CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1

Background of the study

Brand equity refers to the value that a brand adds to a service or good. It is the measure of
how much a brand is worth in the perspective of customers. A strong brand equity can
provide a company with several benefits, such as increased customer loyalty, higher prices
for products, and a more successful introduction of new products. The concept of brand
equity has been studied and discussed by marketers and academics for decades, and there are
several different ways to measure and define it.

One among the most commonly used ways to measure brand equity is through consumer
research, such as surveys and focus groups. This research can help companies understand
how consumers perceive their brand, including factors such as awareness, associations, and
loyalty. Other methods of measuring brand equity include financial analysis, which looks at a
brand's revenues and profitability, and market analysis, which looks at a brand's market share
and competitive position.

There are several key components that contribute to a brand's equity, including brand
awareness, brand loyalty, perceived quality, and other ties that a brand may have. Brand
awareness describes the amount to which consumers are familiar with a brand and can
recognize it. Brand loyalty refers to the degree to which customers are committed to
purchasing from a brand over time. Perceived quality refers to the consumers' general
impression of quality of a brand's products or services.

Other important factors that contribute to a brand's equity include the brand's history, its
reputation, and the emotions that it evokes in consumers. A brand alongside a strong history
and reputation can help to build trust and credibility with consumers, while a brand that stirs
up feelings of optimism can create a strong emotional connection with consumers.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:

 Review the existing literature on brand equity and identify the key concepts and measures
 Conduct a study to gather data on consumers' perceptions and attitudes toward different
brands
 Analyse the relationship between brand equity and customer decisions
 Explore the impact of different branding strategies on brand equity

With the rise of digital technologies, many aspects of the business world have undergone
significant changes. One such change has been the way in which consumers interact with
brands. Digital channels such as social media, websites, and mobile apps have created new
opportunities for brands to connect with consumers, but they have also presented new
challenges. For example, consumers now have access to more information about brands,
which may affect how they perceive brand equity. This research gap could explore how
digital transformation has impacted brand equity and how this, in turn, affects consumer
purchase decisions. Students represent a unique demographic that may have different
perspectives on brand equity compared to non-students. For example, students might be more
inclined to prioritize certain values or attributes in the brands they choose to purchase, such
as social responsibility or sustainability. Understanding these differences could help
marketers tailor their branding strategies to better reach this important demographic. This
research gap could involve surveys or interviews with both student and non-student
consumers to explore differences in their perspectives on brand equity. Brands use a variety
of strategies to build brand equity and influence consumer purchase decisions. For example,
some brands may focus on creating emotional connections with their customers, while others
may prioritize value or quality. This research gap could explore the effectiveness of different
branding strategies in influencing consumer purchase decisions. This could involve a review
of existing research on the topic or conducting experiments to test the effect of different
branding strategies on consumer behaviour.

Purpose of the study:

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of brand equity on consumer purchase
decisions, with a focus on the influence of different branding strategies. To achieve this
objective, the study will pursue the following research objectives:

A review of existing literature on brand equity will be conducted to identify key concepts and
measures. This will involve analysis of academic articles and industry reports that examine
the concept of brand equity and its influence on consumer behaviour. This literature review
provide a theoretical foundation for study and help identify the key variables and measures to
be used in the data collection and analysis.

The study will gather data on consumers' perceptions and attitudes towards different brands.
This will be done through a survey that will be administered to a representative sample of
consumers. The survey will include questions about brand awareness, brand loyalty, and
brand associations, as well as questions about consumer demographics and purchasing
behaviour. This data will be used to measure brand equity and its components, such as brand
loyalty and brand awareness.

The study will analyse the relationship between brand equity and customer decisions.
Specifically, the study will examine how brand equity influences consumer decision-making,
including the factors that influence brand choice and the importance of different branding
strategies in shaping consumer behaviour. This analysis will be carried out utilising statistical
techniques such as regression analysis, which will allow us to identify the most important
factors that influence brand choice.

The study will explore the effect of different branding strategies on brand equity. This will be
done by comparing the effectiveness of different branding strategies in influencing consumer
behaviour, including emotional branding, value-based branding, and quality-based branding.
This analysis will provide insights into the most effective branding methods for various types
of products and industries.
Problem Statement:

Brand equity is a vital concept in marketing research, as it influences consumer attitudes and
behaviour. However, there is still a lack of concrete data exploring the association between
brand equity and customer decision-making. This research gap is particularly relevant in light
of the digital transformation of the world, which has created new opportunities and
challenges for brands in terms of building and managing brand equity.

To address this gap, this study aims to achieve four research objectives. First, the study will
review the existing literature on brand equity to identify the key concepts and measures used
in previous studies. Second, the study will conduct a survey to gather data on consumers'
perceptions and attitudes toward different brands. Third, the study will analyse the
relationship between brand equity and customer decisions, specifically examining the impact
of brand equity on consumers' readiness to pay higher prices, perception of extensions of the
brand, brand preference, and purchasing intention. Finally, the study will investigate the
effect of various branding techniques on brand equity, exploring how various approaches to
brand construction and management influence consumer perceptions of brand value.

By achieving these research objectives, the study aims to contribute to the existing literature
on brand equity and provide insights for brand managers and marketers on how to effectively
build and manage brand equity in the digital age. With the rising significance of digital
channels in brand communications and the growing influence of social networking sites and
online reviews on consumer decision-making, understanding the impact of brand equity on
customer decisions is more important than ever. This study aims to address this research gap
while offering insightful findings for both academic researchers and marketing practitioners.

