soft Drink consumers.
84
H-C10: Brand satisfaction does not have the positive effect on brand trust amongst Cell
Phone users.
H-S10: Brand satisfaction does not have the positive effect on brand trust amongst Soft
Drink consumers.
Extent of brand resonance across different product category
Brand loyalty and preference for particular product characteristics are quite different
considerations that together make up what is normally referred to as brand loyalty
(Morgan and Hunt, 1994). According to Keller (2014), the comprehensive, detailed
examination of customer brand relationship will improve our understanding of this
complex topic. A strong customer-brand relationship can also make customers more
receptive to new products or extensions under the same brand (Wang et al., 2008).
Sometimes the strength of attachment depends on many external as well as internal
factors in the market. Consumer perception, consumer feelings are the internal factors
while product characteristics such as nature of product, quality, price, market name,
promotion and so on (Chang, 2012), also decide the strength of attachment that build
consumers with brand (Aaker, 1991). On the basis of this past findings researcher
formulate following proposition;
H-CS3: There is no difference in the level of brand resonance amongst consumers

according to different product categories.
Concluding Remark:
As in the methodology chapter we discuss in detailed tools and techniques that

incorporate to achieve the stated objective of this research, and also briefly describe the
basis of hypotheses generation. In next chapter under heading ―Development of Scale to
Study Brand Resonance‖ developed measurement scale to measure all construct of
present study. For developing measurement scale test all item analysis with Exploratory
3
Hypothesis for Cell Phone and Soft Drink Product
85
Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).Present study also
ensure validity and reliability of extracted measurement scale through Cronbach alpha,
Item to Total Correlation, Composite Reliability, Average Variance Extraction (AVE)
and Square Root of AVE Analysis. In the next chapter ―Data Analysis‖ this study test the
all described hypotheses in methodology. To test tentative preposition of this research
present study used different statistical test such as Independent t-Test, Dependent t-Test,
Person Correlation Coefficient, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Multiple Regression,
Structural Equation –Second Order Path Model and Mediation Analysis.
86
CHAPTER 4: DEVELOPMENT OF SCALE TO STUDY BRAND
RESONANCE
4.1. Introduction:
Many studies in the marketing literature devoted to developing a multi-item scale. The
first papers appeared in the 1979s; in particular, two seminal works were published, to
which almost all the later literature on the topic refers. Peter (1979) reviewed traditional
reliability theory and measurement, discussing basic concepts and evaluating assessment
procedures for use in marketing research. Peter also introduced generalizability theory,
providing a unified conceptual and operational approach for addressing reliability issues.
Lastly, the author applied reliability assessment to the area of marketing, specifically
consumer behavior.
The basic proposition of relationship marketing is that selling the organization should
take a longer-term view of customers‘ relationship to ensure that those customers
converted are also retained (Dibb and Simkin, 2008). The concept of brand resonance is
not new for academician and marketers as its use increases not only in academics but also
in practice. According to Rindfleisch et al., (2006), brand resonance is the extent to which
a consumer develops strong behavioral, psychological, and social bonds with the brands
s/he consumes, while Bourbab and Boukill (2008), state that brand resonance refers to the
nature of the relationship that the consumer has with the brand. The objective of this
chapter is to analyze the existing construct and items that are in the process or model of
brand resonance on the ground of scale development. With using existing construct of
brand resonance and the conceptual items that provided by Keller (2008), researcher set
objectives of this research is, to structuring, validation and reliability analysis of brand
resonance measures on empirical ground. Methodically to achieve present objective of
validating brand resonance scale researcher used (Churchill, 1979) approach that is
largely relevant in the process of scale development.
Churchill (1979), proposed a framework, a kind of protocol, by which measures of

constructs of interest to marketers having desirable reliability and validity properties
could be developed. This framework is still followed in many studies published in the
87
relevant literature that propose new or refined instruments to measure marketing
constructs and, for this reason, it deserves our attention. Churchill (1979), methodology
of scale development already has been used in the development of different marketing
and social sciences scale such as life style (Deborah and Lawrence, 1986) service quality
scale (Ekiz and Bavik, 2008) motivational scale (Dwyer and Yongjae, 2011), memorable
tourism experience (Kim et al., 2012), and many others.
4.2. Theory:
There is significant amount of work done, by the researchers in the field of brand
relationship in past decade and still it is emerging area of the study (Fournier, 1998;
Sahay& Sharma, 2010). Many different approaches defined by researcher for brand
relation such as consumers as active meaning maker (Allen et al., 2008), dyadic
relationship (Aaker, 1995; Aaker et al., 2004), and specific kind of loyalty (Chestnut,
1978). A various concept developed by branding research in terms of brand relationship,
such as brand engagement (Brodie et al., 2001), brand attachment (Park et al., 2010),
brand love (Batra et al., 2011). Brand resonance is the long term relationship that
consumers build with brand (Kumar, 2006), it based on and affects by different brand
related factors, such as brand awareness, brand performance, brand image, brand feelings,
and brand judgment (Keller, 2001). High level of resonance would be desirable such that
the brand is being cue by the various associations (Krishnan, 1996).The term relationship
marketing was first proposed by Berry (1983), in the early 1980s, who defined it as
attracting, maintaining and – in multi-service organization – enhancing customer
relationships. In congruence with the views of several leading branding scholars (Aaker,
1995; Keller, 2008), brand resonance recognize as encompasses a range of brand-related
activities and orientations from simple repeat purchase to deep emotional ties. Brand
resonance plays a crucial role in customer relationship management and the development
of sustainable brand equity between customers and the brand (Moore &Wurster, 2007).
According to Keller (2001), the initial stage of building a strong brand relationship is
creating brand awareness in the mind of consumers. In seconds stage is the meets
88
consumers social and psychological needs, this needs cant satisfied by brand
performance, once consumers feel satisfied with brand he create brand image in his mind.
The third step is to consumers‘ response towards the brand, like he will judge the brand
on the basis of brand performance and brand image that he development in his mind.
Brand feelings refer to evocation of feelings and emotions from consumers to themselves
and others due to the brand. The judgments and feelings toward the brand explain
consumer impact on brand relationship and level of identification that the consumer has
the brand and fellow consumers. The final stage is brand resonance that is brand
relationship (Wang et al., 2008) which consumers developed through the successfully
achievement of all earlier stages (Keller, 2001).
4.3. Steps to Developed Brand Resonance Measures:
There is not enough study available on measures of brand resonance model, with the
consideration of this as a research gap for the present study, present study approached is
to verify the structure, validity and reliability of the conceptual scale that provided by
Keller (2008), to measure the brand resonance construct and its dimensions. It was found
the direct measurement and analysis of many constructs is not possible like measurement
of brand loyalty, brand Image, brand feelings, brand relationship and so on. For
measuring this construct, many researchers developed a scale, through which we can
measure this construct.
This research was split into two parts in the first part we used qualitative research with
experts interviews and focus group discussion technique. In the second phase, researcher
incorporate quantitative approach in which developed research instrument for final data
collection, through which researcher collect pilot data for analysis of items that was
already scrutinize through the first phase of research. In the first phase, researchers
merely concentrate on reduction of data, which was not important and largely not related
to construct of our study. Followings are the steps to developed brand resonance
measures.
89
4.3.1. Specify the Construct Domain:
The first step in the suggested procedure for developing better measures involves
specifying the domain of the construct. It is imperative, though, that researcher‘s consult
the literature when conceptualizing constructs and specifying domains. Perhaps the older
measures are inadequate. The researcher should make sure this is the case by conducting
a thorough review of literature in which the variable is used and should present a detailed
statement of the reasons and evidence as to why the new measure is better (Churchill,
1979). As we are using the existing structure of the construct, so we are not going to add
or change in different construct of brand resonance model. The table-5 present the
construct of the present study with its description based on existing literature (Keller,
2001). This research considered total nine constructs for refining the scale of brand
resonance.
4.3.2. Generation of Items and Collection of Data:
The generated items that can capture the specified construct domain are the main
objective of this stage. Those techniques that are typically productive in exploratory
research, including literature searches, experience surveys, and insight stimulating
examples, are productive here (Selltiz et al., 1976). The literature should indicate how the
variable defined previously and how many dimensions or components it has (Churchill,
1979). According to Churchill researcher should search the existing literature to generate
items that can measure specific construct, with the help of this view this study used items
to measures construct from Keller (2001), articles as in the end of his article he provide
format for generation of items, the structure of items is in the question format except the
brand resonance construct (Keller, 2008) ( brand loyalty, brand attachment, brand
community and brand engagement), this study adapt the all nine construct questions
format items into structured statement, finally study formulate total 72 items. For the
collection of data and analysis of items, study implements qualitative and quantitative
approach. As in the stage item generation, present study implements two qualitative
approaches such as focus group discussion and experts interviews (4 academic experts
and four industrial experts). For focus group study select three groups in each group there
was three male and three female participants for control gender bias. In the structure of
90
focus group, respondent discusses each construct and as the observer researcher analyze
which are the items are important of each construct. For pilot (quantitative study) total
160 respondent data used for analysis purpose. All items measured at seven points Likert
Scale (1- Strongly Disagree to 7- Strongly Agree). In the process of data collection and
measures purification instead of concentrating on respondent demographics present study
more focus of items analysis.
Two-page questionnaire was used as the research instrument for final data collection. For
assessing, the some measures (statements or items) of brand resonance used the 7- point
Likert scale, as 7- point Likert scale used in many earlier studies for measurement of
brand relationship aspects (Aziz and Yasin, 2010; Lin, 2010; Lee et al., 2011; Hwang
and Kandampully, 2012). Targeting the dimensions of brand resonance discussed in the
earlier part, a Likert scale based questionnaire based on standard research procedures
(Churchill, 1979), was developed from previously validated scales, and adapted from
(Keller, 1993). Apart from this for the final study, collect data from total 200 respondents
for pilot analysis; the response rate for the survey method was 80 percent. We delete the
case the one that had greater than 10 percent of missing data, the data actual used for
analysis was (N) 160. In this study researcher run exploratory factor analysis to reduce
the insignificant data.
91
Figure-10: Scale Development Process (Source: Churchill, 1979)
92
Table-5: Specified Domain of Construct
Sr. No. Construct Definitions
1 Brand Awareness Product or brand Awareness is the propensity of the product or
brand to be noticed or thought of in buying situations. Brand
Awareness is more than the traditional top-of-mind brand
awareness measure. (Romaniuk and Sharp, 2004).
2 Brand Performance Brand performance describes how well the product or services
meets customer more functional needs (Keller, 2008).
3 Brand Image Brand image is the perceptions about a brand reflected by the
brand associations held in consumer memory (Keller, 1993).
4 Brand Judgment Brand judgments focus on customers‘ personal opinions about
the brand based on how they put together different performance
and Image associations (Keller, 1993).
5 Brand Feelings Brand feelings are consumers‘ emotional responses and reaction
to the brand. (Keller, 2008).
6 Brand Loyalty Brand loyalty is ―a deeply held commitment to rebuy or
repatronize a preferred product/service consistently in the
future, causing repetitive same brand or same-brand-set
purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts
having the potential to cause switching behavior‖ (Oliver,
1999).
7 Brand attachment The concept of ―brand attachment‖ represents a particular kind
of consumer-brand relationship. Brand attachment is the
strength of the bond connecting the brand with the self (Park et
al., 2010) be attached to a brand means the consumer buys the
same brand in a given product category almost exclusively
(McQueen et al., 1993).
8 Brand Community Brand community is a ―specialized, non-geographically bound
community, and based on a structured set of relationships
among admirers or a brand‖ (Muniz and Guinn, 2001).
9 Brand Engagement The level of an individual customer‘s motivational, brand-
related and context-dependent state of mind characterized by
specific levels of cognitive, emotional and behavioral activity
in brand interactions (Hollebeek, 2011).
The all above nine constructs are the part of brand resonance model ―Brand resonance refers to
the nature of the relationship that customers have with the brand and the extent to which they feel
that they are ―in synch‖ with the brands‖ (Keller, 2001; Keller, 2008).
93
Table-6: Generation of Items
Construct Sr.No. Question (Keller-2000, 2001, 2003) Generated Items
Brand 1. What brands of product or service category can you This brand is very easy to recognize.
Awareness think of? (Using increasingly specific product
category cues).
2. Have you ever heard of these brands? This brand is popular.
3. Which brands might you be likely to use under the I can use my brand in different situation.
following situations.
4. How frequently do you think of this brand? I know where I can buy this brand.
Brand 5. Compared with other brands in the category, how Compared with other brands in the product category,
Performance well does this brand provide the basic functions of this brand satisfies basic function.
the product or service category?
6. Compared with other brands in the category, how Compared with other brands in the product category,
well does this brand satisfy the basic needs of the this brand satisfies my basic needs.
product or service category?
7. To what extent does this brand have special features? This brand is a specialized brand for me.
8. How reliable is this brand? This brand is reliable for me.
9. How durable is this brand? This brand is durable for me.
10. How easily serviced is this brand? This brand is easily serviceable.
11. How effective is this brand‘s service? Does it This brand provides satisfied service.
completely satisfy your requirements?
12. How efficient is this brand‘s service in terms of The service provide by this brand is efficient.
speed, responsiveness, and so forth?
13. How courteous and helpful are the providers of this Overall the service of this brand is good.
brand‘s service?
14. How stylish do you find this brand? This brand is stylish brand for me.
15. How much do you like the look, feel, and other I like the look, feel and other design aspects of this
design aspects of this brand? brand.
16. Compared with other brands in the category with Compared with other brands in the category with
which it competes, are this brand‘s prices generally which it competes, this brand prices satisfactory for
higher, lower, or about the same? me.
94
17. Compared with other brands in the category with Compared with other brands in the category with
which it competes, do this brand‘s prices change which it competes, this brand prices provide price
more frequently, less frequently, or about the same guarantee?
amount?
Brand 18. To what extent do people you admire and respect use I give respect to the people who use this brand.
Image this brand?
19. How much do you like people who use this brand? I like the people who use this brand.
20. How well do the following words describe this This brand is sign of successfulness, sign of honesty,
brand: down-to-earth, honest, daring, up-to-date, sign of upper class and so many good things.
reliable, successful, upper class, charming,
outdoorsy?
21. What places are appropriate to buy this brand? I know where I can buy this brand.
22. How appropriate are the following situations to use I know, in which situation I have to use this brand.
this brand?
23. Can you buy this brand in a lot of places? I can buy this brand where I want.
24. Is this a brand that you can use in a lot of different This is the only brand that, I can use in many
situations? situations.
25. To what extent does thinking of the brand bring back I think that this brand bring back pleasant memories.
pleasant memories?
26. To what extent do you feel you grew up with the I feel that I grew up with this brand.
brand?
Brand 27. What is your overall opinion of this brand? In my overall opinion this brand is good brand.
Judgments 28. What is your assessment of the product quality of This brand providing good quality products.
this brand?
29. To what extent does this brand fully satisfy your This brand satisfies my product needs.
product needs?
30. How good a value is this brand? This is the good value brand.
31. How knowledgeable are the makers of this brand? This brand knows what his consumers want.
32. How innovative are the makers of this brand? This is very innovative brand.
33. How much do you trust the makers of this brand? This is trustable brand.
34. To what extent do the makers of this brand This brand knows what the needs of his consumers
understand your needs? are.
95
35. To what extent do the makers of this brand care This brand always takes care of their consumers‘
about your opinions? opinion.
36. To what extent do the makers of this brand have your This brand maker knows the interest of his consumers.
interests in mind?
37. How much do you like this brand? I like this brand very much.
38. How much do you admire this brand? I admire this brand.
39. How much do you respect this brand? I respect this brand.
40. How likely would you be to recommend this brand to I always recommend this brand to other.
others?
41. Which are your favorite products in this brand This brand produces my favorite products.
category?
42. How personally relevant is this brand to you? This brand is relevant for me.
43. How unique is this brand? This is unique brand.
44. To what extent does this brand offer advantages that This is more advantageous brand than compare to
other brands cannot? other brand.
45. How superior is this brand to others in the category? This is superior brand as compared to other brands in
the product category.
Brand 46. Does this brand give you a feeling of warmth? This brand gives me a feeling of warmth.
Feelings 47. Does this brand give you a feeling of fun? This brand gives me a feeling of fun.
48. Does this brand give you a feeling of excitement? This brand gives me a feeling of excitement.
49. Does this brand give you a feeling of security? This brand gives me a feeling of security.
50. Does this brand give you a feeling of social This brand gives me a feeling of social approval.
approval?
51. Does this brand give you a feeling of self-respect? This brand gives me a feeling of self respect.
Brand 52. I consider myself loyal to this brand. I consider myself loyal to this brand.
Loyalty 53. I buy this brand whenever I can. I buy this brand whenever I can.
54. I buy as much of this brand as I can. I buy as much of this brand as I can.
55. I feel this is the only brand of this product I need. I feel that I need only this brand product.
56. This is the one brand I would prefer to buy/use. This is the one brand I would prefer to buy.
57. If this brand were not available, it would make little If this brand were not available, it would make little
difference to me if I had to use another brand. difference to me if I had to use another brand.
58. I would go out of my way to use this brand I would go out of my way to use this brand.
96
Brand 59. I really love this brand. I really love this brand.
Attachment 60. I would really miss this brand if it went away. I would really miss this brand if it went away.
61. This brand is special to me. This brand is special to me.
62. This brand is more than a product to me. This brand is more than a product to me.
Brand 63. I really identify with people who use this brand. I really identify with people who use this brand.
Community 64. I feel as if I almost belong to a club with other users I feel as if I almost belong to a club with other users of
of this brand. this brand.
65. This is a brand used by people like me. This is a brand used by people like me.
66. I feel a deep connection with others who use this I feel a deep connection with others who use this
brand brand.
Brand 67. I really like to talk about this brand to others. I really like to talk about this brand to others.
Engagement 68. I am always interested in learning more about this I am always interested in learning more about this
brand. brand.
69. I would be interested in merchandise with this I would be interested in merchandise with this brand‘s
brand‘s name on it. name on it.
70. I am proud to have others know I use this brand. I am proud to have others know I use this brand.
71. I like to visit the Web site for this brand. I like to visit the Web site for this brand.
72. Compared with other people, I follow news about Compared with other people, I follow news about this
this brand closely. brand closely.
97
4.3.3. Purification of Scale
For the purification of measures, researcher used expert interview and focus group
discussion (FGD) techniques from a qualitative approach while from the quantitative
approach we used survey method. We used communalities, factor loadings, Item-to-Total
correlation in the same construct, correlation of the item with different construct items,
and Cronbach's to assess the goodness of measures, validity, and reliability of measures.
a. Qualitative study:
As the guideline of qualitative research about use of expert interviews tools that study can
developed our survey based on ethnographic field of research, or we can use already
existing instrument, scale, or other measures in the a new setting. As instruments based
on ethnographic field of research can be discussed with local expert to clarify correct use
of language, address translation issues, and ensuring comprehension way to test such
instruments is to use focus groups to determine whether people understand the questions
(Krueger, 1988).
In this phase, researcher implemented two qualitative approaches such as focus group
discussion and expert interview; in expert interview we interviewed four academic
experts and four industrial experts (Schensul et al., 1999). For focus group discussion we
selected three groups in each group there were six participants (Bloor, Frankland, et al.,
2001). In the structure of focus group, a respondent discusses each construct and as an
observer researcher analyze which are the items are important of each construct
according to focus group discussion (Stewart and Shamdasani, 1990). When select
experts for interview, researcher merely consider the criteria such as their knowledge
about branding area, on this ground we select brand manager from industrial space and
from academician who teaching or doing research in the field of brand management.
In the qualitative approach, study used all 72 items that were developed through Keller‘s
guideline. After confirming the result from the expert advice (Kim et al., 2012), through
interview and focus group study, researcher drop 20 items on the ground of same
meanings, creating confusion in the mind of respondent, not suited because of technical
98
wording (Devellis, 2003). After deleting 20 items the remaining 52 items used for the
pilot study.
b. Pilot Study:
The pilot study conducted in two phase in pre-pilot test, questionnaire was tested with a
convenience sample of 30 respondents. This phase researcher asked the respondent to
provide comments on the relevance and wording of the questionnaire items, length of the
survey, and time taken to complete it. Based on the response received, the questionnaire
was modified, and the wording of some of the questions was changed to improve clarity
in the further study. In the second phase study used data of 160 respondents for the pilot
study; response rate of pilot was 64 percent. The sample size selected with consideration
the rule of exploratory factor analysis (MacCallum, et al., 1999).
c. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA):
The purpose of the initial EFA is to use of the important items based on their relative
factor loadings scores in further analysis. After applying EFA in pilot study data, it gives
the solution to drop 17 on the basis of its communities (less than .6) and factor loadings
(less than .6). The norms set by dropping items in the pilot study through EFA are less
than .6 values of communalities and less than .6 values for factor loadings (Guadagnoli
and Velicer, 1988). The inter-correlation between items under same construct was high
while inter-correlation between items under different construct was low (Nunnally,
1978). The number of latent variables, number of observed variables and sample size is
appropriate for EFA and CFA analysis (Kass and Tinsley, 1979; Comrey and Lee, 1992;
Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). For EFA researcher consider correlation matrix between
items less than 0.8 (Rockwell, 1975) KMO and Bartlett‘s Test greater than 0.6 (Kaiser,
1974), and communalities above 0.6 (MacCallum et al., 1999), and cut-off point for
factor lodging more than 0.6, the values of factor lodging are based on an alpha level of
.01 with two-tailed (Stevens, 2002). Factor analysis is an exploratory tool and so it should
be used to guide the researcher to make various decisions such as, one important decision
is the number of factors to extract (Field, 2009); as pre-defined in the present study with
consideration of brand resonance model need nine factors, as present study have nine
99
constructs and also evidence of the Scree Plot support to extraction of nine factors at
point of inflexion (Cattell, 1966; Stevens, 2002), clearly showed the extraction of nine
factors.
A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted on the 52 items with orthogonal
rotation (varimax). An initial analysis was run to obtain nine factors in the data. The
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO =
.712 (‗Good‘ according to Kaiser, 1974; Field, 2009), and Bartlett‘s test of sphericity χ²
(160) = 4721.393, p < .000, and DF = 1326, indicated that correlations between items
were sufficiently large for PCA. Nine factors had eigenvalues over Kaiser‘s criterion of 1
and in combination explained almost 71% of the variance. The rotated component matrix
for 17 variables showed value less than 0.6 amongst 52 items, with these facts 17 items
fit in our item rejection criteria (Guadagnoli and Velicer, 1988; Stevens, 2002; Field,
2009), researcher eliminated seventeen and retained 35 items for further study.
Points of Inflexion
Graph-1: Scree Plot to confirm number of Factors
100
Table-7: Brand Resonance Measures Analysis Qualitative study and EFA
Qualitative Quantitative Approach (Pilot
Approach Study)
EFA
Construc Sr. Generated Items Code Expert Interview Commu Factor Cronch
t No and nalities Loadings Bach
Focus Group Alpha
Discussion
1 This brand is very easy to recognize. BA1   .742 .833 .870
Awarene 2 This brand is popular. BA2   .754 .773
ss 3 I can use my brand in different situation.     
4 I know where I can buy this brand. BA3   .724 .799
Performa 5 Compared with other brands in the product category, this brand      .846
nce satisfies basic function.
6 Compared with other brands in the product category, this brand BP1   .692 .813
satisfies my basic needs.
7 This brand is a specialized brand for me.     
8 This brand is reliable for me. BP2   .690 .821
9 This brand is durable for me.     
10 This brand is easily serviceable. BP3   .323 .330
11 This brand provides satisfied service.     
12 The service provide by this brand is efficient.     
13 Overall the service of this brand is good. BP4   . 569 .540
14 This brand is stylish brand for me. BP5   .419 .557
15 I like the look, feel and other design aspects of this brand. BP6   .712 .812
16 Compared with other brands in the category with which it     
competes, this brand prices satisfactory for me.
17 Compared with other brands in the category with which it     
competes, this brand prices provide price guarantee.
Image 18 I give respect to the people who use this brand. BI1   .683 .790 .851
19 I like the people who use this brand. BI2   .778 .799
20 This brand is sign of successfulness, sign of honesty, sign of BI3   .481 .566
101
upper class and so many good things.
21 I know where Can I buy this brand.     
22 I know, in which situation I have to use this brand.     
23 I can buy this brand where I want.     
24 This is the only brand that, I can use in many situations.     
25 I think that this brand bring back pleasant memories. BI4   .342 .545
26 I feel that I grew up with this brand. BI5   .650 .725
Judgmen 27 In my overall opinion this brand is good brand. BJ1   .602 .480 .843
ts 28 This brand providing good quality products.     
29 This brand satisfies my product needs.     
30 This is the good value brand. BJ2   .565 .738
31 This brand knows what his consumers want. BJ3   .514 .560
32 This is very innovative brand. BJ4   .580 .744
33 This is trustable brand. BJ5   .500 .571
34 This brand knows what the needs of his consumers are.     
35 This brand always takes care of their consumers‘ opinion. BJ6   .475 .568
36 This brand maker knows the interest of his consumers.     
37 I like this brand very much. BJ7   .126 .244
38 I admire this brand.     
39 I respect this brand. BJ8   .468 .473
40 I always recommend this brand to other.     
41 This brand produces my favorite products.     
42 This brand is relevant for me. BJ9   .619 .698
43 This is unique brand. BJ10   .674 .780
44 This is more advantageous brand than compare to other brand.     
45 This is superior brand as compared to other brands in the BJ11   .593 .757
product category.
Feelings 46 This brand gives me a feeling of warmth. BF1   .424 .533 .828
47 This brand gives me a feeling of fun. BF2   .523 .639
48 This brand gives me a feeling of excitement. BF3   .623 .518
49 This brand gives me a feeling of security. BF4   .710 .751
50 This brand gives me a feeling of social approval. BF5   .756 .759
51 This brand gives me a feeling of self respect. BF6   .619 .608
102
Loyalty 52 I consider myself loyal to this brand. BL1   .790 .833 .863
53 I buy this brand whenever I can. BL2   .697 .801
54 I buy as much of this brand as I can. BL3   .430 .424
55 I feel that I need only this brand product. BL4   .477 .456
56 This is the one brand I would prefer to buy. BL5   .699 .812
57 If this brand were not available, it would make little difference BL6   .681 .718
to me if I had to use another brand.
58 I would go out of my way to use this brand. BL7   .424 .573
Attachm 59 I really love this brand. BAT1   .746 .825 .904
ent 60 I would really miss this brand if it went away. BAT2   .730 .817
61 This brand is special to me. BAT3   .774 .827
62 This brand is more than a product to me. BAT4   .684 .770
Commun 63 I really identify with people who use this brand. BC1   .729 .653 .838
ity 64 I feel as if I almost belong to a club with other users of this BC2   .786 .834
brand.
65 This is a brand used by people like me. BC3   .618 .654
66 I feel a deep connection with others who use this brand. BC4   .803 .854
Engagem 67 I really like to talk about this brand to others. BE1   .603 .680 .817
ent 68 I am always interested in learning more about this brand. BE2   .678 .752
69 I would be interested in merchandise with this brand‘s name on BE3   .393 .568
it.
70 I am proud to have others know I use this brand. BE4   .583 .705
71 I like to visit the Web site for this brand. BE5   .518 .659
72 Compared with other people, I follow news about this brand BE6   .573 .692
closely.
* Sample Size (N) = 160 *Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy= .712
*Bartlett's Test of Sphericity shows Approx. Chi-Square = 4721.393, DF = 1326 and Sig = .000 *Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
*Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. *9- components extracted. *Rotation converged in 9 iterations.
Items Drop through Qualitative Study Items Drop through pilot study Items for Further Study
103
d. Confirmatory Factor Analysis:
Final data collected with the help of extracted 35 items through the pilot study
(qualitative and quantitative approach) by using convenience sample technique. Total 560
samples used for this analysis, collect data from 700 respondents and out of we delete
140 cases, due to missing of more than twenty percent data. Finally, we used 560
samples. The testing of the measurement model is the crucial stage in the development
and analysis measures. With the importance of measurement model testing present study
test brand resonance measurement model with existing construct of brand resonance
model namely brand awareness, brand performance, brand image, brand judgment, brand
feelings, brand loyalty, brand attachment, brand community and brand engagement.
e. Assessment of Normality:
First present study checked the absolute value of Skewness and kurtosis, as observed not
single variables showing the absolute value of skew greater than 3 and kurtosis greater
than 10, so there is no concern regarding the normality (Kline, 2005).
Table-8: Descriptive Statistics for Assessment of Normality