Significance of the study:

The study will add to the existing body of knowledge on brand equity by investigating the
association between brand equity and key customer decisions, such as willingness to pay
price premiums, perception of brand extensions, preference for a brand, and intention to
purchase. The study will employ a consumer-based approach to measuring brand equity, a
relatively unexplored area in the business. Therefore, the outcomes of this study will add to
the existing body of knowledge on the topic and help researchers better understand how
brand equity influences consumer behaviour.
It will provide valuable insights for brand managers and marketers on how to effectively
build and manage brand equity in the digital age. With the increasing significance of digital
channels in brand communications, it is critical for brands to understand how to create a
strong brand identity that resonates with consumers. The study will examine the impact of
different branding strategies on brand equity and provide practical recommendations for
marketers to enhance brand equity.

It will be conducted in large university, providing a cross-cultural perspective on the topic. As

consumer behaviour can vary significantly across different cultures, this study will help
researchers and marketers understand how brand equity operates in different cultural
contexts.

It is timely and relevant given the ongoing digital transformation of the world. The
emergence of new technologies and platforms has created new opportunities and challenges
for brands to construct and manage brand equity. Therefore, the outcomes of this study will
be highly relevant and useful for both academic researchers and marketing practitioners in
understanding the impact of digital transformation on brand equity and consumer behaviour.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE
REVIEW
Chapter 2

Literature review

Study of Leuthesser 1988, A group of connections and behaviours among the brand's
consumers, channel members, and parent pot that allow the brand to earn less volume or less
perimeters than it would without the brand name and gives the brand a strong, sustainable,
and discernible advantage over challengers. Aaker (1991) defines brand value as the value
individuals identify with a brand as represented in the limitations of brand mindfulness, brand
associations, perceived quality, brand faithfulness, and other personal brand assets. Swait
(1993) The consumer's implicit brand valuation in a request with discerned brands versus a
request with no brand isolation. Brands act as a indication or hint concerning the essence of
product and service quality, trustworthiness, and image/status. According to Kamakura and
Russell 1993 (Lassar etal. 1995), client- based brand equity emerges when the customer is
acquainted with the brand and remembers certain favourable, powerful, and one-of-a-kind
brand connections. Keller (1993) investigated the discriminatory impact of brand
understanding on customer response to brand marketing. Brand knowledge refers to the entire
collection of brand connections related with the brand in long-term consumer memory. Lassar
and colleagues (1995) When in comparison to other brands, consumers' opinion in terms of
overall supermacy of a product bearing that brand name. The five perceptual dimensions of
brand equity are performance, social image, value, responsibility, and attachment.
Aaker(1996) (1) fidelity (brand's real or implicit price decoration), (2) fidelity (client
satisfaction grounded), (3) perceived relative quality, (4) perceived brand leadership, (5)
perceived brand value (brand's functional benefits), (6) brand personality, (7) consumers
perception of association (trusted, respected, or believable), (8) perceived isolation from
competing brands, (9) brand mindfulness (recognition & recall), (10) request position
(request share), price. The Study done by Isbel and Martinez, indicate that brand equity
confinesinter-relate. Brand mindfulness has a favourable impact on perceived quality and
brand linkages. Brand associations tell a lot about brand commitment. Finally, the major
drivers of overall brand equity are perceived quality, brand associations, and brand fidelity.
The findings also support the positive effect of brand equity on customer responses.
Furthermore, the overall model offered is designed to be experimentally reliable across the
nations analysed. There aren't many differences to be found. According to Irwan, Muhtosim,
Bahtiar, Kurniawati4, Willy's research, based on repliers' understandings of DIGITAL
CONTENT MARKETING and pricing fairness, they have a favourable effect on customer
fidelity, which is controlled through Brand equity. Although price fairness lacks the ability to
direct effect the client fidelity, it can improve its influence on client fidelity, which
emphasises the significance of brand strength in a service offering. Relationship equity, on
the other hand, has not been acceptable to control Brand equity in courier service
organisations in order to improve client faithfulness value. The study by Veenu, Richa, and
Patel reveals that brand fidelity is closely related to brand mindfulness - hence mindfulness
must eventually be produced among customers. Brand extension, such as multigrain or whole
grain druthers that attract a premium, is powerfully encouraged by brand fidelity. Brand
equity is a crucial predictor of a progressive customer response, which aids in indurate the
critical strategy for marketers. As mindfulness and association are two separate extents, the
outcomes of this study add to the literature on client-centered brand equity while also
improving understanding of the notion. The important directorial recrimination of this
exploration is that, it improves the inquiries of brand equity addressing brand equity as
important strategy for organisations to produce position in request.

Brand equity:

Brand equity is a important conception of marketing. Even though expansive study has been
conducted on it, the literature about this subject is mostly fractured and inconclusive.
multitudinous definitions of brand equity have been proposed. utmost of them, from a
customer perspective, are grounded on the assumption that the influence of brands lies in the
minds of customers( Leone etal., 2006). From a fiscal perspective, consider brand equity as
the financial value of a brand to the establishment( Simon and Sullivan, 1993). The fiscal
value of brand is, still, the final outgrowth of consumer responses to
brands( Christodoulides and de Chernatony, 2010) and as similar former exploration on
brand equity has tended to concentrate on consumer perspective. Aaker( 1991) and
Keller( 1993) developed the foundation for consumer- grounded brand equity exploration.
From an intellectual psychology approach, Aaker( 1991,p. 15) defines brand equity as “ a
set of brand means and arrears linked to a brand, its name and symbol that add to or abate
from the value handed by a product or service to a establishment and/ or to that
establishment’s guests ”. These means are brand mindfulness, perceived quality, brand
associations, brand fidelity and other personal means. Keller( 1993) develops an
indispensable view and defines the conception of consumer- grounded brand equity as the
discriminational impact of brand understanding on consumer response to branding
promotion. Keller views brand equity in terms of brand mindfulness and the strength,
favourability and oneness of brand associations that consumers hold in memory. Following
these two approaches, this study uses a consumer- grounded brand equity measure that
consists of four crucial constructs brand mindfulness, perceived quality, brand associations,
and brand fidelity. These brand equity confines are extensively accepted and used by
multitudinous experimenters(e.g. Yoo etal., 2000; Kim etal., 2003; Pappu etal., 2005; Lee
etel and Back etel, 2010; Pike etal., 2010; Kim etel and Hyun etel, 2011)

Relationship among different dimensions of brand equity:

This study asserts a link between four characteristics of brand equity. The existence of a
brand hierarchy Justice has been presented as a dimension in the literature (e.g., Maio
Mackay, 2001; Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Keller et al., 2001). Lehman et al., 2003; Lehman et
al., 2006). Nonetheless, we empirically studied how the factors of brand equity are related in
the majority of our research. As a result, most studies (e.g., Yoo et al., 2000; Pappu et al.,
2005) just suggest a relationship between brand value features. The old hierarchy, according
to the majority of researchers, is outmoded. Impact models are a useful paradigm for
analysing the causality of brand equity (Cobb-Walgrenet al., 1995; Agarwal and Rao, 1996).
Yoo and Donthu, 2001. Keller et al., 2003; Keller et al., 2006).This sequential process, which
includes cognitive, emotive, and conative stages, has been included into fashionable brand
concepts, such as Keller's customer-based brand equity pyramid (2003).

The proposed framework defines brand equity evolution as a method of consumer education
in which consumers awareness of brand impact on attitudes (e.g., brand association and
perceived quality), which influence attitudinal brand loyalty (Lavidge etel and Steiner etel,
1961; Gordon et al., 1993; Konecniket et al and Gartner et al, 2007).

Raising brand awareness is the first step in establishing brand equity. This dimension is
associated to the power of a brand's presence in the thoughts of customers and refers to
whether or not customers can remember or acknowledge a brand (Aaker, 1996). Brand equity
is also affected by perceived quality and brand connotations. Keller (2003) defines perceived
quality as the sense of overall excellence or superiority of a product or service, whereas brand
associations are concepts connected with the brand name in the minds of consumer (Keller
and Lehmann, 2006).

Associating the brand with various memories is what brand awareness includes (Keller,
2003). As a result, before building a set of brand connections, customers must first be aware
of a brand (Aaker, 1991). Brand awareness influences the formation and strength of brand
linkages, particularly perceived quality (Keller, 1993; Pitta and Katsanis, 1995; Keller and
Lehmann, 2003; Pike et al., 2010).

Brand loyalty is preceded by perceived quality and brand links (Keller and Lehmann, 2003).
Brand loyalty is defined as an affection or passionate dedication to a brand (Aaker, 1991).
When consumers have a more beneficial impression of a brand, loyalty grows.

Perceived
Quality

Brand Brand Loyalty Overall brand

Awareness equity

Brand
Associations
 Price Brand Brand Purchase
Premium Extension Preference Intention

According to previous research, high levels of perceived quality and favourable associations
can increase brand loyalty (Chaudhuri, 1999; Keller and Lehmann, 2003; Pike et al., 2010).

Relationships among brand equity dimensions and overall brand equity:

This study combines a separate concept, overall brand equity, between the components of
brand equity and the impacts on consumers' responses, which is similar with other studies
(e.g., Bravo et al., 2007; Yasin et al., 2007; Jung and Sung, 2008), and adheres to Yoo et al.
(2000). Overall brand equity, like other definitions of brand equity, seeks to estimate the
increased value of the focus brand due to the brand name (Yoo et al., 2000). This particular
construct aids in understanding how the constituents of brand equity influence brand equity.
Perceived quality, brand associations, and brand loyalty are anticipated to have the greatest
influence on overall brand equity. For the production of value, brand awareness is essential
but not sufficient (Maio Mackay, 2001; Keller, 2003). As previously said, brand equity
requires awareness because clients must be aware of the existence of the brand. However, if
clients are aware of the top brands in the market, brand awareness becomes secondary (Maio
Mackay, 2001). As a result, brand awareness is thought to have a beneficial, albeit indirect,
impact on overall brand equity.

Because it is vital to build a positive picture of the brand in the minds of consumers, total
brand equity will be determined by perceived quality (Farquhar, 1989). In addition to,
perceived quality can lead to greater brand differentiation and superiority. As a result, it is
claimed that the better the perceived quality of the brand, the higher the possibility of
increased brand equity (Yoo et al., 2000; Kim and Hyun, 2011).