Sr. No. Items Mean Median Skewness (SE) Kurtosis (SE)
1. Brand Awareness-1 5.8321 6.00 -1.699 (.103) 2.323 (.206)

2. Brand Awareness-2 5.9625 6.00 -1.725 (.103) 2.827 (.206)
3. Brand Awareness-3 5.9196 6.00 -1.669 (.103) 2.616 (.206)
4. Brand Performance-1 5.6982 6.00 -1.326 (.103) 1.693 (.206)
5. Brand Performance-2 5.7036 6.00 -1.269 (.103) 1.450 (.206)
6. Brand Performance-3 5.5375 5.00 -1.096 (.103) .708 (.206)
7. Brand Image-1 4.7304 5.00 -.569 (.103) -.722 (.206)
8. Brand Image-2 4.6125 5.00 -.512 (.103) -.627 (.206)
9. Brand Image-3 4.4107 6.00 -.376 (.103) -1.040 (.206)
10. Brand Judgment-1 5.1964 6.00 -.901 (.103) .231 (.206)
11. Brand Judgment-2 5.5000 6.00 -1.147 (.103) 1.018 (.206)
12. Brand Judgment-3 5.4571 5.00 -1.003 (.103) .735 (.206)
13. Brand Judgment-4 5.0071 6.00 -.793 (.103) -.234 (.206)
14. Brand Judgment-5 5.1161 5.00 -.877 (.103) -.018 (.206)
15. Brand Feelings-1 4.6750 6.00 -.569 (.103) -.625 (.206)
16. Brand Feelings-2 5.1500 5.00 -.913 (.103) .165 (.206)
17. Brand Feelings-3 5.0107 5.00 -.830 (.103) -.044 (.206)
18. Brand Feelings-4 5.1143 5.00 -.803 (.103) .002 (.206)
104
19. brand loyalty-1 4.9089 5.00 -.822 (.103) -.112 (.206)
20. brand loyalty-2 4.8143 5.00 -.661 (.103) -.456 (.206)
21. brand loyalty-3 5.0089 5.00 -.873 (.103) .079 (.206)
22. brand loyalty-4 4.7286 5.00 -.505 (.103) -.653 (.206)
23. Brand Attachment-1 5.1375 5.00 -.900 (.103) .286 (.206)
24. Brand Attachment-2 4.9357 5.00 -.660 (.103) -.552 (.206)
27. Brand Community-1 4.6696 5.00 -.505 (.103) -.863 (.206)
28. Brand Community-2 4.5304 5.00 -.413 (.103) -.853 (.206)
29. Brand Community-3 4.6214 5.00 -.565 (.103) -.700 (.206)
30. Brand Community-4 4.3339 5.00 -.339 (.103) -1.065 (.206)
31. Brand Engagement-1 4.7750 5.00 -.653 (.103) -.572 (.206)
32. Brand Engagement-2 5.2214 6.00 -.991 (.103) .352 (.206)
Valid Sample (N) = 560
f. Brand Resonance Measurement Model
The first form of brand resonance measurement model showed the correlation between all
latent variables ranges from (BC<-->BA) .186 to (BAT<-->BE) .834, these correlations
suggest that latent variables are associated and still it‘s fit in the rule of discriminant
validity as no correlation value between two different construct values reached above .85
(Brown, 2006). The loadings for all thirty-five observed variables ranges from (BI3) .659
to (BI2) .901, except (BL4) .439, its indicator that to this study need to drop this item as
the factor loading for BL4 is less than .5 and the value .439 is poor. All loadings and
correlations between latent variables are significant (p < 0.05). Using the norms
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007), all factor loadings are considered very well to excellent,
and all indicators variables significantly load on the expected latent variables. In the first
form of brand resonance measurement model test, researcher achieved model fit indices
such as CMIN/DF= 2.86, CFI = .928, NFI= .894, IFI= .929 TLI= .918, and RMSEA =
.058. With consideration of all these values the model is an acceptable fit, but still there is
a scope to enhance the model fit indices (Hair et al., 2013).
105
Figure-11: Initial Form of Brand Resonance Measurement Model
106
Figure-12: Accepted Brand Resonance Measurement Model
107
After testing initial form of brand resonance measurement model the modification indices
(MI) showed there is space for improvement of measurement model as MI estimates
suggest some changes in the model and stepwise this study implement all the changes
that can improve the measurement model, and researcher retest the model after
implementing the one to one modification parameter. As largest MI values suggest
adding a covariance between the errors for BJ4 and BJ5 (MI 52.731), which allows the
model to include as estimation of the amount of relationship between these two errors.
Secondly MI value suggests to adding the covariance between the errors for BC1 and
BC4 (MI 15.767). MI value also suggests to adding the covariance between the errors for
BAT1 and BAT4 (MI 14.780). Lastly as the testing series of measurement model, there is
no change in the factor loading of BL4 (.439), as it indicates poor factor loading this
study exclude the BL4, from our further confirmatory factor analysis.
After testing concluding brand resonance measurement model, present study achieved the
fairly good model fit indices. The correlation between all latent variables ranges from
(BA<-->BC) .175 to (BAT<-->BE) .829, these correlations suggest that latent variables
are associated and still it‘s fit in the norms of discriminant validity (Brown, 2006). The
loadings for all thirty-five observed variables ranges from (BJ4) .664 to (BI2) .899. All
loadings and correlations between latent variables are significant (p < 0.05). With the
standard (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007), all factor loadings are considered very good to
excellent, and all indicators variables significantly load on the expected latent variables.
In the final measurement model this study achieved good model fit indices such as
CMIN/DF= 2.71, CFI = .938, NFI= .906, IFI= .938 TLI= .929 and RMSEA = .055,
considering Kline (2005) and Hair et al., (2013), recommendation for assessing
acceptable model fit criteria; it can state that the present brand resonance model is well
acceptable fit.
108
4.3.4. Assessment of Reliability and Validity:
Assessment of Reliability:
Initially, researcher analyzes the Cronbach's in EFA. We compute Cronbach's alpha for
assessing reliability (Churchill, 1979), as it shows measures of brand resonance has high-
reliability values for all construct is greater than 0.8. To determine the reliability of the
constructs in confirmatory factor analysis, the composite reliability, and average variance
extracted (AVE) values were calculated. Reliability is acceptable as composite reliability
value exceeds 0.70 and AVE not less than 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). As reported
all constructs showed acceptable values of composite reliability and AVE.
Assessment of Validity:
Validity is the set of how well an instrument that is developed measures to the particular
concept, it is intended to measures. In other words, the validity is concerned with whether
we measure the right concept (Sekaran and Bougie, 2009). The scale has high face
validity as all the measurement items have been developed on the basis of careful review
of available literature (Hair et al., 2013). The content validity of the measures and
questionnaire assessed through examination by experts in the area. Primary changes were
made to clarify or delete some statements according to recommendations or comments of
the experts (Kidader and Judd, 1986). This study test construct validity with the help of
convergent and divergent validation, for convergent validation researcher analyze Item-
to-Total Correlations between same construct, it shows high correlations (greater than .8)
between same construct items while verify divergent validation through correlation
between different construct items, it shows low correlation (less than .6) between
different construct items (Bagozzi et al., 1991) also convergent validity is acceptable as
the all item loading exceeds 0.60 (Hair et al., 2013). The scale showing discriminate
validity as the latent variables shows value of correlation coefficient amongst all latent is
less than .85 (Harrington, 2009) and also it verify through correlation between different
construct items (less than .6). To examine discriminant validity, this study also compared
the shared variances between constructs with the AVE values of the individual reflective
constructs. As shown in Table-10 label as ―Correlation matrix and discriminant validity
109
assessment‖, the diagonal contains the square root of the AVE values of our constructs.
All of the AVE values exceeded those of the off-diagonal elements in the corresponding
rows and columns, satisfying discriminant validity, in other way we can say that Square
root of AVE greater than inter-construct correlations (Hair et al., 2013).
110
Table-9: Brand Resonance Items for Final Study
Construct Generated Items Code Std Regression wt. CR AVE
Brand Awareness This brand is very easy to recognize. BA1 .819
This brand is popular. BA2 .855
I know where I can buy this brand. BA3 .746 0.849 0.653
Brand Compared with other brands in the product category, this brand satisfies my basic needs. BP1 .786
Performance This brand is reliable for me BP2 .824
I like the look, feel and other design aspects of this brand BP3 .675 0.807 0.682
Brand Image I give respect to the people who use this brand BI1 .831
I like the people who use this brand BI2 .899
I feel that I grew up with this brand BI3 .661 0.843 0.645
Brand Judgment This is the good value brand BJ1 .733
This is very innovative brand BJ2 .687
Personally this brand is relevant for me BJ3 .736
This is unique brand BJ4 .664
This is superior brand as compared to other brands in the product category BJ5 .682 0.859 0.659
Brand Feelings This brand gives me a feeling of fun BF1 .836
This brand gives me a feeling of security BF2 .819
This brand gives me a feeling of social approval BF3 .812
This brand gives me a feeling of self-respect BF4 .771 0.884 0.656
Brand loyalty I consider myself loyal to this brand. BL1 .783
I buy this brand whenever I can. BL2 .864
This is the one brand I would prefer to buy. BL3 .855 0.873 0.697
Brand I really love this brand. BAT1 .860
Attachment I would really miss this brand if it went away. BAT2 .831
This brand is special to me. BAT3 .867
This brand is more than a product to me. BAT4 .873 0.918 0.736
Brand I really identify with people who use this brand. BC1 .835
Community I feel as if I almost belong to a club with other users of this brand. BC2 .859
This is a brand used by people like me. BC3 .772
I feel a deep connection with others who use this brand. BC4 .853 0.899 0.690
Brand I really like to talk about this brand to others. BE1 .807
Engagement I am always interested in learning more about this brand. BE2 .795
I am proud to have others know I use this brand. BE3 .789
I like to visit the Web site for this brand. BE4 .820
Compared with other people, I follow news about this brand closely. BE5 .750 0.894 0.702
CR= Composite Reliability, AVE= Average Variance Extracted
111
Table-10:Correlation Matrix and Discriminant Validity Assessment
AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
BP 0.682 0.826
BI 0.645 0.489 0.803
BF 0.656 0.626 0.696 0.810
BJ 0.659 0.803 0.712 0.777 0.812
BL 0.697 0.601 0.533 0.659 0.702 0.835
BAT 0.736 0.569 0.638 0.716 0.733 0.776 0.858
BC 0.690 0.386 0.729 0.632 0.615 0.598 0.759 0.830
BE 0.702 0.525 0.639 0.682 0.748 0.703 0.829 0.806 0.838
BA 0.653 0.725 0.284 0.474 0.482 0.436 0.360 0.175 0.302 0.808
4.4. Concluding Remark:
Structural equation modeling has become an established component of the

methodological repertoire of marketing and consumer behavior researchers (Baumgartner
and Homburg, 1996). Measurement scales are an always crucial research instrument in
social science research for measuring latent variables. Many examples are available of
latent variables in marketing though, such as brand loyalty (Jacoby and Kyner 1973; Dick
and Basu, 1994; Oliver, 1999), customer satisfaction (Oliver, 1980; Oliver 1997;
Szymanski and Henard, 2001), brand involvement (Yih and Lisa, 2013) and many others.
Marketing research used multi-items scale (Churchill, 1979) as well as single item scale,
but individual items typically have considerable measurement error and, many constructs
of marketing research are multidimensional and it‘s not directly observable (Bergkvist
and Rossiter, 2009). In using, evaluating or developing multi-item scales, a number of
guidelines and procedures are recommended, to ensure that the measure is
psychometrically as sound as possible. In previous studies the Churchill (1979), approach
to marketing measures, development has been used extensively.
Following Churchill‘s (1979), suggestions for scale development, this study utilized
multiple approaches to constructing and test the psychometric properties of the measures.
Reduction of data (Items) is the main objective of factor analysis. As one of the rules of
exploratory factor analysis is that, many decision as researcher we have to take such as
112
how many factors we actually think as a researcher. There are many guideline for setting
the criteria for dropping items through EFA with the help of their relative values of
communalities and factor loadings, but most of the past studied consider less than .6 for
communalities and factor loadings the consideration of this values for dropping items is
based on sample size of the study also. As researcher start present study analysis, with 72
observed variable, and finally researcher reach to statically acceptable measurement with
34 observed variables to measure nine different constructs. Present study formulate total
34 observed variable for the measurement of total nine constructs or latent variables that
constructs brand resonance model. For confirmatory factor analysis present study
consider Kline (2005), criteria and all values, such as factor loadings, CMIN/DF, CFI,
NFI, IFI, TLI, and RMSEA, suggest that brand resonance measurement model, test for
the present study is acceptable fit model. The retained 34 factors, we also test on the
ground of validity and reliability, statistical testing confirms its validity and reliability.
113
CHAPTER 5: DATA ANALYSIS AND HYPOTHESES TESTING
5.1. Introduction
Based on the results of the scale purification in earlier stage, present study dropped the
response of respondent for one item of brand loyalty (If this brand were not available, it
would make little difference to me if I had to use another brand), as the factor loading for
this item was very less and meet the criteria of dropping items. Unlike the pilot test where
separate survey questionnaires were constructed for the goods, the survey questionnaire
for the main study contained a section of goods-related brand measures. Additionally,
respondents were provided with a focal goods brand (Cell Phone brand and Soft Drink
brands). In the study, respondents were allowed to choose their goods brand in a
particular product category form Cell Phone and Soft Drink. A judgmental sample of 700
respondents completed the survey questionnaire. Trained surveyors collected the data
from local community members. Of the 700 questionnaires, 560 were deemed usable for
analysis that constitutes 80% response rate. For testing all tentative set of hypotheses, this
study used sample size of 560 respondents.
Sample characteristics there were a total of 560 respondents utilized for this study, of this
number, 415 (74%) respondents were female while 145 (26%) respondents were male.
The following section will detail the procedures and results from both samples.
According the income group there were 22 (4%) shows they have Less than 1 Lac annual
income, 162 (29%) 1 Lac to 3 Lac, 253 (45%) 3 Lac to 6 Lac, 92 (16%) 6 Lac to 10
Lac and 31(6%) respondent earning more than 10 Lacs per annum.
For testing tentative set of hypotheses, researcher used Statistical Package for Social
Science (SPSS-21) and AMOS-20. Researcher runs different statistical tests such as
Independent t-test, Dependent t-test, Carl Pearson Correlation Coefficient, Analysis of
variance (One-Way ANOVA), Multiple Regression Analysis and Mediation Analysis.
114
Sample Characteristics:
Table-11: Select Characteristics of Survey Sample for Cell Phone and Soft Drink
Characteristics Value Frequency Percent
Gender Male 415 74.1
Female 145 25.9
Age Group Above 16 years and up to 21 years 188 33.6

Above 21 years and up to 25 years 234 41.8
Above 25 years and up to 30 years 138 24.6
Education Below Graduation 294 52.5

Graduate 152 27.1
Post-graduation and above 114 20.4
Occupation Private Employee 81 14.5

Govt. Employee 55 9.8
Businessman 19 3.4
Student 405 72.3
Other (Please specify) 0 0
Income Class Less than 1 Lac 22 3.9

1 Lac to 3 Lac 162 28.9
3 Lac to 6 Lac 253 45.2
6 Lac to 10 Lac 92 16.4
More than 10 Lac 31 5.5
Marital Status Married 35 6.3

Unmarried 521 93.0
Divorced 4 .7
115
Hypothesis Testing: For Cell Phone Product Category
Hypothesis Number-1
according to their gender.
Above state hypothesis test through independent sample t-test in SPSS-21 following is
the brief description of test statistics.
Table-12: Group Statistics

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Brand Male 415 4.6611 1.29004 .06333
Resonance Female 145 5.3841 1.29601 .10763
In the Group Statistics table-12, the mean for male respondent category according to their
brand relationship is 4.6611. The mean for female respondent category according to their
brand relationship is 5.3841. The standard deviation for male respondent category is
1.29004 and female respondent category is 1.29601. The numbers of participants are
(male) 415 and (Female) 145.
Table-13: Independent Sample Test

Levene's t-test for Equality of Means
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Sig t df Sig. Mean Std. 95%
. (2- Differe Error Confidence

taile nce Differen Interval of the
d) ce Difference
Low Upp
er er
Bra Equal .0 .91 -5.802 558 .000 -.72291 .12460 - -
nd variances 11 6 .967 .478
Res assumed 64 17
ona Equal -5.789 250. .000 -.72291 .12488 - -
517 .968 .476
116
nce variances not 85 97
assumed
A value of Levene's Test for Equality of Variances is F = .011, p >.05 (.916) means that
the variability in two categories is the same. Put scientifically, it means that the
variability in the two categories is significantly same, or we can say that assumption of
homogeneity of variance is tenable with this data. On the basis of Independent Samples
t-Test statistics, the female respondent shows strong brand resonance (M= 5.3841, SE=
.10763) than male respondent (M= 4.6611, SE= .06333), t (560) = -5.802, p < .05 (DF=
558). Also it was calculated ‗effect size‘ i.e. r = 0.23, this represent a medium effect,
therefore as well being statistically significant, this effect is medium and represents
substantive findings.
As ‗p‘ value is .000, so we reject the null that is ‗There is no difference in level of brand
resonance amongst Cell Phone consumers according to their gender‘. The test statistics
reveal that gender of consumers significantly influences the level of brand resonance
amongst young consumers.
117
Hypothesis Number-2
according to their Income.
Above state hypothesis test through one-way ANOVA, result and the brief description of
the test are as follows
Table- 14: Descriptive Statistics