Similarly, brand associations enable firms to distinguish and place their products while also
establishing positive attitudes and perceptions about their brands (Dean, 2004). As a result,
brand equity may increase (Yoo et al., 2000; Chen, 2001). Finally, Yoo et al. (2000)
recognised brand loyalty as a crucial determinant of brand equity (Atilgan et al., 2005; Yasin
et al., 2007). Loyal clients are more likely to respond positively to a brand. As a result, brand
loyalty will aid in the growth of brand equity.
Overall brand equity effects on consumers’ responses:

Because of the effect on consumer responses to brands, constructing a solid brand with
positive equity has a favourable impact on business performance. This study looks into four
of these client responses: Price premium willingness, perception of extensions, brand
preference, and purchasing purpose are all factors to consider. The willingness to pay a higher
price denotes how much money a consumer is willing to pay for a brand in comparison to
other brands that provide comparable benefits. According to the literature, customer
willingness to pay a price premium is significantly influenced by brand equity (Lassar et al.,
1995; Netemeyer et al., 2004). Brand equity makes customers less susceptible to price rises
and more keen to pay a price premium because they sense some distinctive value in the brand
that no other alternative can supply (Chaudhuri, 1995; Seitz et al., 2010).

Companies with greater brand equity can also disseminate their brands successfully
(Rangaswamy et al., 1993). One of the primary reasons is that linking a new good with a
well-known brand name provides customers with a sense of acquaintability and trust, which
improves their perception of the extension even if they are unfamiliar with it (Milberg and
Sinn, 2008). The significant support for understanding and affect transfer from the parent
brand to the extension demonstrates the crucial role that brand equity plays in consumer
evaluations of brand extensions (Czellar, 2003). As a result, according to the following idea,
firms with larger equity are expected to provide more positive consumer responses to future
extensions.

Consumers' brand preferences are also impacted by brand equity. Strong brands, according to
the literature, earn preferable appraisals as well as higher overall preference (Hoeffler and
Keller, 2003). Customers that perceive a higher value in a brand are more likely to purchase it
(Aaker, 1991). According to research, brand equity has a favourable influence on customers'
brand selections and buy inclinations. Cobb-Walgren et al. (1995), for example, discovered
that brands with higher equity generated higher brand preferences and purchase intentions in
two categories, hotels and home cleaners. Similar findings are described by Tolba and Hassan
(2009). We also propose a connection between brand preference and purchasing intent
(Hellier et al., 2003). To explain the links between attitudes, intentions, and behaviour, the
idea of reasoned action has been applied (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975).

According to this concept, a positive attitude towards a brand leads to purchase intention. The
following hypotheses summarise the preceding arguments:
As previously noted, the role of brand equity in global marketing has received little attention.
Yoo and Donthu (2002) explored the generalizability of Yoo's et al. (2000) brand equity
development process model across American and Korean populations as one of the cognitive
psychology-based studies. Following this work, Jung and Sung (2008) examined and
compared consumer-based brand equity of clothing products across three consumer groups
(Americans in the US, South Koreans in the US, and South Koreans in Korea). Both studies
used student samples, and differences between groups were identified. Furthermore, Hsieh
(2004) developed a survey-based approach for evaluating brand equity across borders,
whereas Buil et al. (2008) concentrated on the dimension of brand equity and its cultural
invariance. Broyles et al. (2010) recently investigated if a brand equity model created with
Americans could be used to Chinese consumers. This research found some important
disparities among students using a fresh sample, but the authors feel the concept holds up in
the cross-cultural environment analysed. To summarise, few studies have examined brand
equity across different countries and/or traditions. Furthermore, these publications are largely
aimed at the North American and Asian markets. As a result, further research is needed to
fully understand the brand equity generation process and its effects on overall customer
responses.

CHAPTER 3
 RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY

Chapter 3

Research methodology:

The data was collected in both ways primary data and secondary data. Primary data was
collected for research topic impact of brand equity on customer purchase decision. Primary
data is information collected directly from the source. In research, primary data is data
collected specifically for the research question or hypothesis at hand, rather than data that has
been previously collected for another purpose.

Primary data can be collected through various methods, including surveys, experiments,
observations, and interviews. Surveys involve asking questions to individuals or groups of
people to gather data about their beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, or characteristics. Experiments
involve manipulating variables and observing the effects on a particular outcome.
Observations involve systematically watching and recording behaviors, events, or
phenomena. Interviews involve asking questions to individuals to gather data about their
experiences, opinions, or perspectives.

Primary data is often more reliable and accurate than secondary data, which is data that has
been collected by someone else for a different purpose. This is because primary data is
collected specifically for the research question or hypothesis at hand, and therefore, can be
more targeted and relevant.

When collecting primary data, it is critical to make sure that the data collection method is
suitable for the research question or hypothesis being tested. It is also important to ensure that
the data collection process is ethical and that participants are fully informed about the
purpose of the research and their rights as participants.

Once primary data has been collected, it needs to be analyzed to draw meaningful
conclusions. This involves organizing and summarizing the data, identifying patterns or
trends, and interpreting the results in relation to the research question or hypothesis.

Secondary data was collected for knowing the relationship between different brand equity
dimensions with overall brand equity. Secondary data refers to information that has already
been collected, compiled, and published by someone else, for a different purpose than the one
for which it is being used. It can be obtained from a variety of sources, including government
agencies, academic institutions, market research firms, and other organizations.

Secondary data can take many forms, including numerical data (such as census data or sales
figures), text-based data (such as books, articles, and reports), and multimedia data (such as
images, videos, and audio recordings). Some common examples of secondary data sources
include:

Government publications and reports, such as statistical yearbooks, census reports, and
economic indicators.

Academic publications, such as research articles, dissertations, and conference proceedings.

Market research reports, such as industry analyses, consumer surveys, and trend reports.

Company reports, such as annual reports, financial statements, and marketing materials.

There are several advantages to using secondary data. First, it is often readily available and
can be obtained relatively quickly and inexpensively. Second, it can provide a broader
perspective on a topic by incorporating data from a variety of sources. Third, it can allow for
comparisons over time or across different geographic regions. Finally, it can be used to
supplement primary data collected through surveys or other methods.

However, there are also some limitations to using secondary data. First, it may not be specific
enough to the researcher's needs, and may not include all the variables needed for the study.
Second, the data may be outdated, inaccurate, or biased. Third, the data may have been
collected for a different purpose, and therefore may not be directly applicable to the research
question.

To overcome some of these limitations, researchers should carefully evaluate the quality and
relevance of the secondary data they use, and consider using multiple sources to triangulate
findings. They should also be aware of any potential biases or limitations in the data and take
these into account when interpreting the results. Overall, secondary data can be a valuable
tool for researchers, but it should be used wisely and critically.

The structure in Figure 1 with few changes has been evaluated by collecting data in Christ
University.

Stimuli:

To investigate the impact of brand equity on customer responses, one product category and
two brands were chosen: Puma and Nike. Following earlier work in this area, brands were
selected from a Best Global Brands rating.

The selection process took construct equivalence into account (Craig and Douglas, 2005).
The goods categories and brands chosen are well-known, extensively available, and familiar
to Indian customers. People from all over the country interpret product categories similarly,
and the advantages in terms of functionality are similar. Our technique assured that these
elements were conceptually, functionally, and categorically equivalent. The goods categories
and brands also represent a diverse range of customer goods, offering some generalizability.

Sample and procedure:

To establish diverse diversification comparability, statistics were obtained through a survey at
Christ University in the city of Ghaziabad (India) utilising quota sampling (by age and
gender).

The observational study employed a single questionnaire, which included an assessment of

both brands. The form was given in English. Every participant finished a questionnaire form
and evaluated both brands. Respondents have to be knowledgeable of the specific brand on
their questionnaire form in order to be qualified for the study. There were 106 completed
questionnaires. The non-valid questionnaires form were eliminated, leaving 81 valid
questionnaires. The sample profile reflected the populace of Christ University, which is
similar to the overall national populace of India. More than 60% per cent of participants are
between the ages 17 and 24; 40 per cent are between the ages 24 and 29. Males account for
63 per cent of participants. Statistics for both independent and dependent variables was
collected from the same respondents.

Ethical considerations:

Ethical considerations are an important aspect of any research project. They involve ensuring
that the study is conducted in a way that respects the rights and dignity of all participants, and
does not cause harm or risk to their well-being. The following are some key ethical
considerations that researchers should be aware of:

Informed consent: Participants are fully informed about the essence of the study, the
procedures involved, and the possible risks and benefits. They are allowed to ask questions
and to choose whether or not to participate.

Confidentiality: Participants' personal information has been kept confidential and not
disclosed without their permission. I took appropriate measures to protect participants'
privacy and ensure that their data is secure.

Risk of harm: I ensure that the study does not pose any physical, emotional, or psychological
harm to the participants. Any potential risks are identified and minimized.

Inclusion and diversity: Included participants from diverse backgrounds and avoided any bias
or discrimination based on factors such as race, gender, or ethnicity.

Researchers should follow ethical guidelines and principles that are relevant to their field and
location. For example, in the United States, the guidelines for ethical research involving
human subjects are set out in the Common Rule, which outlines the requirements for
obtaining informed consent, protecting privacy and confidentiality, and minimizing risks to
participants. Other countries and regions may have their own specific ethical guidelines.

It is critical for researchers to be aware of these guidelines and to seek guidance from an
ethics committee or IRB if they are uncertain about any aspect of the study. By following
ethical considerations, researchers can ensure that their study is conducted in a responsible
and respectful manner, and that the rights and wellness of all participants are safeguarded.

Results:

1. Age (demographic)

2. Gender (demographic)

3. Income (demographic)
Relationship between Brand Awareness and Perceived Quality

I am familiar with the brand X, Whenever I recall of shoes, brand X is one of the first that
comes to mind, X is a brand of shoes I am extremely familiar with, I am familiar with the
appearance of brand X (Logo, colour, slogan etc), Among competing shoe brands, I can
identify brand X. Rate from 1 to 5 where 1 means completely disagree and 5 means
completely agree.

Brand X offers exceptionally highquality products, Brand X offers consistent quality

products, Brand X offers very reliable products, Brand X offers products with outstanding
characteristics, Brand X is excellent value for the money, Within shoes, I think brand X is
a good buy, Considering what I would pay for brand X, I would receive far more than my
money's worth. Rate from 1 to 5 where 1 means completely disagree and 5 means
completely agree.

HO – There is no significant impact of brand awareness on Perceived Quality.