Brand Resonance
N Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Mini Maxi
Deviatio Error Interval for Mean mum mum
n Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Less than 1 22 4.2585 1.04214 .22218 3.7965 4.7206 2.13 5.50
Lac
1 Lac to 3 162 4.5961 1.32923 .10443 4.3898 4.8023 1.06 7.00
Lac
3 Lac to 6 253 5.1606 1.27398 .08009 5.0028 5.3183 1.00 7.00
Lac
6 Lac to 9 92 4.7425 1.23667 .12893 4.4864 4.9986 1.56 7.00
Lac
More than 31 4.3508 1.63536 .29372 3.7510 4.9507 1.00 7.00
10 Lac
Total 560 4.8483 1.32878 .05615 4.7380 4.9586 1.00 7.00
Descriptive statistics shows the Mean, standard deviation, standard error, confidence
Interval, and sample distribution according to income group. If we look at the mean of
brand resonance amongst different income categories we can observe that the level of
brand resonance is low on the low-level and high-level income class as compared to
middle-level income class, but theses result interpret on the basis of descriptive (primary)
statistics, theses are not final test result. For analyzing test result, we move to other test
statics.
Table-15: Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
1.761 4 555 .135
As the ANOVA is the parametric test, because of this we need to consider assumption of
homogeneity of variance, the table-15 Test of Homogeneity of Variances show the with
118
this data the assumption of homogeneity of variance is tenable as values of levens
statistics is 1.761 at 0.135 significance level. With the significance of levens statistics, we
not need to go for robust test of equality of means. We can find the difference on the
basis of ANOVA statistics.
Table-16:ANOVA
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 51.332 4 12.833 7.612 .000
Within Groups 935.672 555 1.686
Total 987.004 559
The table-16 of ANOVA shows F-ratio is 7.612 at 0.000 level of significance, on the
basis of this values, we reject null hypotheses that is ―there is no difference in level of
brand resonance amongst Cell Phone consumers according to their Income‖ and it was
found that there is a difference in level of brand resonance amongst Cell Phone
For the analysis of multiple comparisons between all income categories researcher run
Post Hoc Tests, as an assumption of homogeneity of variance is tenable we select
Bonferroni and Hochberg GT2 procedures. The advantage of Bonferroni is it control
Type –I error rate very well, and Hochberg GT2 is very useful test for our data because
this study used very different sample size amongst different income groups. If we
observed Post Hoc Tests, the Bonferroni test and Hochberg GT2 reveals that the 3 Lac to
6 Lac and 6 Lac to 9 Lac, income group are similar to each other but different than less
than 1 Lac, 1 Lac to 3 Lac, and More than 10 Lac, income group. This finding also
proves that the level of brand resonance amongst middles income group of consumer is
very different as compared to all other income groups of consumers. One more
interesting interpretation on the basis of this test it was found that, the level of brand
resonance in middle-income group is high as compared to all other income groups.
119
Table17: Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Brand Resonance
(I) (J) Annual Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence
Annual Income Difference Error Interval
Incom (I-J) Lower Upper
e Bound Bound
Bonferr Less 1 Lac to 3 Lac -.33754 .29502 1.000 - .4939
oni than 1 1.1690
Lac 3 Lac to 6 Lac -.90205* .28861 .019 - -.0887
1.7154
6 Lac to 10 Lac -.48400 .30815 1.000 - .3845
1.3525
More than 10 -.09228 .36196 1.000 - .9278
Lac 1.1124
1 Lac Less than 1 Lac .33754 .29502 1.000 -.4939 1.1690
to 3 3 Lac to 6 Lac -.56451* .13065 .000 -.9327 -.1963
Lac 6 Lac to 10 Lac -.14646 .16950 1.000 -.6242 .3313
More than 10 .24526 .25454 1.000 -.4721 .9626
Lac
3 Lac Less than 1 Lac .90205* .28861 .019 .0887 1.7154
to 6 1 Lac to 3 Lac .56451* .13065 .000 .1963 .9327
Lac 6 Lac to 10 Lac .41805 .15808 .084 -.0275 .8636
More than 10 .80977* .24708 .011 .1134 1.5061
Lac
6 Lac Less than 1 Lac .48400 .30815 1.000 -.3845 1.3525
to 10 1 Lac to 3 Lac .14646 .16950 1.000 -.3313 .6242
Lac 3 Lac to 6 Lac -.41805 .15808 .084 -.8636 .0275
More than 10 .39172 .26965 1.000 -.3682 1.1517
Lac
More Less than 1 Lac .09228 .36196 1.000 -.9278 1.1124
than 10 1 Lac to 3 Lac -.24526 .25454 1.000 -.9626 .4721
Lac 3 Lac to 6 Lac -.80977* .24708 .011 - -.1134
1.5061
6 Lac to 10 Lac -.39172 .26965 1.000 - .3682
1.1517
Hochber Less 1 Lac to 3 Lac -.33754 .29502 .945 - .4916
g than 1 1.1666
Lac 3 Lac to 6 Lac -.90205* .28861 .019 - -.0910
1.7131
6 Lac to 10 Lac -.48400 .30815 .709 - .3820
1.3500
More than 10 -.09228 .36196 1.000 - .9249
Lac 1.1095
1 Lac Less than 1 Lac .33754 .29502 .945 -.4916 1.1666
to 3 3 Lac to 6 Lac -.56451* .13065 .000 -.9317 -.1973
Lac 6 Lac to 10 Lac -.14646 .16950 .992 -.6228 .3299
More than 10 .24526 .25454 .983 -.4701 .9606
Lac
3 Lac Less than 1 Lac .90205* .28861 .019 .0910 1.7131
to 6 1 Lac to 3 Lac .56451* .13065 .000 .1973 .9317
Lac 6 Lac to 10 Lac .41805 .15808 .081 -.0262 .8623
More than 10 .80977* .24708 .011 .1154 1.5041
120
Lac
6 Lac Less than 1 Lac .48400 .30815 .709 -.3820 1.3500
to 10 1 Lac to 3 Lac .14646 .16950 .992 -.3299 .6228
Lac 3 Lac to 6 Lac -.41805 .15808 .081 -.8623 .0262
More than 10 .39172 .26965 .794 -.3661 1.1495
Lac
More Less than 1 Lac .09228 .36196 1.000 -.9249 1.1095
than 10 1 Lac to 3 Lac -.24526 .25454 .983 -.9606 .4701
Lac 3 Lac to 6 Lac -.80977* .24708 .011 - -.1154
1.5041
6 Lac to 10 Lac -.39172 .26965 .794 - .3661
1.1495
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Graph-2: Mean Plot of Brand Resonance
Above graph are the graph of mean of brand resonance amongst different income groups,
its graphical presentation of difference of level of brand resonance amongst different
income groups, and this graph also demonstrated, how mean of brand resonance increases
in between middle-income group and suddenly slop down for high-income groups. The
calculated effect size for this test is r = .22 and w = .20, Using the benchmark of effect
size (r) this represent small effect (less than 0.5), but the difference of level of brand
resonance amongst different income groups is a substantive finding of this study.
121
Hypothesis Number-3 and 4
H-C3: There is no positive correlation between brand satisfaction and brand resonance
H-C4: There is no positive correlation between brand trust and brand resonance amongst
Cell Phone users.
Above state hypotheses test through Pearson correlation coefficient, the result are as
follows
Graph-3: Scatter Plot between Brand Resonance and Satisfaction
122
Above graph 3 and 4 are the scatter plot between brand satisfaction, brand trust and brand
resonance amongst young consumers with reference to Cell Phone, scatter plot is the best
graphical measures to know the relationship between two variables. If we closely observe
the scatter plot, it reveals that there is a positive correlation between these two variables.
As scatter plot show significant clustering, so it was found that there is probably positive
correlation between brand satisfaction, brand trust and brand resonance amongst young
consumers with reference to Cell Phone users.
Table-18: Pearson Correlation Coefficient

Brand Brand Brand Trust
Resonance Satisfaction
Brand Pearson Correlation 1 .362** .405**
Resonance Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 560 560 560
Brand Pearson Correlation .362** 1 .750**
Satisfaction Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 560 560 560
Brand Pearson Correlation .405** .750** 1
Trust Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 560 560 560
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
Table-18 shows the value of person correlation coefficient is 0.362 between brand
satisfaction and brand resonance, that means r = 0.362, p < 0.01 (one-tailed), and person
correlation coefficient is 0.405 between brand trust and brand resonance, that means r =
0.405, p < 0.01 (one-tailed) N = 560. Due to directional hypothesis, researcher run one-
tailed person correlation coefficient, as literature rendering that, there is a positive
correlation between brand satisfaction, brand trust and brand resonance that means, here
this study reject null and accept alternative hypothesis that is ‗Brand resonance has
positive correlation with brand satisfaction and brand trust amongst Cell Phone user‘, at
significance level 0.01 (1-tailed). One interesting thing it was noticed is that the
correlation between brand satisfaction and brand trust are also high and positive enough
as r = .750, p < 0.01, (1-tailed).
123
feelings, are not strongly and positively associated with brand resonance amongst Cell
Phone users.
brand resonance amongst Cell Phone users.
For testing Existing and conceptual model, we formulate above two hypotheses. To test
regression model, the items for each variable were summed and averaged. With first
statement of hypothesis the present study testing existing model, in this model-1 present
research study trying to test the role of five different antecedents of brand resonance such
as brand awareness, brand performance, brand Image, brand judgment, and brand
feelings on brand resonance, theses antecedents are explained by existing model in the
literature. With second statement of hypothesis researcher testing conceptual model, in
this model-2 researcher add two more antecedents with the antecedents of existing model
of brand resonance such as brand satisfaction and brand trust with reference to extensive
literature. To test thesetwo models of brand resonance researcher run multiple regression
(Enter Method) analysis, the statistical detail and comparison between these two models
are followed.
All values of Pearson correlation coefficient demonstrate that there is positive correlation
between all antecedents, but there is no sign of multicollinearity between antecedents, as
there is no substantial correlation (r <.8 ) between all antecedents.
Table-19: Model Summaryc

Mod R R Adjust Std. Change Statistics Durbi
el Squa ed R Error R F df df Sig. F n-
re Square of the Squar Change 1 2 Chan Watso
Estima e ge n
te Chan
ge
1 .79 .625 .621 .8175 .625 184.5 5 55 .000 1.986
0a 3 52 4
124
2 .81 .671 .667 .7670 .046 38.69 2 55 .000
9b 1 3 2
a. Antecedents: (Constant), Brand Awareness, Brand Performance, Brand Image, Brand
Judgments, Brand Feelings,
b. Antecedents: (Constant), Brand Awareness, Brand Performance, Brand Image, Brand
Judgments, Brand Feelings, Brand Satisfaction, Brand Trust.
c. Dependent Variable: Brand Resonance
Model-1 shows correlation between all antecedents and outcome it counts R= .790 and
for Model-2 is R= .819, it shows the strong correlation between all antecedents and
outcome in Model-2 as compare to Model-1. The Model-1 accounted 62.5% (R2=.625)
variability in the outcome by antecedents, while in Model-2 it count 67.1% (R2=.671) of
variability of outcome by antecedents, it means the Model-2 accounted much large
variability of outcome with the help of antecedents. It was found that if Model-1 accounts
62.5 of variability in the outcome, the brand satisfaction and brand trust accounted
additional almost 4.6% of variability in the outcome, that is the inclusion of the two new
antecedents has explained quite good amount of variation in the brand resonance. The
adjusted R2 for Model -1 and Model-2 is .621 and .671, if calculate the difference
between R2 and adjusted R2 it comes .004 for Model-1 and Model-2, it also indicates the
cross-validity of Model-2 is more significant than Model-1. The change statistics
demonstrate the changes of R square and changes in F because of adding two new
antecedents, it counts F change from 184.552 to 38.693 with degree of freedom 554 to
552 at .000 level of significance. The value of Durbin-Watson indicates that the
assumption of multiple regressions that is ‗independent errors‘ is tenable, as the value of
Durbin-Watson (1.986) come very close to 2.
Table-20: ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square
1 Regression 616.734 5 123.347 184.552 .000b
Residual 370.270 554 .668
Total 987.004 559
2 Regression 662.261 7 94.609 160.816 .000c
Residual 324.743 552 .588
Total 987.004 559
125
a. Dependent Variable: Brand Resonance
Judgments ,Brand Feelings,
c. Antecedents: (Constant), Brand Awareness, Brand Performance, Brand Image, Brand
Judgments, Brand Feelings, Brand Satisfaction, Brand Trust
The above table-20 of ANOVA represents sum of square of the model, F-ratio and
significance level of F-ratio, as Model-1 count sum of square of the model is 616.734 and
for Model-2 is 662.261. The F-ratio changes from 184.552 to 160.816 for Model-1 to
Model-2 with 0.000 level of significance. We can interpret these results as, the initial
Model-1 significantly improved our ability to predict the outcome variable, but the
Model-2 is even better as compare to Model-1.
Table-21: Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) .522 .194 2.693 .007
Brand Awareness .047 .035 .045 1.355 .037
Brand Performance .107 .045 .095 2.358 .019
Brand Image .243 .030 .293 8.166 .000
Brand Judgments .290 .045 .268 6.403 .000
Brand Feelings .274 .036 .296 7.707 .000
2 (Constant) .306 .184 1.662 .020
Brand Awareness .104 .034 .098 3.095 .002
Brand Performance .021 .045 .018 1.454 .041
Brand Image .256 .029 .308 8.953 .000
Brand Judgments .185 .044 .171 4.186 .000
Brand Feelings .169 .035 .183 4.767 .000
Brand Satisfaction .110 .049 .108 2.254 .025
Brand Trust .265 .048 .253 5.511 .000
On the basis of values of coefficients it was found that there is positive relationship
between all antecedents and outcome. With the regression analysis it was found that
brand awareness, brand performance, brand Image, brand judgment, and brand feelings,
126
brand satisfaction and brand trust are strongly and positively associated with brand
resonance amongst Cell Phone consumers. The value of t-test for its level of significance
represents that all antecedents were making significant contribution in the model. The
Colum labeled as ‗standardized beta‘ tell us the number of standard deviation that the
outcome will change as a result of one standard deviation change in the antecedent.
The important values of Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) provides the
Collinearity Statistics of the model as all values of Tolerance are greater than .2 and no
values of VIF is greater than 10, so it confirms that our present model is not caused by
the multicollinearity. In other word, it was found that the multicollinearity does not exist
in our brand resonance model.
The table-21 of ‗Coefficients‘ represents the model parameters, as it provides the value of
all antecedents related to outcome. As we know that in multiple regressions the model
takes the form of equation. On the basis of above table-21, researcher formulate
following two equations for Model-1 and Model-2.
Model-1
Brand Resonance = .522+ (.047Brand Awareness) + (.107 Brand Performance) +

(.243Brand Image) + (.290Brand Judgments) +(.274Brand Feelings)
Model-2
Brand Resonance = .306+ (.104Brand Awareness) + (.021Brand Performance)

+(.256Brand Image) + (.185Brand Judgments) +(.169Brand Feelings)+(.110 Brand
Satisfaction) +(.265 Brand Trust)
The following graphs (Histogram and P-P Plot) confirm that the assumption of regression
namely ―normally distributed error‖ is tenable with present data, and it also proves the
127
difference between model and observed data are very close to zero. On the basis of
following two graphs, it was found that residual of the model is normally distributed.
Graph-5: Histograms of Normally Distributed Residuals
Graph-6: P–P Plots of Normally Distributed Residuals
128
Graph-7: Homoscedasticity‟ and „Linearity‟ of Standardized Residuals against
Standardized Predicted Value
Above graph-7 represent the important assumption of regression analysis namely

‗homoscedasticity‘ and ‗linearity‘ of standardized residuals against standardized
predicted value is tenable with the present set of data, in other word we can state that, the
data used for analysis of regression model shows the homogeneity of variance and
linearity, as it looks like data of standardized residual and standardized predicted value of
dependent variable based on model is widespread across X and Y axis.
Finally both null hypotheses rejected and alternate hypotheses accepted that is ‗brand
awareness, brand performance, brand image, brand judgments and brand feelings are
strongly and positively associated with brand resonance amongst Cell Phone consumers‘
at R2= 0.625 at P< 0.05 (p= 0.000), and ‗brand awareness, brand performance, brand
image, brand judgments, brand feelings, brand satisfaction and brand trust are strongly
and positively associated with brand resonance amongst Cell Phone consumers‘ at R2 =
.671 for Model-2, ∆R2 = .046 ( p= 0.000).
It was found that the model we reconstruct with adding two new antecedents of brand
resonance namely as brand satisfaction and brand trust, is statistically more significant as
compared to existing model of brand resonance, as model test reveals that the new model
can account more variability of brand resonance as compared to existing model.
129
Figure- 13: Existing Model of Brand Resonance New Model of Brand Resonance
R2= .0.625for Model-1 (p= 0.000). R2= .671for Model-2, ∆R2 = 0.046 (p= 0.000)
130
Hypotheses Number 7, 8, 9 and 10
SEM-Path Model (Cell Phone):
H-C7: A Brand resonance antecedents (brand awareness, brand performance, brand Image, brand
judgment, and brand feelings) does not have a positive effect on brand resonance outcomes
(brand loyalty, brand attachment, brand community, and brand engagement) amongst Cell Phone
users.
H-C8: Brand satisfaction does not mediate the relationship between brand resonance antecedents
(brand awareness, brand performance, brand Image, brand judgment, and brand feelings) and
brand resonance outcomes (brand loyalty, brand attachment, brand community, and brand
engagement) amongst Cell Phone users.
H-C9: Brand trust does not mediate the relationship between brand resonance antecedents (brand
awareness, brand performance, brand image, brand judgment, and brand feelings) and brand
resonance outcomes (brand loyalty, brand attachment, band community, and brand engagement)
H-C10: Brand satisfaction does not have the positive effect on brand trust amongst Cell Phone
users.
Above hypotheses test through SEM- Path model test (Maximum Likelihood) through AMOS-
21. First we test existing model of brand resonance then researcher test brand resonance model
with added two new variables such as brand satisfaction and brand trust, finally a series of path
models analyses were conducted to test the mediating role of brand satisfaction and brand trust in
brand resonance model. The analysis of the model in following figure-14 involved the latent
variable model.
Statistical test of SEM Existing model of brand resonance showed that, the path that researcher
consider according to theory of brand resonance are valid path. As tests revealed that only four
path (BI-BL, BA-BAT, BP-BAT, BF-BE) are not significant out of twenty seven path of existing
brand resonance model, but these paths are significant through other associated latent variables.
Brand resonance existing model is statistically good fit as the each antecedent of model except
brand image (34%) explaining more than 50% of variance of outcome variables. Also the model
131
achieved χ2 (N= 560) = 1572.455, DF= 497, p < .001, IFI =.920, TLI = .910 CFI= .920,
RMSEA= .062. The model fit indices are at or above the recommended .90, and the chi-square to
degrees of freedom ratio is 3.1.
132
Figure-14: Statistically tested SEM Existing Model of Brand Resonance
133
Table-22: Existing Model of Brand Resonance Analysis
Path β-Value S.E. C.R. P Significant
1 BP <--- BA .711 .057 11.805 *** Significant
2 BI <--- BP .584 .079 9.927 *** Significant
3 BJ <--- BI .843 .058 12.763 *** Significant
4 BF <--- BJ .825 .064 13.909 *** Significant
5 BL <--- BA .068 .080 2.124 .026* Significant
6 BL <--- BP .124 .100 2.730 .044* Significant
7 BL <--- BI -.125 .099 -1.303 .192 Not-Significant
8 BL <--- BF .179 .090 2.160 .031* Significant
9 BL <--- BJ .583 .149 4.571 *** Significant
10 BAT <--- BI .057 .089 2.133 .046* Significant
11 BAT <--- BA -.058 .070 -1.209 .227 Not-Significant
12 BAT <--- BP .001 .087 .019 .985 Not-Significant
13 BAT <--- BF .134 .077 2.071 .038* Significant
14 BAT <--- BJ .328 .143 2.977 .003** Significant
15 BAT <--- BL .441 .056 8.658 *** Significant
16 BC <--- BA -.113 .078 -2.334 .020* Significant
17 BC <--- BP -.110 .099 -2.205 .037* Significant
18 BC <--- BI .659 .116 7.224 *** Significant
19 BC <--- BF .124 .087 2.883 .040* Significant
20 BC <---BJ -.366 .164 -3.196 .001** Significant
21 BC <--- BAT .625 .064 10.754 *** Significant
22 BE <--- BA .026 .066 2.545 .041* Significant
23 BE <--- BP .050 .081 2.893 .037* Significant
24 BE <--- BI -.474 .109 -4.726 *** Significant
25 BE <--- BF -.085 .078 -1.229 .219 Not-Significant
26 BE <--- BJ .763 .138 6.809 *** Significant
27 BE <--- BC .691 .056 10.665 *** Significant
Note: Method= Maximum Likelihood Estimates, ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05, NS=
Not significant (p>0.05)
Chi-square = 1572.455, Degrees of freedom = 497, Probability level = .000
BA=Brand Awareness, BP= Brand Performance, BI= Brand Image, BJ= Brand Judgment,
BF= Brand Feelings, BL= Brand Loyalty, BAT= Brand Attachment, BC= Brand
Community, BE= Brand Engagement BT= Brand Trust, BS= Brand Satisfaction
Table-23: Squared Multiple Correlations: (R-square)

Estimate
Brand Performance .505
Brand Image .341
Brand Judgment .711
Brand Feelings .681
Brand Loyalty .536
Brand Attachment .716
Brand Community .757
Brand Engagement .836
134
Figure-15: Mediation Model of Brand Resonance-Cell Phone (Mediator-Brand Satisfaction and Brand Trust)
135
Table-24: Mediation Model of Brand Resonance
Path β- S.E. C.R. p-Value Significant
Coefficient
1 BP <--- BA .711 .057 11.812 .000*** Significant
2 BI <--- BP .580 .079 9.902 .000*** Significant
3 BJ <--- BI .834 .058 12.689 .000*** Significant
4 BF <--- BJ .823 .065 13.829 .000*** Significant
5 BS <--- BA .101 .066 2.876 .041* Significant
6 BS <--- BP .534 .091 7.530 .000*** Significant
7 BS <--- BI .475 .092 -4.925 .000*** Significant
8 BS <--- BF .340 .075 4.552 .000*** Significant
9 BS <--- BJ .468 .133 3.808 .000*** Significant
10 BT <--- BA .089 .052 1.965 .049* Significant
11 BT <--- BP .267 .089 -3.649 .000*** Significant
12 BT <--- BI .134 .080 2.493 .036* Significant
13 BT <--- BF .015 .061 -.229 .819 Not-Significant
14 BT <--- BJ .269 .113 2.427 .015* Significant
15 BT <--- BS .785 .070 10.609 .000*** Significant
16 BL <--- BA .022 .079 2.371 .041* Significant
18 BL <--- BI .150 .115 2.342 .018* Significant
20 BL <--- BJ .310 .158 2.301 .021* Significant
21 BL <--- BS .514 .178 3.143 .002** Significant
22 BL <--- BT .037 .176 -.1985 .047* Significant
24 BAT <--- BA -.090 .071 -1.859 .063* Significant
25 BAT <--- BP .012 .134 1.992 .048* Significant
27 BAT <--- BJ .194 .149 2.693 .040* Significant
28 BAT <--- BS .127 .165 2.127 .035* Significant
29 BAT <--- BT .321 .158 2.600 .009** Significant
30 BAT <--- BL .415 .059 7.738 .000*** Significant
31 BC <--- BA -.127 .082 -2.515 .012* Significant
32 BC <--- BP .040 .153 2.105 .041* Significant
33 BC <--- BI .594 .136 5.517 .000*** Significant
34 BC <--- BF .138 .092 2.005 .045* Significant
35 BC <--- BJ .350 .182 -2.768 .006** Significant
36 BC <--- BS -.153 .184 -1.106 .269 Not-Significant
37 BC <--- BT .146 .189 2.095 .027* Significant
38 BC <--- BAT .609 .067 10.126 *** Significant
40 BE<--- BP .052 .130 1.998 .046* Significant
41 BE <--- BI .341 .128 -2.890 .004** Significant
42 BE <--- BF .107 .082 2.493 .035* Significant
43 BE <--- BJ .683 .166 5.083 .000*** Significant
44 BE <--- BS .211 .160 2.510 .031* Significant
45 BE <--- BT .135 .168 -.973 .331 Not-Significant
46 BE <--- BC .683 .057 10.284 .000*** Significant
136
Note: Method= Maximum Likelihood Estimates ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05, NS= Not
significant (p>0.05)
Chi-square = 2369.634 Degrees of freedom = 770 Probability level = .000
BA=Brand Awareness, BP= Brand Performance, BI= Brand Image, BJ= Brand Judgment, BF=
Brand Feelings, BL= Brand Loyalty, BAT= Brand Attachment, BC= Brand Community, BE=
Brand Engagement BT= Brand Trust, BS= Brand Satisfaction
Table-25: Model Fit Indices and R-Square