H1 – There is significant impact of brand awareness on Perceived Quality

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
a
1 .710 .503 .497 .33935
a. Predictors: (Constant), BRAND AWARENESS

ANOVAa
 Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 9.456 1 9.456 82.116 <.001b
Residual 9.328 81 .115
Total 18.784 82
a. Dependent Variable: Perceived Quality
b. Predictors: (Constant), BRAND AWARENESS

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.301 .334 3.897 <.001
BRANDAWAREN .675 .074 .710 9.062 <.001
ESS
a. Dependent Variable: Perceived Quality

The Model Summary table shows an R Square Value of .503, indicating that 50.3 of the
variation in Brand Awareness has a impact on Perceived Quality.

The Anova Table provides the F statistic (82.116) and its associated p-value (<.001). This p-
value is less than the common significance level of 0.05, indicating that the model is
statistically significant, and the predictors do significantly impact the variation in Perceived
Quality.

The Co-efficient table presents the standardized coefficients (Beta) and significance (p-value)
of independent variable. For brand awareness, the Beta is .710, and the p-value is <0.01. P-
value are less than the 0.05 significant level, indicating that independent variable has
significant impact on perceived quality.

In conclusion, based on the findings of the analysis, Hypothesis 1 is supported. The data
suggests that Brand awareness significantly influence Perceived Quality.

Relationship between Brand awareness and Brand Associations.

I am familiar with the brand X, Whenever I recall of shoes, brand X is one of the first that
comes to mind, X is a brand of shoes I am extremely familiar with, I am familiar with the
appearance of brand X (Logo, colour, slogan etc), Among competing shoe brands, I can
identify brand X. Rate from 1 to 5 where 1 means completely disagree and 5 means
completely agree.
Brand X has a better personality, Brand X is intriguing than other brands,  Brand X's
strategy have a impact on me (Like Nike's strategy to use compelling hashtags & themes to
build community or Puma's association with celebrities etc.). Rate from 1 to 5 where 1
means completely disagree and 5 means completely agree.

Ho – There is no significant effect of brand awareness on Brand Associations.

H1 – There is significant effect of brand awareness on Brand Associations.

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
1 .489 a
.239 .229 .50333
a. Predictors: (Constant), BRAND AWARENESS

ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 6.434 1 6.434 25.396 <.001b
Residual 20.521 81 .253
Total 26.955 82
a. Dependent Variable: Brand Association
b. Predictors: (Constant), BRAND AWARENESS

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.514 .495 3.058 .003
BRANDAWAREN .557 .110 .489 5.039 <.001
ESS
a. Dependent Variable: Brand Association

The Model Summary table shows an R Square Value of .495, indicating that 49.5 of the
variation in Brand Awareness has a impact on Brand Association

The Anova Table provides the F statistic (25.396) and its associated p-value (<.001). This p-
value is less than the common significance level of 0.05, indicating that the model is
statistically significant, and the predictors do significantly impact the variation in Brand
Association.

The Co-efficient table presents the standardized coefficients (Beta) and significance (p-value)
of independent variable. For brand awareness, the Beta is .489, and the p-value is <0.01. P-
value are less than the 0.05 significant level, indicating that independent variable has
significant impact on Brand Association.

In conclusion, based on the findings of the analysis, Hypothesis 1 is supported. The data
suggests that Brand awareness significantly influence Brand Association.

Relationship between Perceived Quality and Brand association with Brand Loyalty

I believe myself to be committed to brand X, Brand X would be my primary option when

it comes to shoes, I am unlikely to purchase other brands of shoes if brand X is readily
accessible at the store. Rate from 1 to 5 where 1 means completely disagree and 5 means
completely agree.

Ho – There is no significant impact of Perceived Quality and Brand Associations on Brand

Loyalty

H1 – There is significant impact of Perceived Quality and Brand Associations on Brand

Loyalty.

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
a
1 .629 .396 .388 .42570
b
2 .645 .416 .401 .42119
a. Predictors: (Constant), PerceivedQuality
b. Predictors: (Constant), PerceivedQuality, BrandAssociation
 ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 9.618 1 9.618 53.073 <.001b
Residual 14.679 81 .181
Total 24.297 82
2 Regression 10.105 2 5.053 28.481 <.001c
Residual 14.192 80 .177
Total 24.297 82
a. Dependent Variable: BrandLoyalty
b. Predictors: (Constant), PerceivedQuality
c. Predictors: (Constant), PerceivedQuality, BrandAssociation

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.219 .426 2.863 .005
PerceivedQualit .716 .098 .629 7.285 <.001
y
2 (Constant) 1.019 .438 2.325 .023
PerceivedQualit .615 .115 .541 5.371 <.001
y
BrandAssociati .158 .096 .167 1.657 .101
on
a. Dependent Variable: BrandLoyalty

The Model Summary table shows an R Square Value of .416, indicating that 41.6 of the
variation in brand association and perceived quality has a impact on brand loyalty

The Anova Table provides the F statistic (28.481) and its associated p-value (<.001). This p-
value is lower than the common significance level of 0.05, indicating that the model is
statistically significant, and the predictors do significantly impact the variation in Brand
Loyalty.

The Co-efficient table presents the standardized coefficients (Beta) and significance (p-value)
of independent variable. For perceived quality, the Beta is .541, and the p-value is <0.01. P-
value are less than the 0.05 significant level, indicating that independent variable has
significant impact on Brand Loyalty. For Brand Association, the Beta is .167, and the p-value
is .101. P-value are more than the 0.05 significant level, indicating that independent variable
don’t have significant impact on Brand Loyalty.