Model Fit Indices R-Square
Parameter Existing Model New Model Estimate
Chi-Square 1572.455 2369.634 Brand Performance .505
DF 497 770 Brand Image .336
CMIN/DF 3.164 3.077 Brand Judgment .696
RMR .181 .177 Brand Feelings .678
GFI .852 .825 Brand Satisfaction .706
AGFI .823 .795 Brand Trust .869
PGFI .712 .703 Brand Loyalty .600
NFI .888 .874 Brand Attachment .735
RFI .873 .860 Brand Community .755
IFI .920 .912 Brand Engagement .826
TLI .910 .901 *Method: Maximum Likelihood
CFI .920 .911 *Valid Sample:560(N)
PRATIO .886 .894 *Type of Analysis: Mediation
PNFI .786 .782 Analysis
PCFI .815 .815
RMSEA .062 .061
PCLOSE .000 .000
HOELTER .01 (N=204) .01 (N=204)
To test the role of brand satisfaction and brand trust in brand resonance researcher test the
second order model of brand resonance showed in figure-15. Three paths showing
insignificant relationship between antecedents and outcomes (BF-BT, BS-BC, and BT-
BE), while considering forty-six path of mediation brand resonance model. All values of
path are significant at 95% of confidence level that is forty three paths are significant.
The amount of variance in outcome explained by each antecedent of mediation brand
resonance model is ranges from BI- 34% to BT-87%. The model fit indices proved the
statistically fitness of model as model achieved χ2 (N= 560) = 2369.634, DF= 770, p <
.001, IFI =.912, TLI = .901 CFI= .911, RMSEA= .061. The model fit indices are at or
137
above the recommended .90, and the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio is 3. Model
fit indices are at or above the recommended .90(Byrne, 2010; Kline, 2011).
Table-26: Mediation Path Analysis of Brand Trust and Satisfaction (Cell Phone)
Direct Effect With Mediator Indirect Effect Conclusion
Path β- p-Value β- p-Value β- p-
COS COS COS Value
1 BA-BT-BL .068 .026* .035 .579 .316 .044* Full Mediation
2 BA-BT-BAT -.058 .227 -.096 .034* .368 .133 Full Mediation
3 BA-BT-BC -.113 .020* -.126 .019* .290 .005** Full Mediation
4 BA-BT-BE .026 .041* .031 .562 .186 .315 No Mediation
5 BP-BT-BL .124 .044* -.078 .299 .313 .030* Full Mediation
6 BP-BT-BAT .001 .985 -.012 .839 .304 .027* Full Mediation
7 BP-BT-BC -.110 .037* -.012 .885 .392 .213 No Mediation
8 BP-BT-BE .050 .037* -.071 .252 .364 .039* Full Mediation
9 BI-BT-BL -.125 .192 .111 .193 .412 .014* Full Mediation
10 BI-BT-BAT .057 .046* .116 .097 .557 .006** Full Mediation
11 BI-BT-BC .659 .000*** .530 .000*** .297 .248 Partial Mediation
12 BI-BT-BE -.474 .000*** -.292 .002** .980 .024* Partial Mediation
13 BJ-BT-BL .583 .000*** .373 .007** .191 .404 Partial Mediation
14 BJ-BT-BAT .328 .003** .216 .066* .443 .144 Partial Mediation
15 BJ-BT-BC -.366 .001** -.351 .006** .596 .049* Partial Mediation
16 BJ-BT-BE .763 .000*** .727 .000*** .004 .826 Partial Mediation
17 BF-BT-BL .179 .031* .038 .659 -.001 .813 No Mediation
18 BF-BT-BAT .134 .038* .065 .356 .024 .849 No Mediation
19 BF-BT-BC .124 .040* .181 .015* .058 .431 Full Mediation
20 BF-BT-BE -.085 .219 -.186 .021* .169 .178 Full Mediation
21 BA-BS-BL .068 .026* .005 .937 .355 .012* Full Mediation

22 BA-BS-BAT -.058 .227 -.082 .077 .352 .017* Full Mediation
23 BA-BS-BC -.113 .020* -.118 .014* .273 .009** Full Mediation
24 BA-BS-BE .026 .041* .016 .732 .199 .033* Full Mediation
25 BP-BS-BL .124 .044* -.081 .332 .502 .010* Full Mediation
26 BP-BS-BAT .001 .985 -.007 .913 .464 .006** Full Mediation
27 BP-BS-BC -.110 .037* -.077 .290 .514 .008** Full Mediation
28 BP-BS-BE .050 .037* .006 .928 .409 .006** Full Mediation
29 BI-BS-BL -.125 .192 .127 .245 .366 .049* Full Mediation
30 BI-BS-BAT .057 .046* .085 .355 .564 .004** Full Mediation
31 BI-BS-BC .659 .000*** .639 .000*** .197 .620 Partial Mediation
32 BI-BS-BE -.474 .000*** -.413 .001** .890 .006** Full Mediation
33 BJ-BS-BL .583 .000*** .272 .055 .461 .011* Full Mediation
34 BJ-BS-BAT .328 .003** .234 .063 .507 .018* Full Mediation
35 BJ-BS-BC -.366 .001** -.476 .001** .601 .005** Full Mediation
36 BJ-BS-BE .763 .000*** .781 .000*** .025 .900 Full Mediation
37 BF-BS-BL .179 .031* .034 .672 .163 .006** Partial Mediation
38 BF-BS-BAT .134 .038* .099 .125 .123 .163 No Mediation
39 BF-BS-BC .124 .040* .136 .046* .123 .140 Full Mediation
138
40 BF-BS-BE -.085 .219 -.103 .140 .212 .049* Full Mediation
Note: ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05, NS= Not significant (p>0.05)
BA=Brand Awareness, BP= Brand Performance, BI= Brand Image, BJ= Brand Judgment, BF= Brand
Feelings, BL= Brand Loyalty, BAT= Brand Attachment, BC= Brand Community, BE= Brand
Engagement BT= Brand Trust, BS= Brand Satisfaction
Table-27: Path Analysis Between Brand Satisfaction and Brand Trust

Path β- COS Critical p-Value Conclusion
Ratio
Brand Satisfaction Brand Trust .785 10.609 .000*** Statistically
Significant
Path
Mediated Regression Analysis:
Mediating Hypotheses proffered that brand satisfaction and brand trust mediate the
relationship between brand resonance outcome and brand resonance antecedents. The
SEM analysis demonstrates the model provides a fit to the data but does not directly test
this hypothesis. A series of hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test the
whetherbrand satisfaction and brand trust playing the role of mediation between
antecedents and outcomes or not. To analyze the indirect effect, researcher performs
bootstrap with 500 numbers of bootstrap samples at 95% of bias-corrected confidence
interval. The β- Coefficient and p-Values proved that the brand satisfaction and brand
trust playing the mediating variable role in brand resonance model. As the result of SEM
–Path Model researcher reject all the stated null hypotheses of this model.
The result of structural equation modeling showed that, the model of present study is
statistically fit with our data. As study achieved all acceptable fit values of present study
model, we are accepting present study model of brand resonance with consideration of
Cell Phone product category, which consider the brand satisfaction and brand trust as a
mediating variables.
139
Hypothesis Testing: For Soft Drink Product Category
Hypothesis Number-1
consumers according to their gender.
Above state hypothesis test through independent sample t-test in SPSS-21 following is
the brief description of test statistics.
Table-28: Group Statistics

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Brand Male 415 4.9280 1.30798 .06421
Resonance Female 145 5.2819 1.25189 .10396
In the Group Statistics table-28, the mean for male respondent category according to their
brand relationship is 4.9280. The mean for female respondent category according to their
brand relationship is 5.2819. The standard deviation for male respondent category is
1.30798 and female respondent category is 1.25189. The numbers of participants are
(male) 415 and (Female) 145.
Table-29: Independent Sample Test

Levene's t-test for Equality of Means
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Si t df Sig. Mean Std. 95%
g. (2- Differe Error Confidence

taile nce Differe Interval of the
d) nce Difference
Low Upp
er er
Brand Equal 1.7 .19 - 558 .005 -.35388 .12481 - -
Resonan varianc 14 1 2.8 .599 .108
ce es 35 03 74
assume
140
d
Equal - 261.5 .004 -.35388 .12219 - -
varianc 2.8 60 .594 .113
es not 96 49 28
assume
d
A value of Levene's Test for Equality of Variances is F= 1.714, P >.05 (.191) means that
the variability in two categories is the same. Put scientifically, it means that the
variability in the two categories is significantly same, or it was found that assumption of
homogeneity of variance is tenable with this data. On the basis of Independent Samples
t-Test statistics, the female respondent shows strong brand resonance (M= 5.2819, SE=
.10396) than male respondent (M= 4.9280, SE= .06421), t (560) = -2.835, p < .05. Also
calculated ‗effect size‘ i.e. r = .11, this represent a medium effect, therefore as well being
statistically significant, this effect is medium and represent substantive findings.
As ‗p‘ value is .005, so we reject the null that is ‗There is no difference in level of brand
resonance amongst Soft Drink consumers according to their gender‘. The test statistics
reveal that gender of consumers significantly influences the level of brand resonance
amongst young consumers.
141
Hypothesis Number-2
Above state hypothesis test through one-way ANOVA, result and the brief description of
the test are as follows.
Table-30: Descriptive
N Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Mini Maxi
Deviatio Error mum mum
Interval for Mean
n
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Less than 1 22 4.9972 1.46531 .31240 4.3475 5.6468 1.63 7.00
Lac
1 Lac to 3 162 4.9491 1.24389 .09773 4.7561 5.1421 1.00 7.00
Lac
3 Lac to 6 253 5.0828 1.28606 .08085 4.9235 5.2420 1.00 7.00
Lac
6 Lac to 9 92 5.0910 1.22885 .12812 4.8365 5.3455 1.00 7.00
Lac
More than 31 4.6774 1.76143 .31636 4.0313 5.3235 1.00 7.00
10 Lac
Total 560 5.0196 1.30186 .05501 4.9116 5.1277 1.00 7.00
Descriptive statistics shows the Mean, standard deviation, standard error, confidence
Interval, and sample distribution according to income categories. If we look at the mean
of brand resonance amongst different income groups, it was found that the level of brand
resonance is similar across all income groups, but theses result interpret on the basis of
descriptive statistics; these are not final test result. For analyzing test result, we have to
move other test statics.
142
Table-31: Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
3.016 4 555 .018
As the ANOVA is the parametric test, because of this we need to consider assumption of
homogeneity of variance, the table Test of Homogeneity of Variances show, with this
data the assumption of homogeneity of variance is not tenable as values of levens
statistics is 3.016 at 0.018 significance level. With the insignificance of levens statistics,
we not need to go for robust test of inequality of means. The difference can find on the
basis of ANOVA statistics.
Table-32: ANOVA
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 5.925 4 1.481 .873 .480
Within Groups 941.492 555 1.696
Total 947.417 559
The table-32 of ANOVA shows F-ratio is .873, p > 0.05 (p= .480) level of significance,
on the basis of this values researcher accept null hypotheses which is ―there is no
difference in level of brand resonance amongst Soft Drink consumers according to their
Income‖ and it was found that there is no difference in level of brand resonance amongst
Soft Drink consumers according to their Income.
Table-33: Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: Brand Resonance
Games-Howell
(I) Annual (J) Annual Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence
Income Income Difference Error Interval
(I-J) Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Less than 1 1 Lac to 3 Lac .04809 .32733 1.000 -.9125 1.0086
Lac 3 Lac to 6 Lac -.08560 .32270 .999 -1.0366 .8654
143
6 Lac to 10 Lac -.09387 .33765 .999 -1.0765 .8888
More than 10 .31974 .44461 .951 -.9388 1.5783
Lac
1 Lac to 3 Less than 1 Lac -.04809 .32733 1.000 -1.0086 .9125
Lac 3 Lac to 6 Lac -.13368 .12684 .830 -.4815 .2141
6 Lac to 10 Lac -.14196 .16114 .904 -.5857 .3018
More than 10 .27165 .33111 .923 -.6790 1.2223
Lac
3 Lac to 6 Less than 1 Lac .08560 .32270 .999 -.8654 1.0366
Lac 1 Lac to 3 Lac .13368 .12684 .830 -.2141 .4815
6 Lac to 10 Lac -.00828 .15150 1.000 -.4260 .4095
More than 10 .40534 .32653 .728 -.5349 1.3456
Lac
6 Lac to 10 Less than 1 Lac .09387 .33765 .999 -.8888 1.0765
Lac 1 Lac to 3 Lac .14196 .16114 .904 -.3018 .5857
3 Lac to 6 Lac .00828 .15150 1.000 -.4095 .4260
More than 10 .41361 .34132 .745 -.5609 1.3881
Lac
More than Less than 1 Lac -.31974 .44461 .951 -1.5783 .9388
10 Lac 1 Lac to 3 Lac -.27165 .33111 .923 -1.2223 .6790
3 Lac to 6 Lac -.40534 .32653 .728 -1.3456 .5349
6 Lac to 10 Lac -.41361 .34132 .745 -1.3881 .5609
For the analysis of multiple comparisons between all incomes categories researcher run
Post Hoc Tests, as an assumption of homogeneity of variance is not tenable researcher
select Games-Howell procedures. The advantage of Games-Howell is it control Type –I
error rate very well and useful test for our data because we have very different sample
size amongst different income groups. If we observed Post Hoc Tests statistics of Games-
Howell, it reveals that all income groups are significantly similar to each other.
144
Graph-8: Mean Plot of Brand Resonance
Above graph-8 is the graph of mean of brand resonance amongst different income
groups, its graphical presentation of difference of level of brand resonance amongst
different income groups, and this graph also shows how mean of brand resonance quite
similar across different income groups. Even though, it's showing little bit difference, but
ANOVA test statistics proves that, the difference is not statistically significant.
145
H-S3: There is no positive correlation between brand satisfaction and brand resonance
H-S4: There is no positive correlation between brand trust and brand resonance amongst
Soft Drink consumers.
Above mentioned hypotheses test through Pearson correlation coefficient, the results are
as follows
Graph-10: Scatter Plot between Brand Resonance and Brand Trust

146
Above Graphs 9 and 10 are the scatter plot between brand satisfaction, brand trust and
brand resonance amongst young consumers with reference to Soft Drink, scatter plot is
the best graphical measures to know the relationship between two variables. If we closely
observe the scatter plot it reveals that there is the positive correlation between these two
variables. As scatter plot show significant clustering, so we can say that there is probably
positive correlation between brand satisfaction, brand trust and brand resonance amongst
young consumers with reference to Soft Drink.
Table-34: Pearson Correlation Coefficient

Brand Brand Brand Trust
Resonance Satisfaction
Brand Pearson Correlation 1 .632** .740**
Resonance Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 560 560 560
Brand Pearson Correlation .632** 1 .750**
Satisfaction Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 560 560 560
Brand Trust Pearson Correlation .740** .750** 1
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 560 560 560
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
Table-34 shows the value of person correlation coefficient is 0.632 between brand
satisfaction and brand resonance, that means r = 0.632, p < 0.01 (one-tailed), and person
correlation coefficient is 0.740 between brand trust and brand resonance, that means r =
0.740, p < 0.01 (one-tailed) N = 560, and here researcher run one-tailed person
correlation coefficient because literature rendering that, there are a positive correlation
brand satisfaction, brand trust, and brand resonance that means, hypothesis is directional.
Here we accept the alternative hypothesis that is ‗Brand resonance has the positive
correlation with brand satisfaction and brand trust amongst Soft Drink Consumers‘, at
significance level 0.01 (1-tailed). One interesting thing it was noticed is that the
correlation between brand satisfaction and brand trust are also high and positive enough
as r = .750, p< 0.01, (1-tailed).
147
feelings, are not strongly and positively associated with brand resonance amongst Soft
Drink consumers.
brand resonance amongst Soft Drink consumers.
For testing Existing and conceptual model, researcher formulate above two hypotheses.
To test regression model, the items for each variable were summed and averaged. With
first statement of hypothesis present study testing existing model, in this model-1
researcher trying to test the role of five different antecedents of brand resonance such as
brand awareness, brand performance, brand Image, brand judgment, and brand feelings
on brand resonance, theses antecedents are explained by existing model in the literature.
With second statement of hypothesis present study testing conceptual model, in this
model-2 researcher add two mediators with the antecedents of existing model of brand
resonance such as brand satisfaction and brand trust with reference to extensive literature.
To test these two models of brand resonance we run multiple regressions (Enter Method)
analysis, the statistical detail and comparison between these two models are followed.
All values of Pearson correlation coefficient demonstrate that there is positive correlation
between all antecedents, but there is no sign of multicollinearity between antecedents, as
there is no substantial correlation (r <.8 ) between all antecedents.
Table-35: Model Summaryc

Mo R R Adjust Std. Change Statistics Dur
del Squar ed R Error of R F d df2 Sig. bin-
e Square the Squar Change f F Wat
Estimate e 1 Cha son
Chang nge
e
1 .786
a
.618 .615 .80783 .618 179.560 5 554 .000 1.887
2 .845
b
.714 .710 .70071 .096 92.158 2 552 .000
a. Antecedents: (Constant), Brand Awareness, Brand Performance, Brand Image, Brand
148
Judgments, Brand Feelings,
Judgments, Brand Feelings, Brand Satisfaction, Brand Trust.
c. Dependent Variable: Brand Resonance
Model-1 shows correlation between all antecedents and outcome it counts R= .786 and
for Model-2 is R= .845, it shows the strong correlation between all antecedents and
outcome in Model-2 as compare to Model-1. The Model-1 accounted 61.8% (R2=.618)
variability in the outcome by antecedents, while in Model-2 it count 71.4% (R2=.714) of
variability of outcome by antecedents, it means the Model-2 accounted much large
variability of outcome with the help of antecedents. It was found that if Model-1 accounts
61.8 of variability in the outcome, the brand satisfaction and brand trust accounted
additional almost 10% of variability in the outcome, that is the inclusion of the two new
antecedents has explained quite good amount of variation in the brand resonance. The
adjusted R2 for Model -1 and Model-2 is .615 and .710, if we calculated the difference
between R2 and adjusted R2 it comes .003 for Model-1 and .004 for Model-2, it also
indicates the cross-validity of Model-2 is more significant than Model-1. The change
statistics demonstrate the changes of R square and changes in F because of adding two
new antecedents, it counts F change from 179.560 to 92.158 with degree of freedom 554
to 552 at .000 level of significance. The value of Durbin-Watson indicates that the
assumption of multiple regressions that is ‗independent errors‘ is tenable, as the value of
Durbin-Watson (1.887) come very close to 2.
Table-36: ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square
1 Regression 585.887 5 117.177 179.560 .000b
Residual 361.530 554 .653
Total 947.417 559
2 Regression 676.386 7 96.627 196.796 .000c
Residual 271.031 552 .491
Total 947.417 559
149
Judgments ,Brand Feelings,
c. Antecedents: (Constant), , Brand Awareness, Brand Performance, Brand Image, Brand
Judgments, Brand Feelings, , Brand Satisfaction, Brand Trust
The above table-36 of ANOVA represents sum of square of the model, F-ratio and
significance level of F-ratio, as Model-1 count sum of square of the model is 585.887 and
for Model-2 is 676.386. The F-ratio changes from 179.560 to 196.796 for Model-1 to
Model-2 with 0.000 level of significance. We can interpret these results as, the initial
Model-1 significantly improved our ability to predict the outcome variable, but the
Model-2 is even better as compared to Model-1.
Table-37: Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Beta
Error
1 (Constant) .655 .180 3.645 .000
Brand Awareness .097 .040 .097 2.404 .017
Brand .093 .050 .086 1.856 .034
Performance
Brand Image .200 .033 .252 6.143 .000
Brand Judgments .152 .052 .144 2.904 .004
Brand Feelings .308 .039 .361 7.902 .000
2 (Constant) .183 .160 1.144 .023
Brand Awareness .014 .038 .014 1.382 .043
Brand .045 .045 .042 1.012 .031
Performance
Brand Image .185 .028 .233 6.534 .000
Brand Judgments .008 .047 .008 1.170 .047
Brand Feelings .261 .035 .307 7.532 .000
Brand Satisfaction .265 .044 .257 6.077 .000
Brand Trust .272 .042 .261 6.420 .000
150
On the basis of values of coefficients it was found that there is positive relationship
between all antecedents and outcome, with consideration of our construct form, it was
found that brand awareness, brand performance, brand Image, brand judgment, and brand
feelings, brand satisfaction and brand trust are strongly and positively associated with
brand resonance amongst Soft Drink consumers. The value of t-test for its level of
significance represents that all antecedents were making significant contribution in the
model. The Colum labeled as standardized beta tell us the number of standard deviation
that the outcome will change as a result of one standard deviation change in the
antecedent.
The important values of this table labeled as Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor
(VIF) provides the Collinearity Statistics of the model as all values of Tolerance are
greater than .2 and no values of VIF is greater than 10, so it confirms that our present
model is not caused by the multicollinearity. In other word, it was found that the
multicollinearity does not exist in our brand resonance model.
The table-37 of ‗Coefficients‘ represents the model parameters, as it provides the value of
all antecedents related to outcome. As we know that in multiple regressions the model
takes the form of equation. On the basis of above table, researcher formulate following
two equations for Model-1 and Model-2
Model-1