In conclusion, based on the outcomes of the analysis, Hypothesis 1 is supported. The data
suggests that Perceived Quality and Brand Association significantly influence Brand Loyalty.

Impact of Brand Loyalty on Price Premium

Even though there is a price change, I would still buy the product from Brand X? Rate from 1
to 5 where 1 means completely disagree and 5 means completely agree.

Ho – There is no significant effect of Brand Loyalty on Price Premium

H1 – There is significant effect of Brand Loyalty on Price Premium

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
a
1 .275 .076 .064 1.22836
a. Predictors: (Constant), BrandLoyalty

ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 9.999 1 9.999 6.627 .012b
Residual 122.219 81 1.509
Total 132.219 82
a. Dependent Variable: PricePremium
b. Predictors: (Constant), BrandLoyalty

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 5.397 1.080 4.996 <.001
BrandLoyalt -.642 .249 -.275 -2.574 .012
y
a. Dependent Variable: PricePremium

The Model Summary table shows an R Square Value of .076, indicating that 7.6 of the
variation in Brand Loyalty has a impact on Price Premium.

The Anova Table provides the F statistic (6.627) and its associated p-value (.012). This p-
value is more than the common significance level of 0.05, indicating that the model is
statistically not significant, and the predictors do not significantly impact the variation in
Price Premium

The Co-efficient table presents the standardized coefficients (Beta) and significance (p-value)
of independent variable. For brand loyalty, the Beta is -.275, and the p-value is .012. P-value
ir more than the 0.05 significant level, indicating that independent variable doesn’t have
significant effect on Price Premium.

In conclusion, based on the outcomes of the analysis, Hypothesis 0 is supported. The data
suggests that Brand awareness significantly influence Brand Association.

Impact of Brand Loyalty on Brand Extension

Not only shoes, you think the other products of Brand X are a excellent purchase. Rate from
1 to 5 where 1 means completely disagree and 5 means completely agree.

Ho – There is no significant effect of Brand Loyalty on Brand Extension

H1 – There is significant effect of Brand Loyalty on Brand Extension

 Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
a
1 .300 .090 .079 .85600
a. Predictors: (Constant), BrandLoyalty

ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5.884 1 5.884 8.030 .006b
Residual 59.351 81 .733
Total 65.235 82
a. Dependent Variable: BrandExtension
b. Predictors: (Constant), BrandLoyalty

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.735 .753 2.305 .024
BrandLoyalt .492 .174 .300 2.834 .006
y
a. Dependent Variable: BrandExtension
The Model Summary table shows an R Square Value of .090, indicating that 9.0 of the
variation in Brand Loyalty has a impact on Brand Extension.

The Anova Table provides the F statistic (8.030) and its associated p-value (0.006). This p-
value is less than the common significance level of 0.05, indicating that the model is
statistically significant, and the predictors do significantly impact the variation in Brand
Extension

The Co-efficient table presents the standardized coefficients (Beta) and significance (p-value)
of independent variable. For brand loyalty, the Beta is -.300, and the p-value is .006. P-value
is less than the 0.05 significant level, indicating that independent variable have significant
effect on Brand Extension.

In conclusion, based on the outcomes of the analysis, Hypothesis 1 is supported. The data
suggests that Brand awareness significantly influence Brand Association.
 Perceived
Price
Quality Premium

Brand Brand Loyalty

Awareness

Brand
Brand
Associations Extension

Discussion and implications:

There is minimal empirical research in the brand equity literature that concentrates on the
links between consumer-based brand equity and consumer responses. The current research
suggests and to further understand these relationships, put a model to the test. This design
evaluated how the fundamental characteristics of brand equity can contribute here. It also
investigated the effect of overall brand equity on how much a consumer want to pay price
premium, attitudes regarding brand extensions.

According to the findings, there is a sequence of events in the building of brand equity. First,
brand awareness has a beneficial impact on perceived quality and brand connotations.

Second, two of the study's brand association elements, perceived value and brand personality,
had a effective and optimistic influence on brand loyalty. In contrast, organisational
affiliations have little effect on brand loyalty. Contrary to popular assumption, perceived
quality has a negative impact on brand loyalty. This outcome is in line with previous research
(e.g., Bravo et al., 2007). Finally, with the exception of brand personality associations,
perceived quality, brand loyalty, and brand associations all improve total brand equity.
Despite the fact that all of these attributes contribute to greater brand equity, it was
determined that brand loyalty has a dominant impact on brand equity, which is in line with
previous studies.
The data further support the notion that brand equity has a favourable effect on customer
responses. The vast majority of articles imply that brand equity has a positive impact on
consumer responses. This study found that the price premium buyers are willing to pay for a
brand is positively connected to its overall brand equity. Similarly, total brand equity
increases customers' perceptions of potential brand extensions. Brand equity, according to
this viewpoint, not only promotes greater acceptance of brand extensions, but it also guards
against potential dilution or unfavourable effects. Finally, brand equity enhances brand
preference as well as purchasing intentions.

The proposed general approach proved empirically across the focal nations. There were only
a few differences. The models' agreement shows that the correlations between the brand
equity characteristics and the influence of overall brand equity on customer response was
similar.