(.200Brand Image) + (.152Brand Judgments) +(.308Brand Feelings)
Model-2

+(.185Brand Image) + (.008Brand Judgments) +(.261Brand Feelings)+(.265Brand
Satisfaction) +(.272Brand Trust)
151
The following graphs (Histogram and P-P Plot) confirm that the assumption of regression
namely ―normally distributed error‖ is tenable with present data, and it also proves the
difference between model and observed data are very close to zero. On the basis of above
two graphs, it was found that residual of the model is normally distributed.
Graph-11: Histograms of Normally Distributed Residuals
Graph-12: P–P Plots of Normally Distributed Residuals
152
Graph-13: homoscedasticity‟ and „linearity‟ of standardized residuals against
standardized s value
Above graph represent the important assumption of regression analysis namely

‗homoscedasticity‘ and ‗linearity‘ of standardized residuals against standardized
predicted value is tenable with the present set of data, in other word we can state that, the
data used for analysis of regression model shows the homogeneity of variance and
linearity, as it looks like data of standardized residual and standardized predicted value of
dependent variable based on model is widespread across X and Y axis.
Finally study reject null hypotheses and accept both alternate hypotheses that is ‗brand
awareness, brand performance, brand image, brand judgments and brand feelings are
strongly and positively associated with brand resonance amongst Soft Drink consumers‘
at R2= 0.618 at P< 0.05 (p= 0.000), and ‗brand awareness, brand performance, brand
image, brand judgments, brand feelings brand satisfaction and brand trust are strongly
and positively associated with brand resonance amongst Soft Drink consumers‘ at R2 =
0.714 for Model-2, ∆R2 = .096 ( p= 0.000). in this study it was found that the model
researcher reconstruct with adding two mediators of brand resonance namely as brand
satisfaction and brand trust, is statistically more significant as compared to existing
model of brand resonance, as model test reveals that the new model can account more
variability of brand resonance as compared to existing model.
153
Figure-16: Existing Model of Brand Resonance New Model of Brand Resonance
R2= .0.618for Model-1 (p= 0.000). R2 = 0.714 for Model-2, ∆R2 = 0.096(p= 0.000)
154
Hypotheses Number 7, 8, 9 and 10
H-S7: A Brand resonance antecedents (brand awareness, brand performance, brand Image, brand
judgment, and brand feelings) does not have a positive effect on brand resonance outcomes
(brand loyalty, brand attachment, brand community, and brand engagement) amongst Soft Drink
consumers.
H-S8: Brand satisfaction does not mediate the relationship between brand resonance antecedents
(brand awareness, brand performance, brand Image, brand judgment, and brand feelings) and
brand resonance outcomes (brand loyalty, brand attachment, brand community, and brand
engagement) amongst Soft Drink consumers.
H-S9: Brand trust does not mediate the relationship between brand resonance antecedents (brand
awareness, brand performance, brand image, brand judgment, and brand feelings) and brand
resonance outcomes (brand loyalty, brand attachment, band community, and brand engagement)
H-S10: Brand satisfaction does not have the positive effect on brand trust amongst Soft Drink
consumers.
The above hypotheses test through SEM path model analysis with consideration of existing
brand resonance model. Study test the brand resonance model with added two new mediators
such as brand satisfaction and brand trust, finally researcher run series of path model to explore
the mediator role of brand satisfaction and brand trust.
The existing framework of brand resonance is statistically significant as path model achieved χ2
(N= 560) = 1959.899, DF= 497, p < .001, IFI =.908, TLI = .900 CFI= .911, RMSEA= .073. The
model fit indices are at or above the recommended .90, and the chi-square to degrees of freedom
ratio is 3.9. All paths in model are statistically significant except two paths that are BA-BC and
BF-BE. Except Brand Image the all other antecedents are explaining more than 50% variance of
brand resonance outcome.
155
Figure-17: Statistically tested SEM Existing Model of Brand Resonance
156
Table-38 Existing Model of Brand Resonance Analysis
Path β- Coefficient S.E. C.R. P Significant
5 BL <--- BA .256 .073 3.441 .000*** Significant
6 BL <--- BP .272 .092 3.347 .000*** Significant
7 BL <--- BI .167 .069 -2.758 .039* Significant
8 BL <--- BF .045 .076 .423 .672 Significant
9 BL <--- BJ .473 .135 3.163 .002** Significant
11 BAT <--- BA -.140 .069 -2.315 .021* Significant
12 BAT <--- BP .070 .086 2.057 .029* Significant
14 BAT <--- BJ .138 .130 2.104 .029* Significant
16 BC <--- BA -.026 .081 -.465 .642 Not-Significant
17 BC <--- BP -.212 .105 -3.377 .000*** Significant
19 BC <--- BF .462 .092 5.312 .000*** Significant
20 BC <---BJ .549 .171 -4.305 .000*** Significant
21 BC <--- BAT .655 .072 11.655 .000*** Significant
23 BE <--- BP .040 .095 2.138 .042* Significant
24 BE <--- BI .253 .082 -3.049 .002** Significant
25 BE <--- BF .053 .087 .589 .556 Not-Significant
26 BE <--- BJ .206 .139 2.805 .031* Significant
Note: Method= Maximum Likelihood Estimates, ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05, NS= Not
Table-39: Squared Multiple Correlations: (R-Square)

Estimate
Brand Performance .682
Brand Image .289
Brand Judgment .742
Brand Feelings .790
Brand Loyalty .542
Brand Attachment .767
Brand Community .833
Brand Engagement .764
157
Figure-18: Mediation Model of Brand Resonance- Soft Drink (Mediator-Brand Satisfaction and Brand Trust)
158
Table-40: Mediation Model of Brand Resonance
Path β- S.E. C.R. P Significant
Coefficient
5 BS <--- BA .353 .079 5.173 .000*** Significant
6 BS <--- BP .319 .099 4.260 .000*** Significant
7 BS <--- BI .187 .078 -2.060 .039* Significant
8 BS <--- BF .227 .088 -2.161 .031* Significant
9 BS <--- BJ .645 .159 4.314 .000*** Significant
10 BT <--- BA .280 .062 -4.501 .000*** Significant
11 BT <--- BP .135 .075 2.039 .041* Significant
12 BT <--- BI .099 .057 2.370 .020* Significant
13 BT <--- BF .296 .065 3.272 .001** Significant
14 BT <--- BJ .057 .124 .416 .017* Significant
15 BT <--- BS .744 .053 12.136 .000*** Significant
16 BL <--- BA -.006 .073 -.087 .931 Not-Significant
18 BL <--- BI -.025 .059 -.311 .756 Not-Significant
20 BL <--- BJ .003 .123 2.025 .047* Significant
21 BL <--- BS .755 .089 7.264 .000*** Significant
22 BL <--- BT .020 .095 -.159 .873 Not-Significant
24 BAT <--- BA .075 .077 -1.105 .026* Significant
25 BAT <--- BP -.002 .086 2.038 .048* Significant
27 BAT <--- BJ .070 .136 .543 .017* Significant
28 BAT <--- BS .116 .111 2.033 .030* Significant
29 BAT <--- BT .341 .102 3.868 .000*** Significant
31 BC <--- BA -.031 .098 -.471 .638 Not-Significant
32 BC <--- BP .230 .110 -3.509 .000*** Significant
34 BC <--- BF .477 .106 4.786 .000*** Significant
35 BC <--- BJ .592 .190 -4.194 .000*** Significant
36 BC <--- BS .018 .122 2.187 .042* Significant
37 BC <--- BT .064 .137 2.684 .036* Significant
38 BC <--- BAT .611 .087 9.012 .000*** Significant
40 BE<--- BP .006 .105 .084 .933 Not-Significant
41 BE <--- BI .198 .097 -1.999 .046* Significant
42 BE <--- BF .102 .105 2.389 .034* Significant
43 BE <--- BJ .101 .179 2.694 .038* Significant
44 BE <--- BS .083 .104 2.139 .029* Significant
45 BE <--- BT .074 .116 2.528 .039* Significant
Note: Method= Maximum Likelihood Estimates, ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05, NS= Not
159
Table-41: Model Fit Indices and R-Square

Model Fit Indices R-Square
Parameter Existing Model New Model Estimate
Chi-Square 1959.899 2727.000 Brand Performance .680
DF 497 770 Brand Image .291
CMIN/DF 3.943 3.542 Brand Judgment .741
RMR .180 .171 Brand Feelings .792
GFI .807 .790 Brand Satisfaction .640
AGFI .769 .754 Brand Trust .817
PGFI .674 .674 Brand Loyalty .744
NFI .885 .877 Brand Attachment .793
RFI .870 .862 Brand Community .834
IFI .912 .908 Brand Engagement .763
TLI .900 .897 *Method: Maximum Likelihood
CFI .911 .908 *Valid Sample:560(N)
PRATIO .886 .894 *Type of Analysis: Mediation
PNFI .784 .784 Analysis
PCFI .807 .812
RMSEA .073 .067
PCLOSE .000 .000
HOELTER .01 (N=164) .01 (N=178)
The new model of brand resonance as added with two mediators that are brand
satisfaction and brand trust showed statistically more significant than existing model. The
mediation model achieved χ2 (N= 560) = 2727.000, DF= 770, p < .001, IFI =.908, TLI =
.897 CFI= .908, RMSEA= .067. The model fit indices are at or above the recommended
.90, and the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio is 3.5. Out of forty-six different paths
the five paths are statistically not significant. Except brand Image (30%) The each
antecedents in the model explained more than 50% variance occurred in outcome of
model.
160
Table-42: Mediation Path Analysis of Brand Trust and Satisfaction
Path Direct p-Value With p-Value Indirec p- Conclusion
Without Mediator t Value
Mediator Effect
1 BA-BT-BL .256 .000*** .043 .548 .520 .004** Full Mediation
2 BA-BT-BAT -.140 .021* -.085 .199 .508 .001** Full Mediation
3 BA-BT-BC -.026 .642 .005 .936 .279 .025* Full Mediation
4 BA-BT-BE .120 .037* .115 .039* .243 .005** Full Mediation
5 BP-BT-BL .272 .000*** .082 .260 .173 .014* Partial Mediation
6 BP-BT-BAT .070 .029* -.005 .943 .422 .005** Full Mediation
7 BP-BT-BC -.212 .000*** -.201 .002* .509 .003** Full Mediation
8 BP-BT-BE .040 .042* .001 .990 .253 .007** Full Mediation
9 BI-BT-BL -.167 .039* -.049 .514 .347 .009** Full Mediation
10 BI-BT-BAT .170 .029* .173 .016* .401 .003** Full Mediation
11 BI-BT-BC .551 .000*** .543 .000*** .262 .038* Partial Mediation
12 BI-BT-BE -.253 .002** -.193 .035* .812 .003** Full Mediation
13 BJ-BT-BL .473 .002** .053 .508 .240 .037* Partial Mediation
14 BJ-BT-BAT .138 .029* .080 .658 .385 .058* Full Mediation
15 BJ-BT-BC -.549 .000*** -545 .000*** .703 .007** Full Mediation
16 BJ-BT-BE .206 .031* .108 .408 .243 .201 No Mediation
17 BF-BT-BL .045 .672 .179 .045* -.002 .948 Full Mediation
18 BF-BT-BAT .144 .049* .083 .330 .180 .044* Full Mediation
19 BF-BT-BC .462 .000*** .444 .000*** .181 .041* Partial Mediation
20 BF-BT-BE .053 .556 .098 .318 .496 .002** Full Mediation
21 BA-BS-BL .256 .000*** .035 .548 .572 .003** Full Mediation

22 BA-BS-BAT -.140 .021* -.107 .073 .572 .002** Full Mediation
23 BA-BS-BC -.026 .642 -.003 .605 .330 .003** Full Mediation
24 BA-BS-BE .120 .037* .116 .053* .269 .003** Full Mediation
25 BP-BS-BL .272 .000*** .013 .857 .407 .003** Full Mediation
26 BP-BS-BAT .070 .029* .017 .790 .494 .002** Full Mediation
27 BP-BS-BC -.212 000*** -.231 .000*** .584 .003** Full Mediation
28 BP-BS-BE .040 .042* .007 .914 .295 .005** Full Mediation

29 BI-BS-BL -.167 .039* -.029 .712 .306 .016* Full Mediation
30 BI-BS-BAT .170 .029* .173 .023* .388 .003** Full Mediation
31 BI-BS-BC .551 .000*** .570 .000*** .230 .074 Full Mediation
32 BI-BS-BE -.253 .002** -.198 .043* .810 .002** Full Mediation
33 BJ-BS-BL .473 .002** -.013 .924 .526 .002** Full Mediation
34 BJ-BS-BAT .138 .029* .076 .557 .490 .027* Full Mediation
35 BJ-BS-BC -.549 .000*** -.595 .000** .823 .005** Full Mediation
36 BJ-BS-BE .206 .031* .100 .497 .317 .131 No Mediation
37 BF-BS-BL .045 .672 .181 .032* -.163 .089 Full Mediation
38 BF-BS-BAT .144 .049* .105 .256 -.019 .745 No mediation
39 BF-BS-BC .462 .000*** .502 .000*** .039 .733 Full Mediation
40 BF-BS-BE .053 .556 .104 .354 .398 .007** Full Mediation
161
Note: ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05, NS= Not significant (p>0.05)
BA=Brand Awareness, BP= Brand Performance, BI= Brand Image, BJ= Brand Judgment, BF= Brand
Feelings, BL= Brand Loyalty, BAT= Brand Attachment, BC= Brand Community, BE= Brand Engagement
BT= Brand Trust, BS= Brand Satisfaction
Table-43: Path Analysis Between Brand Satisfaction and Brand Trust

Path β- COS Critical p-Value Conclusion
Ratio
Brand Satisfaction Brand Trust .744 12.136 .000*** Statistically
Significant
Path
Mediated Regression Analysis:
Mediating Hypothesis proffered that brand satisfaction and brand trust mediate the
relationship between brand resonance outcome and brand resonance antecedents. The
SEM analysis demonstrates the model provides a fit to the data but does not directly test
this hypothesis. A series of hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test the
whetherbrand satisfaction and brand trust playing the role of mediation between
predicator and outcomes or not. To analyze the indirect effect, researcher performs
bootstrap with 500 numbers of bootstrap samples at 95% of bias-corrected confidence
interval. The β- Coefficient and p-Values proved that the brand satisfaction and brand
trust playing the mediating variable role in brand resonance model. As a result of SEM
Path Model study reject null hypotheses this model.
The result of structural equation modeling showed that the model of present study is
statistically fit with our data. As study achieved all acceptable fit values of present study
model, we are accepting present study model of brand resonance with consideration of
Soft Drink product category, which consider the brand satisfaction and brand trust as a
mediating variables.
162
Present Study Model Analysis:
Present study test the new brand resonance model with added two new variables namely
brand satisfaction and brand trust. Following figure 19 and 20 shows the z-score for each
path with significance level of z-score. The first figure-19 indicates the path model for
Cell Phone product category while second figure-20 showing the outcomes for Soft Drink
product category.The structural equation modeling showed that, each path of conceptual
brand resonance model is statistically significant as z-score for each path is greater than
1.96 at 95% (p < 0.05) of confidence level. Structural equation meditation analysis
showed the effect of brand satisfaction and brands trust on brand resonance outcomes as
brand satisfaction and brand trust mediates the effect of brand resonance antecedents on
brand resonance outcomes.
Brand resonance model showing its stepwise development and every antecedents
affecting indirectly (Mediation) and directly to outcomes of brand resonance. The model
also showed the brand satisfaction and brand trust affecting brand resonance and brand
satisfaction leads brand trust, if it consider for development of brand resonance. The
outcomes of brand resonance are the stages of brand resonance and each stage lead the
next stage of brand resonance, such as brand loyalty leads brand attachment, brand
attachment leads brand community and brand community leads brand engagement. Brand
engagement refers as highest affiliation of consumers with the brand. For both product
categories the statistical significance proves that the brand resonance development
occurred in stepwise manner nevertheless the product category. On the basis of this
structural equation modeling analysis, it was found that the brand resonance model work
similar as it described theoretically. The SEM analysis and empirical findings of this
study confirm that the new model of brand resonance with adding two affecting latent
variables that is brand satisfaction and brand trust are statistically more significant as
compare to existing model of brand resonance. All model fit parameter also support the
high predictability of new brand resonance model as compare to existing one.
163
Figure-19: Present Study Brand Resonance Model for Cell Phone Product Category
Figure-20: Present Study Brand Resonance Model for Soft Drink Product Category
164
Hypothesis Number-11
H-CS: There is no difference in the level of brand resonance amongst consumers

according to different product categories.
Table-44: Paired Samples Statistics

Pair 1 Mean N Std. Std. Error
Deviation Mean
Brand Resonance Cell Phone 4.8483 560 1.32878 .05615
Brand Resonance Soft Drink 5.0196 560 1.30186 .05501
Table-45: Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 Brand Resonance-Cell Phone and Brand 560 .550 .000
Resonance Soft Drink
Table-46: Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences t df Sig.
Mean Std. Std. (2-

95% Confidence
Deviation Error tailed
Interval of the )
Mean
Difference
Lower Upper
Brand -.17132 1.24870 .0527 - - - 559 .001

7 .27496 .0676 3.247
Pair Resonance-
7
1 Cell Phone -
Brand
Resonance
Soft Drink
In the Group Statistics table-44, shows the mean of brand resonance for Cell Phone is
4.8483. The mean of brand resonance for Soft Drink is 5.0196. The standard deviation
brand resonance for Cell Phone is 1.32878 and brand resonance for Soft Drink is
165
1.30186. The number of participants was 560. When researcher used repeated measures it
is possible that the conditions correlated, because the data in each condition come from
the same respondent, and so there could be some constancy in their response, the table-45
paired sample correlation shows this thing with Pearson correlation between two
conditions, for present data the conditions yield a fairly moderate correlation coefficient
(r = .550) and correlation statistically significantly as p <0.05 (p- .000)
On the basis of Paired Samples t-Test statistics, the respondent shows strong brand
resonance towards the Soft Drink (M = 5.0196, SE = .05501) than Cell Phone (M =
4.8483, SE =. 05615), t (560) = -3.247, p < .05. As ‗p‘ value is 0 .001, so we reject the
null that is ‗There is a no difference in level of brand resonance amongst consumers
according to different product categories‘. The test statistics reveal that a product
category significantly influences the level of brand resonance amongst young consumers.
166
Concluding Remark:
Table- 47: Hypothesis Testing For Cell Phone Product Category

SN Hypothesis Statistical Calculate Null
Test d p-value Accepted
or
Rejected
1 H-C1: There is no difference in the level of brand resonance amongst Cell Phone Independent Null
users according to their gender. t-Test 0.000 Reject
2 H-C2: There is no difference in the level of brand resonance amongst Cell Phone One-Way Null
users according to their Income. ANOVA 0.000 Reject
3 H-C3: There is no positive correlation between brand satisfaction and brand Person Null
resonance amongst Cell Phone users. Correlation 0.000 Reject
4 H-C4: There is no positive correlation between brand trust and brand resonance Person Null
amongst Cell Phone users. Correlation 0.000 Reject
5 H-C5: Brand awareness, brand performance, brand Image, brand judgment, and Multiple Null
brand feelings, are not strongly and positively associated with brand resonance Regression 0.000 Reject
6 H-C6: Brand awareness, brand performance, brand Image, brand judgment, and Null
brand feelings, brand satisfaction and brand trust are not strongly and positively Multiple 0.000 Reject
associated with brand resonance amongst Cell Phone users. Regression
7 H-C7: A Brand resonance antecedents (brand awareness, brand performance, SEM-Path 0.000 Null
brand Image, brand judgment, and brand feelings) does not have a positive effect Model Reject
on brand resonance outcomes (brand loyalty, brand attachment, brand Analysis
community, and brand engagement) amongst Cell Phone users.
8 H-C8: Brand satisfaction does not mediate the relationship between brand SEM- 0.000 Null
resonance antecedents (brand awareness, brand performance, brand Image, brand Mediation Reject
judgment, and brand feelings) and brand resonance outcomes (brand loyalty, Analysis
brand attachment, brand community, and brand engagement) amongst Cell Phone
users.
9 H-C9: Brand trust does not mediate the relationship between brand resonance SEM- 0.000
antecedents (brand awareness, brand performance, brand image, brand Mediation Null
167
judgment,and brand feelings) and brand resonance outcomes (brand loyalty, Analysis Reject
brand attachment, band community, and brand engagement) amongst Cell Phone
users.
10 H-C10: Brand satisfaction does not have the positive effect on brand trust SEM-Path 0.000
amongst Cell Phone users. Model Null
Analysis Reject
Table- 48: Hypothesis Testing For Soft Drink Product Category

SN Hypotheses Statistical Calculate Null
Test d p-value Accept or
Reject
1 H-S1: There is no difference in the level of brand resonance amongst Soft Drink Independent Null
consumers according to their gender. t-Test 0.000 Reject
2 H-S2: There is no difference in the level of brand resonance amongst Soft Drink One-Way 0.480 Null
consumers according to their Income. ANOVA Accept
3 H-S3: There is no positive correlation between brand satisfaction and brand Person Null
resonance amongst Soft Drink consumers. Correlation 0.000 Reject
4 H-S4: There is no positive correlation between brand trust and brand resonance Person Null
amongst Soft Drink consumers. Correlation 0.000 Reject
5 H-S5: Brand awareness, brand performance, brand Image, brand judgment, and Multiple Null
brand feelings, are not strongly and positively associated with brand resonance Regression 0.000 Reject
6 H-S6: Brand awareness, brand performance, brand Image, brand judgment, and Null
brand feelings, brand satisfaction and brand trust are not strongly and positively Multiple 0.000 Reject
associated with brand resonance amongst Soft Drink consumers. Regression
7 H-S7: A Brand resonance antecedents (brand awareness, brand performance, SEM-Path 0.000 Null
brand Image, brand judgment, and brand feelings) does not have a positive effect Model Reject
on brand resonance outcomes (brand loyalty, brand attachment, brand Analysis
community, and brand engagement) amongst Soft Drink consumers.
8 H-S8: Brand satisfaction does not mediate the relationship between brand SEM- 0.000 Null
168
resonance antecedents (brand awareness, brand performance, brand Image, brand Mediation Reject
judgment, and brand feelings) and brand resonance outcomes (brand loyalty, Analysis
brand attachment, brand community, and brand engagement) amongst Soft Drink
consumers.
9 H-S9: Brand trust does not mediate the relationship between brand resonance SEM- 0.000 Null
antecedents (brand awareness, brand performance, brand image, brand judgment, Mediation Reject
and brand feelings) and brand resonance outcomes (brand loyalty, brand Analysis
attachment, band community, and brand engagement) amongst Soft Drink
consumers.
10 H-S10: Brand satisfaction does not have the positive effect on brand trust SEM-Path 0.000 Null
amongst Soft Drink consumers. Model Reject
Analysis
Table-49: Hypothesis for Both Product Categories testing relationship

SN Hypotheses Statistical Calculate NullAccep
Test d p-value t or Reject
11 H-CS: There is no difference in the level of brand resonance amongst consumers Paired Null
according to different product categories. Sample t- 0.001 Reject
Test
169
CHAPTER 6: FINDINGS, IMPLICATION AND SUGGESTIONS
Findings:
The significant theoretical finding of the present study is related to measures of brand
resonance, as scale development process showed the theoretically described all measures
are not consistent to measure the brand resonance amongst young Indian consumers with
reference to different product categories. The scale development process that is
qualitative and quantitative tools revealed that the total 34 measures are well important
and can measures the all nine constructs of brand resonance, such as brand awareness,
brand performance, brand image, brand judgment, brand feelings, brand loyalty, brand
attachment, brand community and final stage of brand resonance that is brand
engagement. All 34 measures of brand resonance are extracted from qualitative and
quantitative approach to research methodology. The result of an exploratory factor
analysis measurement model analysis, reliability statistics, and validity statistics confirm
the reliability and validity of the newly extracted brand resonance scale.
The study showed the demographics of consumers plays a vital role in the development if
brand resonance amongst young Indian consumers across different product categories.
The test statistics revealed that the gender of consumers significantly influences the level
of brand resonance amongst young consumers. This finding also suggests that the level of
brand resonance in female consumers is slightly higher that male consumers with
consideration of their brand resonance towards Cell Phone brand. While considering the
Soft Drink product, it also showed even changing the product category the difference in
brand resonance strength still exist based on the respondent gender.
The present study shows that Income level of consumers affects the level of brand
resonance amongst Cell Phone users. Analysis of multiple comparisons between all
income categories prove that a middle-level income group has quite different level of
brand resonance as compared to low and high level of income group, it also confirm that
the middle-income class of Cell Phone users possess strongest level of brand attachment
as compared to any other income class such as lower or higher income class. Despite the
170
result for Cell Phone product category, the Soft Drink consumers not showing any
difference in their attachment towards their Soft Drink brand with consideration of their
income group, all income class that consider for present study showed all different
income group of consumers possesses same relationship with their preferred Soft Drink
brand. The above mentioned result present interesting finding that income class not
always influenced the consumer-brand relationship with their brand while considering
brand relationship income groups influenced are limited to the same product category.
Result of the study showed, not only existing variables explained in the existing model
influenced the strength of brand relationship amongst young consumers, but also some
other variables also played very significant role in the strengthening of relationship
between consumers and brand, these variables are brand satisfaction and brand trust. As
correlation and regression test statistics showed the positive relationship between brand
satisfaction, brand trust, and brand resonance constructs. The study also showed
marketers and brand strategist should have to consider the influenced of brand
satisfaction and brand trust while they are considering the brand relationship. This effect
is consistent even with different product categories.
The result of multiple regressions proves that, brand awareness, brand performance,
brand Image, brand judgment, and brand feelings, are strongly and positively associated
with brand resonance amongst Cell Phone users and Soft Drink consumers. These results
also confirm the stepwise development of brand resonance amongst consumers as
explained in the theory of brand resonance.
The brand resonance model test statistics confirm that the variability in brand resonance
account by new brand resonance model which is developed in present study by adding
two mediators of brand resonance is quite high as compared to variability of brand
resonance accounted by existing model of brand resonance. The consideration of two
mediators of brand resonance in existing framework of brand resonance is statistically
quite significant, as brand satisfaction and brand trust are enhanced the interpretation of
brand relationship amongst young consumers.
171
While testing existing model of brand resonance by structural equation modeling with
consideration of Cell Phone consumer it was found that out of twenty-seven paths of the
model four paths are not showing statistical significance theses are BI-BL, BA-BAT, BP-
BAT, and BF-BE. When researcher test brand resonance existing model with adding two
new variables such as brand satisfaction and brand trust, it was notice that only three
paths showing insignificant relationship between antecedents and outcomes (BF-BT, BS-
B, and BT-BE), while considering forty-six path of new brand resonance model.
With second product category Soft Drink the findings are quiet similar, the brand
resonance existing model raveled that, all paths in the model are statistically significant
except two paths that are BA-BC and BF-BE. While testing new brand resonance model,
it was found that five paths are not statistically significance such as BA-BL, BI-BL, BT-
BL, BA-BC, and BP-BE. The Model fit indices of paths model and SEM mediation
Model indicates that the adding two new variables in the existing model of brand
resonance is increasing the expected values of model fit indices towards its betterment.
Through Structural Equation Modeling Analysis, it clears that the theoretical model and
the new model of brand resonance which researcher test in the present study are
statistically significant. The result of model testing found that the antecedents of brand
resonance such as brand awareness, brand performance, brand image, brand judgment
and brand feelings significantly affect the brand resonance. The study also found that the
brand satisfaction and brand trust mediating the effect of brand resonance antecedents on
brand resonance outcomes.
While testing the mediation model of brand resonance, it was found that there is positive
relationship exists between two mediators such as brand trust and brand satisfaction, if
we consider these mediators with existing model of brand resonance. In the present study,
it was also found that the brand satisfaction leads brand trust in both product categories.
This relationship between brand satisfaction and brand trust exist in the Cell Phone users
as well as Soft Drink consumers.
The findings of this study confirm that the brand resonance varies across different
product categories. This result shows the strength of brand relationship also differs across
172
the different product categories. The present study test the strength of bonding between
consumers with their brand with consideration of Cell Phone and Soft Drink products, it
was found that the consumers has strong attachment to Soft Drink brand as compared to
Cell Phone brand.
On the basis of this structural equation modeling analysis, it was found that the brand
resonance model work similarly as it described theoretically. While testing existing and
mediation brand resonance model in the present study, it was found that, brand resonance
build by the stepwise manner and every antecedent affecting indirectly (Mediation) and
directly to outcomes of brand resonance. The outcomes of brand resonance are the stages
of brand resonance and each stage lead the next stage of brand resonance, such as brand
loyalty leads brand attachment, brand attachment leads brand community and brand
community leads brand engagement. It was also noticed that the added mediators in the
existing brand resonance model brand satisfaction and brand trust affecting brand
resonance and brand satisfaction leads brand trust if it considers the development of
brand resonance. The SEM analysis and empirical findings of this study confirm that the
new model of brand resonance with adding two mediating latent variables that is brand
satisfaction and brand trust are statistically more significant as compare to existing model
of brand resonance. All model fit parameter also support the high predictability of new
brand resonance model as compare to existing one.
173
Implications:
According to the recent literature available on brand resonance, we can say that in the
short period this field received great attraction from management academician and
practitioner. But still we don‘t have the scale to measure the brand relationship construct.
For instance, the brand resonance characteristics are vague similar to the construct of the
brand relationship as it defines the nature of the relationship between consumers and their
brand. With this research, the researcher developed the empirically tested scale of brand
resonance. The development of the brand resonance scale is the important and major
academic contribution of this research.
This is the study researcher test existing as well as a new conceptual model with added
two mediators of brand resonance. The present study provides the new model for both
brand managers and research scholars in the area of marketing to analyze the level of
brand resonance amongst their consumers and respondents.
With the present studied brand resonance model, managers can find out the impact of
different antecedents of brand resonance on the outcome of brand resonance with their
organization brand. As model contain total seven major construct that affects brand
resonance such as brand awareness, brand performance, brand Image, brand judgment,
and brand feelings, brand satisfaction and brand trust, with this model managers can
analyze the influence of all this construct on brand resonance for their ongoing brand.
The relationship between brand satisfaction, brand trust, and brand resonance are the
interest in this study. This finding reinforces the assertion that brand satisfaction and
brand trust need to be considered about their ability to influence brand resonance. There
are few studies that have examined the relationship between brand satisfaction brand trust
and brand resonance in the evaluation of the brand relationship. This finding reinforces
the ideas in the brand resonance pyramid that brand satisfaction and brand trust directly
influence the brand relationship amongst consumers.
Brand satisfaction and brand trust were found to affect a brand resonance significantly
amongst young consumers. This is the first study to link these two constructs empirically.
However, it is noteworthy to point out that these findings further illustrate the importance
174
of brand satisfaction and brand trust from the marketing standpoint. Previous research has
not been able to relate brand satisfaction, brand trust, and brand resonance in this manner.
The results of this study provide empirical evidence of the importance of the
demographic profile of consumers in the building of brand resonance. This study
provides evidence that marketers need to think about demographics of their target group
of consumers before formulating the branding strategies for building a long lasting brand
relationship with their consumers.
Present study findings have implications for brand managers and scholars alike. It
illustrates the effect that strong brand resonance can have on consumers in the way that,
the brands will empower consumers to act as brand ―evangelists. Consumers of strong
brands will be obligated to learn continually about their preferred brand and share their
beliefs about the brand with other consumers, as it enhances word of mouth. Brand
resonance also provides marketers with a tangible goal to achieve in regards to their
brand-building activities. Marketers can assess the degree to which consumers are
―actively engaged‖ with their brand as well as how much effort consumers are putting
forth to connect with other current and potential consumers of the brand.
From a practical standpoint, the results highlight the importance of brand satisfaction and
brand trust for developing a brand relationship. It is important to highlight the practical
attributes of the product, and the organization should attempt to impact what consumers
think about the brand. Marketers should highlight what aspects of the product are distinct
from competitors and help to build consumer trust and enhance consumer satisfaction.
Brand Managers can use the present approach to analyze the level of attachment that their
consumer has with a brand. As structural equation mediation model showed that brand
satisfaction and brand trust were playing the mediation role in the development of brand
resonance. Using this fact brand managers can enhance their consumer attachment with
their brands.
175
Suggestions:
As now a days the prime objective of marketer is building long lasting relationship with
consumers, with this regards the markets have to concentrate on demographic profile of
their existing as well as potential consumers, as many past studies and also present study
showed the role of consumer demographics are important not only in building brand
relationship but also to maintain long lasting brand relationship between consumers and
their brand.
The consideration of consumer‘s demographic profile is important for brand strategist

while developing branding strategies, as the role of consumer demographics is not limited
to segmentation of market, but it can help strategist to formulate active and enhanced
branding strategies. The female respondent shows strong bonding with their preferred
Cell Phone and Soft Drink brand as compared to male. With this result of research, we
can say that the gender of consumers affects brand resonance. Since women show high
attachment with the brand, firms should pay extra attention to the way in which the brand
"behaves" towards women. This may reflect the fact that women, unlike men, seem to
maintain their relationship with brands. Its need to understand that for marketers‘ point of
view, while formulating marketing strategies, should consider demographics of
consumers especially gender, age and income of consumers. Finding of this research
showed that, the understanding of demographic of consumers to useful to define the
brand resonance of the potential customer, so it will help to develop appropriate sales
propositions for enhancing the brand in Cell Phone and Soft Drink market. From a
managerial point of view, this research also offers a proper branding method that allows
managers to identify brand relationship with consumers and divide them into segments
with respect to their gender, age, income and with their relationship towards Cell Phone
and Soft Drink brands.
The brand relationship varies across different product categories, with this concern;
marketer can consider the product features, product characteristics as they are
approaching their consumers for building a brand relationship.
176
The marketer can used the existing as well as a new brand resonance model for building
and maintain the brand relationship with their consumers. Marketers can act according to
the step of the brand resonance model, which will help them to identify the current stage
of the relationship that their consumers have with their brand. The empirically tested
brand resonance model can help marketers to approach each and every step towards their
consumers with the view of developing and maintaining a brand relationship with
existing and potential consumers.
In a prior study of the brand relationship, it was found that the branding literature does
not have appropriate scale to measure brand resonance. The brand strategist can used the
empirically extracted scale of brand resonance to measure the present level of the brand
relationship with their consumers.
Marketer has to consider brand satisfaction and brand trust, as brand relationship booster
elements, due to this at every level of building relationship with consumer they have to
check, whether our present customer are satisfied with our brand or not and whether our
present brand are trustable or not in the view of our consumers.
There is enormous brand competition exist if we consider the brand like Cell Phone and
Soft Drink. Even though only in Indian we can find more than hundred different brands
of Cell Phone, more or less some situation exist in Soft Drink if we consider the local
brands. Because of immense brand competition it‘s very tough for the marketer to
maintain the long lasting brand relationship with their existing consumer. With
consideration of this uncertain market situation, marketers need to consider every aspect
that associated with development and management of brand relationship such as brand
awareness, brand performance, brand image, brand judgment, brand feelings, brand
satisfaction, and brand trust. These variables will help the marketers to build and
maintain brand relationship with their existing and potential consumers
177
CHAPTER 7: LIMITATION OF THE STUDY AND FUTURE
RESEARCH DIRECTION
Limitation of the present study:
Followings are the limitations of the present study that may have influenced the results of
the study;
First and most important limitation of study is its sample size, as study considered 560
samples for present study; it may possible changes in result of present study, if we
conduct same study with large sample of population.
There are some concerns about the sampling technique and composition. For the main
study, a judgmental sample was obtained. The lack of random sampling severely limits
the level of generalizability of the results. Because an unknown portion of the population
excluded from the selection, the chances that the selected respondents represent the
overall population are not known. Secondly, the demographic characteristics of the
sample presented a potential issue as well. There was a total of 560 respondents in the
main study that are not in equally distributed with consideration of their demographics
class. The two potential issues with this characteristic relate to sample representativeness
and the influence of demographics differences on the results of the main study.
The study achieved the measurement model at acceptable fit criteria only, as perfect fit
SEM model are always excellent. The generalizability of the measurement model is also
the limitation of this study as this study based on data collected from metropolitan cities
of India. Another limitation of the study deals with the elimination of items in the pilot
phase of the study. Potentially, those dropped items may have behaved differently with
another study sample and also with different services/goods brands.
Finally, the decision to force consumers to focus on a specific good brand in the main
study represents a potential limitation as the Cell Phone and Soft Drink brands chosen for
the goods context. Hypothetically, may some respondents are not familiar with either
178
brand, especially in the Cell Phone and Soft Drink context. The overriding dominance of
both brands in their respective product category may present a potential issue as well.
Due to the uncertainty of the population and the aforementioned issues, this may have
significantly biased the respondents‘ evaluation of the survey questionnaire.
Future Research Direction:
For future research scope, we can test the new model of brand resonance with different
context with different products. Also, we can test this model with different age groups,
like for the present study consider young age group; we can test this model in teenagers
or mature age group consumers. In current study we analyze the impact of gender and
income as demographic factors on level of brand resonance, for future research we can
study the impact of occupation, level of education and other demographics of consumers
on brand resonance. With the view of future research scope, it will be very interesting, to
test newly developed model of brand resonance across different age groups and also
across different product categories and also to test and retest the validity and reliability of
measurement model of brand resonance, that can be generalized the brand resonance
scale, and also it will show the strength of brand resonance measures. Researchers can
confirm with future research action that specific role of brand satisfaction and brand trust
in the development of brand resonance either moderating or mediating with a different
segment of the market. Also, we can use present research work to find the reasons that
why income groups not consistently affect the strength of brand resonance.
179
CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The primary objectives of this study started from the operationalization of brand
resonance measures to find the competency of existing and a new model of brand
resonance across different product categories. Also, the objectives of the study were to
assess the validity and reliability of the existing brand resonance model and to examine
the research hypotheses through statistical testing. For the main study, we collect data
from respondents through well structured questionnaire in which, we asked respondent
about all constructs of study with consideration of their brand relationship with their
preferred Cell Phone and Soft Drink brands. With the use of Churchill‘s (1979),
suggestions for scale development, the present study utilized multiple approaches to
constructing and testing the psychometric properties of the brand resonance measures.
With the objectives of the study, we start to the extraction of brand resonance measures in
which, we reached to total thirty-four observed variables from seventy-two observed
variables for measuring nine different constructs of brand resonance. Through
appropriate statistical analysis, we also ensure the validity and reliability of all observed
variables. This extracted observed variables will serve the purpose of social science
researcher to conduct future study on brand resonance with less efforts and also it will
reduce the length of their questionnaire with maintain accurateness in collection of data
from respondent about their brand resonance.
The results of a study revealed that the existing, as well as new conceptual models of
brand resonance, represented a good fit with the data. Between the two model contexts,
the model in which we add two mediators of brand resonance such as brand satisfaction
and brand trust shows quite a good fit with the data as compared to existing model of
brand resonance. As in existing model there are five antecedents of brand resonance like
brand awareness, brand performance, brand image, brand feelings and brand judgments
are explained less variability as compared to new conceptual model of brand resonance,
in other word we can state that, if we put brand awareness, brand performance, brand
image, brand judgment, brand feelings, brand satisfaction and brand trust together in the
180
model it explained greater variability of brand resonance as compared to existing model.
The present study also tests the role of respondent demographic profile on the
development of brand resonance, and different test statistics proves the importance of
consumer demographics in the brand resonance. As the study showed the consumer
demographics affect the strength of the brand relationship between consumers and their
preferred brand. It also shows in some cases or with considering product characteristics
income restrict his impact on brand resonance. Also, this study verifies the findings of
past studies that are masculinity and femininity is always fundamental object while we
are thinking about relationship metaphor.
The theoretical implication of this study is to provide well structured, reliable, and
validated measures of brand resonance to measure the brand resonance construct. The
measurement scale of brand resonance will reduce the efforts of branding researcher
while they carry out the future study. For a managerial point of view, the present study
will provide the scale to the brand manager to measure the level of brand resonance
amongst their consumers. With the use of this extracted but enhanced scale of brand
resonance branding manager can assess their consumers‘ level of brand resonance that
they have with the brand. In the present study, it was found that brand satisfaction and
brand trust are playing the role of mediating variables that arbitrate the relationship
between brand resonance antecedents and brand resonance outcomes. Brand resonance
also provides marketers with a tangible goal to achieve in regards to their brand-building
activities. The indirect interaction with the help of brand satisfaction and brand trust,
between brand resonance antecedents and brand resonance outcomes are effective than
the direct interaction of brand resonance antecedents and brand resonance outcomes.
181
CHAPTER 9: REFERENCES
Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York, N.Y: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. (1995). Building strong brand. New York: Free Press.
Aaker, D., and R. Jacobson. (2001). The value relevance of brand attitude in high-
technology markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (4), pp. 485-493.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34

(August), pp. 347-356.
Aaker, J., Fournier, S., and Brasel, S. A. (2004). When Good Brands Do Bad. Journal of
Consumer Research, 31 (1), pp. 1-16.
Agarwal, M. K., and Rao, V. R. (1996). An Empirical Comparison of Consumer-Based

Measures of Brand Equity. Marketing Letters, 7 (3), pp. 237-247.
Aggarwal, P. (2004). The Effects of Brand Relationship Norms on Consumer Attitudes

and Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (June), pp. 87-101.
Aggarwal, P. (2009). Handbook of Brand Relationships: Using Relationship Norms to

Understand Consumer-Brand Interactions. (D. J. MacInnis, C. W. Park, and Joseph
R. Priester, Eds.) Armonk, New York: M.E.Sharpe.
Ahmed, M., Sandhu, A. R., Zulkarnain, M., and Gulzar, T. I. (2011). Factors behind the
brand loyalty, developing and proposing a conceptual model. Interdisciplinary
journal of contemporary research in business, 3 (3), pp. 1217-1229.
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., and Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of
brand community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69 (3),
pp. 19-34.
Allen, C. T., Fournier, S., and Miller, F. (2008). Brands and Their Meaning Makers.
Handbook of Consumer Psychology. (P. M. Curtis P. Haugtvedt, Ed.) Psychology
Press.
182
Alreck, P. L., Settle, R., and Belch, M. (1982). Who Respond to ‗Gendered‘ Ads, and
How? Journal of Advertising Research, 22 (2), pp. 25-32.
Ambler, T. (1997). How much brand equity is explained by trust? Management Decision,
35 (4), pp. 283-292.
Anderson, E., and Sullivan, M. (1993). The antecedents and consequences of customer
satisfaction for firms. Marketing Science, 2 (spring), pp. 125–143.
Antoine, P. (2004). Understanding the Mobile Phone Market Drivers. Alcatel

Telecommunications Review, 4th Quarter 2003/1st Quarter 2004.
Arnett, D., German, S., and Hunt, S. (2003). The identity salience model of relationship
marketing success: The case of non-profit marketing. Journal of Marketing, 67 (4),
pp. 89-105.
Athanassopoulos, A., Gounaris, S., and Stathakopoulos, V. (2001). Behavioral responses

to customer satisfaction: An empirical study. European Journal of Marketing, 35
(5/6), pp. 687–707.
Atilgan, E., Safak, A., and Serekan, A. (2005). Determinants of the brand equity. A
verification approach in the beverage industry in Turkey. Marketing Intelligence
and Planning, 23, pp. 237-248.
Atwal, G., and Jain, S. (2012). The Luxury Market in India: Maharajas to Masses.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Aziz, N. A., and Yasin, N. M. (2010). Analyzing the Brand Equity and Resonance of
Banking Services: Malaysian Consumer Perspective. International Journal of
Marketing Studies, 2 (2), pp. 180-189.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., and Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in
organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, pp. 421–458.
183
Baker, W. H., Hutchinson, J. W., Moore, D., and Nedungadi, P. (1986). Brand familiarity
and advertising: Effects on the evoked set and brand preferences. (R. Lutz, Ed.)
Advances in consumer research, 13, pp. 637-642.
Bakewell, C., and Mitchell, V. (2003). Generation Y consumer decision-making styles.

International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 31 (2), pp. 95-106.
Baldinger, A. (1996). Brand loyalty: the link between attitude and behavior. Journal of
Advertising Research, 36 (6), pp. 22-34.
Bandyopadhyay, S., and Martell, M. (2007). Does Attitudinal Loyalty Influence

Behavioral Loyalty? A Theoretical and Empirical Study. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 14 (1), pp. 35–44.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., and Bagozzi, R. (2012). Brand love. Journal of Marketing. 76 (2),
pp. 1–16.
Baumann, Chris, Burton, S., and Elliott, G. (2005). Determinants of Customer Loyalty
and Share of Wallet in Banking. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 9 (3), pp.
231–248.
Baumgartner Hans and Christian Homburg (1996). Applications of structural equation

modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of
Research in Marketing 13, (2), pp. 139-161.
Belk, R. W. (1998). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research,
15 (2), pp. 139-168.
Bergkvist, L., and Rossiter, J. R. (2009). Tailor-made single-item measures of doubly

concrete constructs. International Journal of Advertising, 28 (4), pp. 607-621.
Berry, Leonard L. (1983), ―Relationship Marketing.‖ In Emerging Perspectives in

Services Marketing, eds. Leonard L. Berry, G. L. Shostack, and G. D. Upah, pp.
25-28. Chicago, Ill.: American Marketing Association.
Bervanakis, M. (2010). Consuming love affairs. Consuming love affairs. MX Brisbane.
184
Bettman, R., J., and Zins, M. A. (1977). Constructive Processes in Consumer Choice.
Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (2), pp. 75–85.
Blackston, M. (2000). Observations: Building brand equity by managing the brand‘s

relationships. Journal of Advertising Research, 4 (6), pp. 101-15.
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., and Robson, K. (2001). Focus groups in social
research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Boatwright, P., Cagan, J., Kapur, D., and Saltiel, A. (2009). A step-by-step process to
build valued brands. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 18 (1), pp. 38-49.
Bourbab and Boukill (2008). Brand Management Process: How to Build, Measure and
Manage Brand Equity: Case study: McDonald‘s, the Fast Food Super-Brand
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and Loss (Vol. 3). New York: Basic Book.
Bravo, R., Fraj, E., and Martinez, E. (2007). Intergenerational Influences on the
Dimensions of Young Customer-based Brand Equity. Young Consumers, 8 (1), pp.
58-64.
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., and Ilić, A. (2001). Customer engagement:
Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research.
Journal of Service Research, 14, pp. 252–271.
Brodie, R., Hollebeek, L., Ilic, A., and Juric, B. (2011). Customer engagement:
Conceptual domain, foundational propositions, and research implications. Journal
of Service Research, 14 (3), pp. 252–271.
Brown, M. (2009). Rules of Engagement. Retrieved August 23, 2012, from

http://www.millwardbrown.com/docs/default-source/insight-documents/points-of-
view/millwardbrown_pov_rulesofengagement.pdf
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The
Guilford Press.
185
Brown, T. J., and Dacin, P. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations
and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61, pp. 68–84.
Business Dictionary (2011) Brand Awareness. Retrieved March 12, 2011, from
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/brand-awareness.html
Business Dictionary. (2012). Brand Image. Retrieved December 20, 2012, from
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/brand-image.html
Caceres, R. C., &Paparoidamis, N. G. (2007). Service quality, relationship satisfaction,

trust, commitment and business-to-business loyalty. European Journal of
Marketing, 41(7-8), pp. 836-867.
Carlson, B.D. (2005). Brand Based Community: The Role of Identification in Developing
a Sense of Community among Brand Users. Brand Based Community: The Role of
Identification in Developing a Sense of Community among Brand Users. Stillwater:
Oklahoma State University.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 1, pp. 245–276.
Chang J. (2012). Brand relationship development stage Retrieved September 19, 2012,
from http://jinmingchang.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/brand-relationship-
development-stage/
Chang, P.-L., and Chieng, M. H. (2006). Building Consumer–Brand Relationship: A

Cross-Cultural Experiential View. Psychology and Marketing, 23 (11), pp. 927–
959.
Chaudhuri, A., and Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and
Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty. Journal of
Marketing, 65, pp. 81-93.
Chen, C. H. (2001). Using free association to examine the relationship between the
characteristics of brand associations and brand equity. Journal of Product and
Brand Management, 10, pp. 439–451.
186
Chen, H.-C., and Green, R. D. (2011, September). Brand equity, marketing strategy, and
consumer income: A hypermarket study. Journal of Management and Marketing
Research, pp. 1-18.
Chestnut, J. J. (1978). Brand Loyalty. New York: Ronald Press.
Choudhury, S., & P Kakati, R. (2014). An Analytical Study of Spillover Effect of

Different Branding Elements on Customer-Based Brand Equity. IUP Journal of
Brand Management, 11(1), pp. 30-46.
Chu, P., Lee, G., & Chao, Y. (2012). Service quality, customer satisfaction, customer
trust, and loyalty in an e-banking context. Social Behavior and Personality, 40(8),
pp. 1271-1284.
Churchill, J. G. (1979, Feb). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing

constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, pp. 64-73.
Comrey, A. L., and Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2 Ed.). Hillsdale:
NJ: Erlbaum.
Cooper, D. R., and Schindler, P. S. (2007). Business Research Methods. New Delhi: Tata
McGraw-Hill Edition.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.

Psychometrika, 16, pp. 297–334.
Cui, Y., Trent, E., and Sullivan, P. (2003). Cause-related marketing: how generation Y
responds. Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 31 (6), pp. 310-20.
Dawar, N., and Parker, P. (1994). Marketing Universals: Consumers‘ Use of Brand
Name, Price, Physical Appearance, and Retailer Reputation as Signals of Product
Quality. Journal of Marketing, 58, pp. 81-95.
Deborah Cowles and Lawrence A. Crosby (1986). Measure Validation in Consumer

Research: a Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyle
Scale. Advances in Consumer Research Volume 13, pp. 392-397.
187
Delgado-Ballester, E., and Munuera-Aleman, J. (2001). Brand trust in the context of
consumer loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 11 (12), pp. 1238-1258.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Aleman, J. L., and Yagiie, M. J. (2003). Development

and validation of a brand trust scale. International Journal of Market Research, 45,
pp. 35-53.
Delgado-Ballester, Elena, andMunuera-Aleman, o. L. (2005). Does brand trust matter to

brand equity? Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14 (3), pp. 187-196.
Devellis, R. F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. (2nd Ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dew, L., and Kwon, W.-S. (2010). Exploration of Apparel Brand Knowledge: Brand
Awareness, Brand Association, and Brand Category Structure. Clothing and
Textiles Research Journal, 28 (3), pp. 3-18.
DeWitt, T., Nguyen, D. T., and Marshall, R. (2008). Exploring Customer Loyalty
Following Service Recovery: The Mediating Effects of Trust and Emotions. Journal
of Service Research. , 10 (3), pp. 269–281.
Dholakia, U. M., and Vianello, S. (2011). Effective Brand Community Management:

Lessons from Customer Enthusiasts. The IUP Journal of Brand Management, VIII
(1), pp. 7-21.
Dibb, S., and Simkin, L. (2008). Marketing Briefs: A Revision and Study Guide (1 Ed.).
New Delhi, India: Reed Elsevier India Pvt.Ltd.
Dix, S., Phau, I., and Pougnet, S. (2010). Bend it like Beckham: the influence of sports
celebrities on young adult consumers. Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for
Responsible Marketers, 11 (1), pp. 36 - 46.
Donath, B. (1994). Easy Riding on the Superhighway. 10. Marketing News.
188
Dwyer, B., &Yongjae, K. (2011). For Love or Money: Developing and Validating a
Motivational Scale for Fantasy Football Participation. Journal of Sport
Management, 25(1), pp. 70-83.
Ehrenberg, S.C. (1991). New Brands and the Existing Market. Journal of the Market
Research Society, 33 (4), pp. 285–299.
Ehrenberg, A., Barnard, N., and Scriven, J. (1997). Differentiation or salience. Research,
Journal of Advertising, 37 (6), pp. 7–14.
Ehrenberg, S.C., A., Goodhardt, G. J., and Patrick, T. (1990). Double Jeopardy Revisited.
Journal of Marketing, 54 (2), pp. 82–91.
Ekiz, E. H. and Bavik, A. (2008). Scale Development Process: Service Quality in Car
Rental Services. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 6
(2), pp. 133-146.
Eric, Y., and Mello, G. D. (2005). Linguistic Gender Marking and Categorization.
Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (2), pp. 224-34.
Faircloth, J. B., Capella, L. M., and Alford, B. L. (2001). The Effect of Brand Attitude
and Brand Image on Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9
(3), pp. 61-75.
Feldwick, P. (1991). ―Defining a Brand," in Understanding Brands. London: D Cowley,

Ed. London: Kogan Page.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (Introducing Statistical Methods

Series) (3 Ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18
(1), pp. 39-50.
189
Foscht, T., Schloffer, J., Maloles, C. I., and Chia, S. (2009). Assessing the outcomes of
Generation-Y customers‘ loyalty. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 27 (3),
pp. 218-241.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in

Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, pp. 343-373.
Fournier, S. (2009). Handbook of Brand Relationships: Lessons Learned About

Consumers‘ Relationships With Their Brands. (D. J. MacInnis, C. W. Park, and J.
R. Priester, Eds.) Armonk, New York: M.E.Sharpe.
Fullerton, R. (1998). How modern is modern marketing? Marketing's evolution and the
myth of the 'production era. Journal of Marketing, 52 (1), pp. 108-125.
Gainer, B. (1993). An Empirical Investigation of the Role of Involvement with a

Gendered Product. Psychology and Marketing, 10 (4), pp. 265-83.
Gambetti, R. C., and Graffigna, G. (2010). The concept of engagement: A systematic

analysis of the ongoing marketing debate. International Journal of Market
Research, 52 (6), pp. 801-826.
Ganesan, S. (1994), "Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller

Relationships―, Journal of Marketing, 58 (April), pp. 1-19.
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and
commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), pp. 70-87.
Gautam, V., & Kumar, M. (2012). An Empirical Investigation to Analyze the Brand
Equity and Resonance of Banking Services: Evidence from India. Management
(18544223), 7(1), pp. 3-16
Geyskens, I., Jan-Benedict Steenkamp, Lisa K. Scheer, and Nirmalya Kumar (1999),
―The Effects of Trust and Interdependence on Relationship Commitment: A Trans-
Atlantic Study‖, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(4), pp. 303-
317.
190
Giep, F., and Moriarty, S. (2009). The Science and Art of Branding. Armonk, New York:
M.E. Sharpe.
Gordon, B. S. (2010). The Impact of Brand Equity Drivers on Consumer-Based Brand

Resonance in Multiple Product Settings. Ann Arbor: ProQuest LLC. Dissertation
Department of Sport and Recreation Management.
Gronbach, K. (2000). Generation Y – not just ‗kids. Direct Marketing, 63 (4), pp. 36-49.
Guadagnoli, E., and Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of
component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (2), pp. 265–275.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., and Tatham, R. L. (2013).
Multivariate data analysis (7 Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Halloran, T. (2014). http://www.digitaljournal.com. Retrieved Feb 20, 2014, from

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1715351
Halstead, D., Droge, C., and Cooper, M. B. (1993). Product warranties and post-purchase
service: A model of consumer satisfaction with complaint resolution. Journal of
Service Marketing, 7 (1), pp. 33–40.
Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory Factor Analysis. New York: Oxford University

Press.
Heaney, J. (2007). Generation X and Y‘s internet banking usage in Australia. Journal of
Financial Services Marketing, 11 (3), pp. 196-210.
Heish, C., Chiu, H., and Lin, C. (2006). Family Consumption and Parental Influence on
Children‘s Brand Attitudes. Journal of Business Research, 59, pp. 1079-1086.
Hollebeek, L. (2011). Demystifying customer brand engagement: Exploring the loyalty

nexus. Journal of Marketing Management, 27 (7/8), pp. 785–807.
Hollenbeck, C. R., and George M. Zinkhan, G. (2006). Consumer Activism on the

Internet: The Role of Anti-brand Communities. Advances in Consumer Research,
33, pp. 479-485.
191
Hwang, J., and Kandampully, J. (2012). The role of emotional aspects in younger
consumer-brand relationships. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 21 (2),
pp. 98 – 108.
Ioan, M. O. (2009). The influence of market type and demographics on brand loyalty: a
study among urban Romanian consumers. Journal of Economic Literature, pp. 737-
741.
Jacoby, J. and Kyner, D. B. (1973). Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behaviour',
Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (1), pp.1-9.
Johnson, M. D. and Auh, S. (1998). Customer Satisfaction, Loyalty, and the Trust
Environment. Advances in Consumer Research, 25, eds. Joseph W. Alba & J.
Wesley Hutchinson, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, Pages: pp.
15-20.
Jokanovic, (2005). Corporate Brand Equity Valuation in the Food and Beverage Industry
in Slovenia.
Jurisic, B., and Azevedo, A. (2010). Building customer – brand relationships in the
mobile communications market: The role of brand tribalism and brand reputation.
Brand Management, 18 (4/5), pp. 349 – 366.
Kahle, L. R., Poulos, B., and Sukhdial, A. (1988). Changes in Social Values in the United
States during the Past Decade. Journal of Advertising Research, pp. 35-41.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, pp. 31–36.
Kasper, H. (1988). On Problem Perception, Dissatisfaction and Brand Loyalty. Journal of

Economic Psychology, 9 (3), pp. 387-97.
Kass, R. A., and Tinsley, H. E. (1979). Factor analysis. Journal of Leisure Research, 11,
pp. 120–138.
192
Kaul, A., and Rao, V. (1995). Research for Product Positioning and Design Decisions:
An Integrative Review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12 (4), pp.
293-320.
Kearney, A. T. (2007). http://www.atkearney.com. Retrieved May 2012, from

http://www.atkearney.com/: http://www.atkearney.com/res/shared/pdf/ServingLow-
IncomeConsumer.pdf
Kearney, A. T. (2011). India Luxury Review. Retrieved August 20, 2012, from
http://www.atkearney.ch/documents/10192/4693720/India+Luxury+Review+2011
+CII+-+A.T.+Kearney.pdf/e2f622d6-a0b0-4104-91ec-b24013d1e780
Keller. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer Based Brand

Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), pp. 1-22.
Keller, K. L. (2000). The brand report card. Harvard Business Review, 78 (1), pp. 147-
155.
Keller, K. L. (2001). Building Customer-Based Brand Equity: A Blueprint for Creating

Strong Brands. Marketing Management, 10 (2), pp. 15-19.
Keller, K. L. (2002). Branding and brand equity. Cambridge: MA: Marketing Science
Institute.
Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing

Brand Equity (Third Edition Ed.). New Delhi, New Delhi, India: Pearson
Education, Inc. and Dorling Kindersley Publishing Inc.
Keller, K. L. (2009). Brand Planning. E-Article, Published by Shoulder of Giants, pp. 1-

16.
Keller, K. L. (2009). Building strong brands in a modern marketing communications

environment. Journal of Marketing Communications, 15 (2-3), pp. 139-155.
193
Keller, K. L. (2012). Research Dialogue: Understanding the richness of brand
relationships: Research dialogue on brands as intentional agents. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 22, pp. 186–190.
Keller, K. L. (2014). Consumer brand relationships. Journal of Brand Management, Vol.

21, pp. 365-365.
Kempf, D. S., Kay M. Palan, and Laczniak, R. N. (1997). Gender Differences in

Information Processing Confidence in an Advertising Context: A Preliminary
Study. Advances in Consumer Research, 24, pp. 443-49.
Khan, N. A. (2011). A Study of Brands in the Food and Beverages Industry of Pakistan.
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2 (Special Issue), pp. 262-
271.
Khare, Adwait, and Inman, J. (2006). Habitual Behavior in American Eating Patterns:
The Role of Meal Occasions-link. Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (4), pp. 567–
575.
Kidader, L., and Judd, C. (1986). Research Methods in Social Relations. New York: Holt
Rinehart and Winston.
Kim, E. Y., Knight, D. K., and Pelton, L. E. (2009). Modeling Brand Equity of a U.S.
Apparel Brand as Perceived by Generation Y Consumers in the Emerging Korean
Market. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 27 (4), pp. 247–258.
Kim, H. R., Lee, M., and Ulgado, F. M. (2005). Brand Personality, Self-Congruity and
the Consumer-Brand Relationship, Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research,
6, pp. 111-117.
Kim, H. (2012). The dimensionality of fashion-brand experience Aligning consumer-

based brand equity approach. Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management, 16(4),
pp. 418-441.
Kim, J., Ritchie, J. B., & McCormick, B. (2012). Development of a Scale to Measure
Memorable Tourism Experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), pp. 12-25.
194
Kline. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2 Ed.). New York:
Guilford Press.
Krejcie, R., and Morgan, K. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities.
Educational and Psychological Measurement (30), pp. 607-610.
Krishnan, H. (1996). Characteristics on Memory Associations: A Consumer-Based Brand

Equity Perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing, pp. 389-405.
Krueger, R. A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Kumar, R. (2006). Marketing and Branding: The Indian Scenario. Delhi: Pearson
Education India.
L‘Aqua, C. B. (2012). What is Brand Salience?. Retrieved December 18th, 2012, from
http://smartamarketing.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/what-is-brand-salience/
Lambin, J. (1991). Marketing Strategic. Madrid: McGraw-Hill.
Lau, G. T., and Lee, S. H. (1999). Consumers‘ trust in a brand and the link to brand
loyalty. Journal of Market Focused Management, 4, pp. 341-370.
Lazarevic, V. and Petrovic-Lazarevic, S. (2007). Increasing Brand Loyalty of Generation

Y for Future Marketers. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University: Department of
Management Working Paper Series. Working paper 28/07.
Lazarevic, V. (2012). Encouraging brand loyalty in fickle generation Y consumers.

Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers, 13 (1), pp. 45 -
61.
Lee, H. J., Doo-Hee Lee, Charles R. Taylor, and Lee, J.-H. (2011). Do online brand
communities help build and maintain relationships with consumers? A network
theory approach. Journal of Brand Management, 19 (3), pp. 213–227.
195
Li, C. (2009). New study: Deep brand engagement correlates with financial performance.
New study: Deep brand engagement correlates with financial performance.
Altimeter Group.
Lin, L.-Y. (2010). the relationship of consumer personality trait, brand personality and
brand loyalty: an empirical study of toys and video games buyers. Journal of
Product and Brand Management, 19 (1), pp. 4-17.
Liu, Y. (2007). The long-term impact of loyalty programs on consumer purchase

behavior and loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 71 (4), pp. 19-35.
Luedicke, M. K. (2006). Brand Community under Fire: The Role of Social Environments
for the HUMMER Brand Community. Advances in Consumer Research, 33, pp.
486-493.
Luo, X. (2005). A Contingent Perspective on the Advantages of Stores‘ Strategic

Philanthropy for Influencing Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 4
(5), pp. 390-401.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., and Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in
factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4 (1), pp. 84–99.
MacInnis, D. J., Park, C. W., and Priester, J. R. (2009). Handbook of Brand

Relationships. Armonk: M.E.Sharpe, New York.
Marketing Charts. (2012). Branded Products Still Preferred by Consumers, Regardless of

Income Level. Retrieved Sept 2014, from
http://www.marketingcharts.com/traditional/branded-products-still-preferred-by-
consumers-regardless-of-income-level-23652/
Matzler, K., Grabner-Kräuter, S., and Bidmon, S. (2006). The Value – Brand Trust –
Brand Loyalty Chain: An Analysis of Some Moderating Variables. 2 (2),
Innovative Marketing.
McAlexander, J. A., and Schouten, J. W. (2002). ‗Building brand community. Journal of

Marketing, 66, pp. 38-54.
196
McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the
endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (3), pp. 310-21.
McEwen, W. J. (2005). Married to the Brand: Why Consumers Bond With Some Brands
for Life. New York: Gallup Press.
McQueen, J. n., Foley, C., and Deighton, J. (1993). Decomposing a Brand‘s Consumer
Franchise into Buyer Types in Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertising‘s Role in
Building Strong Brands. (D. A. Aaker, and A. Biel, Eds.) Lawrence, U.S.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Merrill, C. (1990). The ripple effect reaches gen Y. American Demographics, 21 (11), pp.
15-17.
Moisescu, O. I., and Allen, B. (2010). The Relationship between the Dimensions of
Brand Loyalty an Empirical Investigation among Romanian Urban Consumers.
Management and Marketing Challenges for Knowledge Society, 4 (5), pp. 83-98.
Monga, A. (2002). Brand as a Relationship Partner: Gender Differences in Perspective.

Advances in Consumer Research, 29, pp. 36-41.
Moore, D., and Wurster, D. (2007). Self-Brand Connections and Brand Resonance: The
Role of Gender and Consumer Emotions. Advances in Consumer Research, 34, pp.
64-65.
Moore, K., and Reid, S. (2008). The Birth of Brand: 4000 Years of Branding History.
Business History, 50 (4), pp. 419-432.
Moore, M., and Carpenter, J. (2008). Intergenerational perceptions of market cues among
US apparel consumers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, pp. 323-
337.
Moran, W. (1990). Brand presence and the perceptual frame. Journal of Advertising
Research, 30 (5), pp. 9-16.
197
Morgan, R. M., and Hunt, S. D. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship
Marketing. Journal of Marketing, July (58), pp. 20-38.
Morton, L. (2002). Targeting generation Y. Public Relations Quarterly, 47 (2), pp. 46-58.
Moutinho, L., and Goode, M. (1995). Gender Effects to the Formation of Overall Product
Satisfaction: A Multivariate Approach. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, 8 (1), pp. 71-91.
Moutinho, L., Goode, M., Davies, F., and Curry, B. (1996). The Impact of Gender on Car
Buyer Satisfaction and Loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Service, 3 (3),
pp. 135-44.
Muniz, A., and Guinn, T. (2001). Brand Community. Journal of Consumer Research, pp.
412-431.
National Youth Policy (2012). Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of
India. Government of India. Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Delhi.
Neuborne, E., and Kerwin, K. (1999). Generation Y. Business Week 3616, pp. 80.
Novak, L., Thach, L., and Olsen, J. (2006). Wowing the millennial: creating brand equity
in the wine industry. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 15 (5), pp. 316-
323.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2 Ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
O‘Cass, A., and Lim, K. (2002). Toward Understanding the Young Consumer‘s Brand
Associations and Ethnocentrism in the Lion‘s Port. Psychology and Marketing, 19
(9), pp. 759–775.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of

satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (4), pp. 460–469.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. Boston:

McGraw-Hill.
198
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing. 63 (Special
issue), pp. 33-44.
Omni-Channel Retailing (1970). Online measures of brand engagement: dwell times hold
the key to success. Retrieved September 20, 2014, from
http://www.themultichannelretailer.com
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, pp. 143-154.
Park, C., MacInnis, D. J., and Priester, J. (2008). Brand Attachment: Construct
Consequence and Causes. Hanover, USA: now Publishing Inc.
Park, C., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., and Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand
Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical. 1–17.
Patterson, M., and O‘Malley, L. (2006). Brands, Consumers and Relationships: A

Review. Irish Marketing Review, I8 (I2), pp. 10-20.
Pawar, P., and Raut, U. (2012). Evaluation of conceptual model of brand resonance for
analysis of brand relationship amongst consumers. International journal of
Business, Management and Social Sciences, 1 (8(III)), pp. 172-177.
Peter, J. (1979). Reliability: A Review of Psychometric Basics and Recent Marketing

Practices. Journal of Marketing Research, XVI, pp. 6‐17.
Phau, I., and Cheong, E. (2009). Young consumers‘ evaluations of diffusion brands.
Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers, 10 (3), pp. 210-
24.
Prahalad, C. K. (2006). Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty

Through Profits (1 Ed.). Noida, India: Dorling Kindersley Pvt Ltd.
Putrevu, S. (2004). Communicating with the Sex: Male and Female Responses to Print
Advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 33 (3), pp. 51-62.
199
Quinn and Devasagayam. (2005). Building brand community among ethnic Diaspora in
the USA: Strategic implications for marketers. Brand Management, 13 (2), pp.
101–114.
Rauch, A. (2011). Brand Engagement: Beyond Internal Branding. Brand Engagement:

Beyond Internal Branding. INTERBRAND.
Raut, U. R., and Brito, P. Q. (2014). An Analysis of Brand Relationship with the
Perceptive of Customer Based Brand Equity Pyramid. Working Papers (FEP) –
University of Porto, (526), pp. 1-17.
Reimann, M., and Aron, A. (2009). Handbook of Brand Relationships: Self-Expansion

Motivation and Inclusion of Brands in Self: Toward a Theory of Brand
Relationships. (D. J. MacInnis, C. W. Park, and J. R. Priester, Eds.) Armonk, New
York: M.E.Sharpe.
Richins, M. (1994). Special Possessions and the expression of material values. Journal of
Consumer Research, 21, pp. 522-533.
Rindfleisch, A., Wong, N., and Burroughs, E. J. (2006). Seeking Certainty via Brands:
An Examination of Materialism and Brand Resonance.
Rockwell, R. C. (1975). Assessment of multicollinearity: The Haitovsky test of the

determinant. Sociological Methods and Research, 3 (4), pp. 308–320.
Romaniuk, J., and Sharp, B. (2002). The concept of brand salience and implications for
measurement‘. European Marketing Academy 31st Annual Conference. University
of Minho.
Romaniuk, J., and Sharp, B. (2004). Conceptualizing and measuring brand salience.
Marketing Theory, 4 (4), pp. 327-342.
Rossiter, J. R., and Percy, L. (1987). Advertising and promotion management. New York:
McGraw Hill.
200
Rundle-Thiele, S., and Bennett, R. (2001). A brand for all seasons? A discussion of brand
loyalty approaches and their applicability for different markets. Journal of Product
and Brand Management, 1 (10), pp. 25-37.
Ruzeviciute, R., and Ruzevicius, J. (2010). Brand Equity Integrated Evaluation Model:
Consumer-Based Approach. Economics and Management, 15.
Sahay, A., and Sharma, N. (2010). Brand Relationships and Switching Behaviour for
Highly Used Products in Young Consumers. Vikalpa, 35 (10), pp. 15-30.
Sawant, P. (2012). So, who‘s the youth? The Times of India. The Times of India.
Selnes, F. (1998). Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer-seller

relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 32(3/4), pp. 305-322
Schensul, J. J., Lecompte, M. D., Nastasi, B. K., and Borgatti, S. P. (1999). Enhanced
Ethnographic Methods- Audiovisual Techniques, Focused Group Interviews, and
Elicitation Techniques;. United Kingdom: Altamira Press.
Schouten, J. W., McAlexander, J. H., and Koenig, H. F. (2007). Transcendent customer

experience and brand community. Journal of the Academic Marketing Science, 35,
pp. 357–368.
Schouten, J., and McAlexander, J. (1995). Subcultures of consumption: ethnography of

the new bikers. Journal of consumer Research, 22, pp. 43-61.
Schultz, D., and Bailey, S. (2000). Customer brand loyalty in an interactive marketplace.
Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (5/6), pp. 41-52.
Schultz, S., Kleine, R., and Kernan, J. (1989). These are a few of my favorite things:
Towards an explication of attachment as a consumer behavior construct. Advances
in Consumer Research, 33 (1), pp. 359-366.
Science Daily. (2010, Nov. 4,). A 'Brand' New World: Attachment Runs Thicker Than
Money. Science Daily link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/
201
Seetharaman, P. (2004). Modeling Multiple Sources of State Dependence in Random
Utility Models: A Distributed Lag Approach. Marketing Science, 23 (2), pp. 263–
271.
Sekaran, U., and Bougie, R. (2009). Research Methods for Business. United Kingdom:
John Wiley.
Selltiz, C., Wrightsman, L. S., and Cook, S. W. (1976). Research Methods in Social
Relations. (3, Ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Sheth, J., and Parvatiyar.A. (1995). Relationship Marketing in consumers markets:

Antecedents and consequence. Journal of the Academy of marketing science, 23
(4), pp. 255-271.
Singh, N., Kwon, I. W., and Pereira, A. (2003). Cross-cultural Consumer Socialization:
An Exploratory Study of Socialization. Psychology and Marketing, 20 (10), pp.
867-881.
Sirgy, J. M. (1982). Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review. Journal of

Consumer Research, 9 (3), pp. 287-299.
Slama, M., and Tashchian, A. (1985). Selected Socioeconomic and Demographic

Characteristics Associated with Purchasing Involvement. Journal of Marketing, 49
(winter), pp. 72-82.
Sprott, D., Czellar, S., and Spangenberg, E. (2009). The Importance of a General
Measure of Brand Engagement on Market Behavior: Development and Validation
of a Scale. Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (February), pp. 92–104.
Stern, B. B. (1993). Feminist Literacy Criticism and the Deconstruction of Ads: A

postmodern View of Advertising and Consumer Response. Journal of Consumer
Research, 19, pp. 556-566.
Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4 Ed.).
Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum.
202
Stewart, D.W. and Shamdasani, P.N. (1990) Focus Groups: Theory and Practices. Sage,
UK
Stratfold, C. (2012). Fundamentals of brand resonance. Retrieved July Wednesday, 2012,

from
http://www.marketingpower2.com/blog/marketingnews/2009/08/fundamentals_of_
brand_resonanc.html
Sullivan, P., and Heitmeyer, J. (2008). Looking at gen Y shopping preferences and
intentions: exploring the role of experience and apparel involvement. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 32 (3), pp. 285-295.
Swaminathan, V., Page, K. L., and Gurhan-Canli, Z. (2007). ―My‖ Brand or ―Our‖
Brand: The Effects of Brand Relationship Dimensions and Self- Construal on
Brand Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, pp. 248-258.
Syrett, M., and Lammiman, J. (2004). Advertising and millennial. Young Consumers:
Insights and Ideas for Responsible Marketers, 5 (4), pp. 62-73.
Szymanski, D., and Henard, D. (2001). Customer satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the

empirical evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (1), pp. 16-
35.
Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th Ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tam, L., Wood, W., and Ji, M. F. (2009). Brand Loyalty Is Not Habitual.
The Research Advisors. (2006). Sample Size Table. Retrieved March 20, 2013, from
http://research-advisors.com/tools/SampleSize.htm
Tipping, M. (2006). Brand Engagement How Long a Fad? Brand Engagement How Long
a Fad?.Brand week, 47 (25).
Tse, D. K., and Wilton, P. C. (1988). Models of Consumer Satisfaction Formation: An

Extension. Journal of Marketing Research, pp. 204-212.
203
Tsui, B., and Hughes, L. (2001). Generation next‘‘, Advertising Age. 72 (3), pp. 14-16.
Tucker, W. T. (1964). The Development of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Marketing

Research, pp. 32-35.
Vitz, P. C., and Johnston, D. (1965). Masculinity of Smokers and the Masculinity of
Cigarette Images. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49 (3), pp. 155-159.
Wang, H., Wei, Y., and Yu, C. (2008). Global brand equity model: combining customer-
based with product-market outcome approaches. Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 17 (5), pp. 305-316.
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,
pp. 46-61.
Wegener, D. T., Sawicki, V., and Petty, R. E. (2009). Handbook of Brand Relationships:
Attitudes as a Basis for Brand Relationships: The Roles of Elaboration,
Metacognition, and Bias Correction. (D. J. MacInnis, C. W. Park, and J. R. Priester,
Eds.) Armonk, New York: M.E.Sharpe.
Wielbacher, W. (1993). Brand Marketing: Building Winning Brand Strategies That

Deliver Value and Customer Satisfaction. London: NTC Business Books.
Weiss, R.S. (1988). Loss and Recovery. Journal of Social Issues, 37(3), pp. 44-52.
Wirtz, J. (1994). Consumer satisfaction with service: Integration of recent perspectives in

services marketing with the traditional satisfaction model. Advances in Consumer
Research, 1 (1), pp. 153–159.
Wirtz, Jochen, Mattila, A. S., and Lwin, M. O. (2007). How Effective Are Loyalty
Reward Programs in Driving Share of Wallet? Journal of Service Research, 9 (4),
pp. 327–334.
Wolburg, J., and Pokrywczynski, J. (2001). A psychographic analysis of Generation Y

college students. Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (5), pp. 33-53.
204
Wood, L. (2000). "Brands and brand equity: definition and management. Management
Decision, 38 (9), pp. 662-669.
Wood, L. (2004). ‗Dimensions of brand purchasing behaviour: consumers in the 18-24

age groups. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4 (1), pp. 9-24.
Ye, L. (2008). The impact of gender effects on consumers‘ perceptions of brand equity:
A cross-cultural investigation. The impact of gender effects on consumers‘
perceptions of brand equity: A cross-cultural investigation, pp. 216-224
Yih-Chearng, S., and Lisa Shih-Hua, L. (2013). Brand involvement in retaining

customers despite dissatisfaction. Social Behavior & Personality: An International
Journal, 41(4), pp. 643-650.
Yi, Y. (1993). The determinants of consumer satisfaction: The moderating role of

ambiguity. Advances in Consumer Research, 20 (1), pp. 502–506.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., and Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix
elements and brand equity. . Academy of Marketing Science. Journal, 28 (2), pp.
195-207.
205
APPENDIX
PhD Dissertation; Questionnaire for Respondent (Pilot Study)
Dear Respondent,
The present questionnaire is a part of PhD (Pilot Study) research on “Analysis of Brand Resonance
Amongst Young Consumers with reference to select Product Categories”. The study involves
response to a structured questionnaire from various respondents. There is no right or wrong
response. Please provide your free, frank and true opinion. Secrecy of your response is assured.
(Umesh Raut- Pune University- Department of Management Sciences- PUMBA)
Please answer the following question with consideration of your preferred Cell Phone brand
(Product)
Answer (√) the following questions on the basis of above selected brand of Mobile Phone. For each of the
following statement, please tick the box that corresponds with your agreement.
1= Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Disagree Somewhat, 4= Undecided, 5= Agree Somewhat, 6= Agree,
7= Strongly Agree
No Item Strongly Disagree Strongly

Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 This brand is very easy to recognize.
2 This brand is popular.
3 I know where I can buy this brand.
4 Compared with other brands in the product category,
this brand satisfies my basic needs.
5 This brand is reliable for me.
6 This brand is easily serviceable
7 Overall the service of this brand is good.
8 This brand is stylish brand for me.
9 I like the look, feel and other design aspects of this
brand.
10 I give respect to the people who use this brand.
11 I like the people who use this brand.
12 This brand is sign of successfulness, sign of honesty,
sign of upper class and so many good things.
13 I think that this brand bring back pleasant memories.
14 I feel that I grew up with this brand.
15 In my overall opinion this brand is good brand.
206
16 This is the good value brand.
17 This brand knows what his consumers want.
18 This is very innovative brand.
19 This is trustable brand.
20 This brand always takes care of their consumers‘
opinion.
21 I like this brand very much.
22 I respect this brand.
23 This brand is relevant for me.
24 This is unique brand.
25 This is superior brand as compared to other brands in
26 This brand gives me a feeling of warmth.
27 This brand gives me a feeling of fun.
28 This brand gives me a feeling of excitement.
29 This brand gives me a feeling of security.
30 This brand gives me a feeling of social approval.
31 This brand gives me a feeling of self respect.
32 I consider myself loyal to this brand.
33 I buy this brand whenever I can.
34 I buy as much of this brand as I can.
35 I feel that I need only this brand product.
36 This is the one brand I would prefer to buy.
37 If this brand were not available, it would make little
difference to me if I had to use another brand.
38 I would go out of my way to use this brand.
38 I really love this brand.
40 I would really miss this brand if it went away.
41 This brand is special to me.
42 This brand is more than a product to me.
43 I really identify with people who use this brand.
44 I feel as if I almost belong to a club with other users of
this brand.
45 This is a brand used by people like me.
46 I feel a deep connection with others who use this
brand.
47 I really like to talk about this brand to others.
48 I am always interested in learning more about this
brand.
49 I would be interested in merchandise with this brand‘s
name on it.
50 I am proud to have others know I use this brand.
207
51 I like to visit the Web site for this brand.
52 Compared with other people, I follow news about this
brand closely.
Demographic Profile of Respondent:
1. Please record your gender: Male1 Female2
2. Which age group do you belong to? (Please tick one choice only)
Above 16 years and up to 21 years1 Above 21 years and up to 25 years2
Above 25 years and up to 30 years3
3. Please mark your highest qualification: (Please tick one choice only)
Below Graduation1 Graduate2 Postgraduate and above3
4. Please tick the right option regarding your annual income level. (Please tick one choice
only)
Less than 1 Lac1 1 Lac to 3 Lac2 3 Lac to 6 Lac3 6 Lac to 10 Lac4
5
More than 10 Lac
208
PhD Dissertation; Questionnaire for Respondent (Final Study)
Dear Respondent,
The present questionnaire is a part of PhD research on “Analysis of Brand Resonance Amongst Young
Consumers with reference to select Product Categories”. The study involves response to a structured
questionnaire from various respondents. There is no right or wrong response. Please provide your
free, frank and true opinion. Secrecy of your response is assured.
(Umesh Raut- Pune University- Department of Management Sciences- PUMBA)
Select the following brand of Mobile Phone (ANY ONE) which one you use.
Nokia Samsung Sony Ericsson HTC
Blackberry Apple (I-Phone) Micromax Motorola
Other (Please specify)

________________________________________________________________
7= Strongly Agree

Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 This brand is very easy to recognize.
2 This brand is popular.
3 I know where I can buy this brand.
this brand satisfies my basic needs.
5 This brand is reliable for me.
6 I like the look, feel, and other design aspects of this
brand.
7 I give respect to the people who use this brand.
8 I like the people who use this brand.
9 I feel that I grew up with this brand.
209
10 This is very innovative brand.
11 This is the good value brand.
12 Personally, this brand is relevant for me.
13 This is unique brand.
14 This is superior brand as compared to other brands in
15 This brand gives me a feeling of self-respect.
16 This brand gives me a feeling of fun.
17 This brand gives me a feeling of security.
18 This brand gives me a feeling of social approval.
Please state your opinion (√) on importance of factors that are responsible for buying same Mobile Phone
brand frequently.
1= Not at all important, 2= Low importance, 3= Slightly important, 4= Neutral, 5= Moderately important, 6=
Very important, 7= Extremely important
Factor Not at all important Extremely important

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Quality of product
Name in the market
Wide range of product
Price
Quality of service
Other (Please
specify)_____________________
1= Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree,3= Disagree Somewhat, 4= Undecided, 5= Agree Somewhat, 6= Agree,
7= Strongly Agree

Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 I am satisfied with my preferred brand.
2 I am pleased with my preferred brand.
210
3 Overall, I am happy with my preferred brand.
4 Purchasing the preferred brand was a good decision.
5 I trust this brand.
6 This brand is very safe.
7 This brand always keeps its promises.
8 My preferred brand is a brand name that meets my
expectations.
Are you willing to re-buy your preferred Mobile Phone brand?

Yes No
Do you think that you love your preferred Mobile Phone brand?
Yes No
Are you aware about the brand community (Facebook, Twitter etc.) of your preferred Mobile
Phone brand?
Yes No
Are you a member of online brand community (Facebook, Twitter etc.)of your preferred Mobile
Phone brand?
Yes No
Have you ever suggest someone to buy your preferred Mobile Phone brand?
Yes No
Answer (√) the following questions basis on selected brand of Mobile Phone. For each of the following
statement, please tick the box that corresponds with your agreement.
7= Strongly Agree

Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 I consider myself loyal to this brand.

2 I will buy this brand whenever I can.
3 This is the one brand I would prefer to buy.
4 If this brand were not available, it would make little

difference to me if I had to use another brand.
5 I really love this brand.
211
6 I would really miss this brand if it went away.
7 This brand is special to me.
8 This brand is more than a product to me.
9 I really identify with people who use this brand.
10 I feel as if I almost belong to a club with other
users of this brand.
11 This is a brand used by people like me.
12 I feel a deep connection with others who use this
brand.
13 I really like to talk about this brand to others.
14 I am always interested in learning more about this
brand.
15 Compared with other people, I follow news about
this brand closely.
16 I am proud to have others know I use this brand.
17 I like to visit the website of this brand.
Dear respondent following questions are based on Soft-Drink brand, kindly answer the
following questions.
Select the following brand of Soft-Drink (ANY ONE) which one you use.
Coca –Cola Pepsi Thums-Up Sprite Fanta
Other (Please specify)

________________________________________________________________
Answer (√) the following questions on the basis of above selected brand of Soft-Drink. For each of the
7= Strongly Agree
212
Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 My Soft-Drink brand is very easy to recognize.
2 My Soft-Drink brand is popular.
3 I know where I can buy my Soft-Drink brand.
my Soft-Drink satisfies my basic needs.
5 My Soft-Drink brand is reliable for me.
6 I like the look, feel, and other design aspects of my
Soft-Drink brand.
7 I give respect to the people who use my Soft-Drink
brand.
8 I like the people who use my Soft-Drink brand.
9 I feel that I grew up with my Soft-Drink brand.
10 My Soft-Drink brand is very innovative brand.
11 My Soft-Drink brand is the good value brand.
12 Personally, my Soft-Drink brand is relevant for me.
13 My Soft-Drink brand is unique brand.
14 My Soft-Drink brand superior brand as compared to
other brands in the product category.
15 My Soft-Drink brand gives me a feeling of self-respect.
16 My Soft-Drink brand gives me a feeling of fun.
17 My Soft-Drink brand gives me a feeling of security.
18 My Soft-Drink brand gives me a feeling of social
approval.
Are you willing to re-buy your preferred Soft-Drink brand?

Yes No
Do you think that you love your preferred Soft-Drink brand?
Yes No
Are you aware about the brand community (Facebook, Twitter etc.) of your preferred Soft-Drink
brand?
Yes No
Are you a member of online brand community (Facebook, Twitter etc.) of your preferred Soft-
Drink brand?
Yes No
Have you ever suggested someone to buy your preferred Soft-Drink brand?
213
Yes No
Answer (√) the following questions on the basis of above selected brand of Soft-Drink. For each of the
7= Strongly Agree

Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 I am satisfied with my Soft-Drink brand.
2 I am pleased with my Soft-Drink brand.
3 Overall, I am happy with my Soft-Drink brand.
4 Purchasing my Soft-Drink brand was a good decision.
5 I trust my Soft-Drink brand.
6 My Soft-Drink brand is very safe.
7 My Soft-Drink brand always keeps its promises.
8 My Soft-Drink brand is a brand name that meets my
expectations.
Answer (√) the following questions basis on selected brand of Soft-Drink. For each of the following
statement, please tick the box that corresponds with your agreement.
7= Strongly Agree

Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 I consider myself loyal to my Soft-Drink brand.
2 I will buy my Soft-Drink brand whenever I can.
3 I would prefer to buy my Soft-Drink brand.
4 If my Soft-Drink brand were not available, it would
make little difference to me if I had to use another
brand.
5 I really love my Soft-Drink brand.
6 I would really miss my Soft-Drink brand if it went
away.
7 My Soft-Drink brand is special to me.
8 My Soft-Drink brand is more than a product to me.
9 I really identify with people who use my Soft-Drink
brand.
214
10 I feel as if I almost belong to a club with other users of
my Soft-Drink brand.
11 My Soft-Drink brand is a brand used by people like me.
12 I feel a deep connection with others who use my Soft-
Drink brand.
13 I really like to talk about my Soft-Drink brand to others.
14 I am always interested in learning more about my Soft-
Drink brand.
15 Compared with other people, I follow news about my
Soft-Drink brand closely.
16 I am proud to have others know I use this Soft-Drink
brand.
17 I like to visit the website of my Soft-Drink brand.
Please state your opinion on importance of factors that are responsible for buying same Soft-Drink brand
frequently.
1= Not at all important, 2= Low importance, 3= Slightly important, 4= Neutral, 5= Moderately important, 6=
Very important, 7= Extremely important
Factor Not at all important Extremely important

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Quality of product
Name in the market
Wide range of product
Price
Quality of service
Other (Please
specify)____________________
Demographic Profile of Respondent:
Please record your gender: Male Female
Which age group do you belong to? (Please tick one choice only)
Above 16 years and up to 21 years Above 21 years and up to 25 years
Above 25 years and up to 30 years
Please mark your highest qualification: (Please tick one choice only)
Below Graduation Graduate Postgraduate and above
215
Please, mark your occupation. (Please tick one choice only)
Private Employee Govt. Employee Businessman Student
Other (Please specify) ____________________________________
Please tick the right option regarding your annual income level. (Please tick one choice only)
Less than 1 Lac 1 Lac to 3 Lac 3 Lac to 6 Lac 6 Lac to 10 Lac
More than 10 Lac
Marital Status: (Please tick one choice only)

Married Unmarried Divorced
“Thank you for your valuable time”

Thank you, for devoting your valuable time in helping to conduct this research. In case, you are interested to know
about the result of this research please write down your e-mail address. E-mail: __________________________
216

Analysis of Brand Resonance Amongst Young

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Brand Resonance Amongst Young

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Brand Resonance Amongst Young

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“ANALYSIS OF BRAND RESONANCE AMONGST YOUNG

CONSUMERS WITH REFERENCE TO SELECT PRODUCT

PhD Dissertation in Business and Management Studies

Under Thesis Co-Supervision Agreement

Prof., Dr. Pedro Quelhas Brito

Name: Umesh Ramchandra Raut

Master of Business Administration (MBA) in Marketing Management, Savitribai Phule

Two years Doctoral Fellowship awarded by Erasmus Mundus-European Commission

Paper Presented in Conferences:

Those people, such as the postgraduate students at Department of Management Sciences

Umesh Ramchandra Raut

1.1 Theoretical Framework of the Study.......................................................................2

1.2 Brand Relationship and Research on Brand Relationship...................................9

1.5 Overview of the Chapters......................................................................................13

2.2 Brand Resonance Model........................................................................................14

2.3 Brand Resonance: Relationship Approach............................................................21

2.4.1 Brand Loyalty............................................................................................26

2.4.2 Brand Attachment......................................................................................29

2.4.3 Brand Community......................................................................................34

2.4.4 Brand Engagement.....................................................................................37

2.5 Factors Influencing Brand Relationship................................................................40

2.7 Young Generation and Brand Relationship...........................................................51

2.8 Relation Between Brand Resonance and Consumer Demographics.....................55

2.9 Measurement Considerations for Brand Resonance..............................................58

3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY...................................61-86

3.2 Statement of the Proble..........................................................................................62

3.3 Significance of the Study.......................................................................................64

3.4 Purposes of the Study.............................................................................................66

3.6 Research Aims and Objectives..............................................................................70

3.7 Research Design.....................................................................................................71

3.7.1 Sampling Design........................................................................................72

3.7.2 Young consumer consideration..................................................................74

3.7.3 Research Instrument Development............................................................74

3.7.4 Data Collection Design..............................................................................75

3.8 Product Category Selection....................................................................................75

3.9 Hypothesis Generation...........................................................................................79

4 DEVELOPMENT OF SCALE TO STUDY BRAND RESONANCE..........87-113

4.3 Steps to Developed Brand Resonance Measures...................................................89

4.3.1 Specify the Construct Domain...................................................................90

4.3.2 Generation of Items and Collection of Data..............................................90

4.3.3 Purification of Scale...................................................................................98

4.3.4 Assessment Reliability and Validity........................................................109

4.4 Concluding Remark.............................................................................................112

5 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION..........................................114-169

Hypothesis Testing For Cell Phone Product Category....................................................116

Hypothesis Number-3 and 4................................................................................122

Hypothesis Number-5 and 6................................................................................124

Hypothesis Number- 7,8,9 and 10.......................................................................131

Hypothesis Testing For Soft Drink Product Category.....................................................140

Hypothesis Number-3 and 4................................................................................146

Hypothesis Number-5 and 6................................................................................148

Hypothesis Number- 7,8,9 and 10.......................................................................155

Present Study Model Analysis.............................................................................163

6 FINDINGS, IMPLICATION AND SUGGESTIONS.................................170-177

7 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Table-1: Relationship Drivers............................................................................................40

Table-2: Selected Empirical Studies on Gender and Brand Relationshi...........................56

Table-3: Descriptor of research design..............................................................................71

Table-4: Past research on brand relationship and selected product category....................77

Table-5: Specified Domain of Construct...........................................................................93