Managerial implications:

These findings have significant research and managerial consequences. Secondly, the
methodology improves brand equity addressed research few of the deficiencies of previous
consumer-based brand equity studies. It also tackles the absence of knowledge surrounding
the number of dimensions, as earlier research has not determined whether awareness and
associations are different dimensions. Furthermore, it addresses the repercussions of linkages
between brand equity components.

This research also helps develop a greater comprehension of the process of generating brand
equity from an international perspective, which is crucial. First, since there are more brands
competing in foreign markets, and second, because there are few studies that examine brand
management and brand equity from a global standpoint (Wong and Merrilees, 2007). The
findings provide concrete proof of the advantages that brand equity can provide to
enterprises. Brand equity is a good predictor of positive consumer reaction. As a result of the
findings, firms now have concrete proof of the advantages that brand equity may deliver.
Positive consumer reaction is well predicted by brand equity. Based on the outcomes,
managers can receive helpful insights into brand building initiatives. The data show that the
various dimensions of brand equity are intertwined. This is in line with traditional consumer
decision-making models and brand-building concepts that support for a hierarchy of impacts.
Capturing the interplay between these components, as Lehmann et al. (2008) point out, is a
important task. Managers should begin by increasing brand awareness to be able to increase
perceived quality and establish positive brand associations. Any influencing drivers,
including marketing mix actions, should be implemented to broaden one’s understanding.
One sort of brand linkage should also be given special consideration: perceived value. In
various theories, this variable is regarded a basic component of consumer-based brand equity
(Netemeyer et al., 2004) and has the largest impact on brand loyalty. Ultimately, brand
loyalty contributes the most positively to overall brand equity, thus marketing management
should make customer loyalty one of its top priorities. Finally, brand managers should take
note of the comparative analysis. Marketing brands globally has been a widespread activity
for many businesses as a result of globalisation processes.

One type of brand linking that should be given specific care is perceived value. This variable
is recognised as a fundamental component of consumer-based brand equity in several theories
(Netemeyer et al., 2004) and has the greatest impact on brand loyalty. Finally, brand loyalty
adds the most favourably to overall brand equity, thus marketing management should
prioritise customer loyalty. Finally, brand managers should keep the comparison analysis in
mind. As a outcome of globalisation processes, numerous businesses have become involved
in global brand marketing.

Limitations and future research:

The current study has some shortcomings that point to future research options. First and
foremost, this study was undertaken in two distinct countries: the United Kingdom and Spain.

When attempting to generalise findings to other contexts, they must be evaluated with
caution. Future research should investigate how findings might be used in different countries
and traditions. Similarly, in order to determine whether the results are generalizable, more
study should explore the degree to which the examined relationships may arise in other
goods, services, and brands. Second, more brand equity outcomes could be incorporated into
the framework to gain a better knowledge of the brand equity generation process and its
repercussions. Furthermore, the findings are based on consumer perceptions. Future research
could connect these perceptual assessments to behavioural outcomes or observable indicators,
and hence to corporate financial performance.

Cross-cultural comparison: Conducting similar studies in different countries and traditions

can help to establish the generalizability of the findings. Future studies can investigate
whether the same relationships exist in different cultural contexts and whether or not there are
any distinctions in the factors that contribute to brand equity.
Extension of the model: The present study focused on a specific set of results of brand equity.
Future research can expand the model to include additional outcomes such as customer
loyalty, brand awareness, and perceived quality. This will provide a more comprehensive
understanding of the brand equity creation process and its consequences.

Behavioural outcomes and financial performance: In addition to consumers' perceptions,

future studies can also link perceptual measures of brand equity with behavioural outcomes
such as purchase behaviour, word-of-mouth communication, and brand switching.
Additionally, examining the association between brand equity and financial performance can
provide insights into the economic impact of brand equity on firms.

Other products, services, and brands: While the present study focused on a specific product
category and brand, future research can investigate the applicability of the findings to other
product categories, services, and brands. This will provide a more general understanding of
the factors that contribute to brand equity creation and its consequences across different
industries and product types.
REFERENCES
References:

Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity. Capitalizing on the Value of Brand Name, The
Free Press, New York, NY.

Aaker, D.A. (1996), “Measuring brand equity across products and markets”, California
Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 102-20.

Agarwal, M.K. and Rao, V.R. (1996), “An empirical comparison of consumer-based
measures of brand equity”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 237-347.

Atilgan, E., Aksoy, S. and Akinci, S. (2005), “Determinants of the brand equity. A verification
approach in the beverage industry in Turkey”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 237-48.

Bravo, R., Fraj, E. and Martı´nez, E. (2007), “Family as a source of consumer-based brand
equity”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 188-99.

Broyles, S.A., Schumann, D.W. and Leingpibul, T. (2009), “Examining brand equity
antecedent/consequence relationships”, The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol.
17 No. 2, pp. 145-61.

Broyles, S.A., Leingpibul, T., Ross, R.H. and Foster, B.M. (2010), “Brand equity’s
antecedent/consequence relationships in cross-cultural settings”, Journal of Product and
Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 159-69.

Buil, I., de Chernatony, L. and Martı´nez, E. (2008), “A crossnational validation of the

consumer-based brand equity scale”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 17 No.
6, pp. 384-92.

Byrne, B.M. (2006), Structural Equation Modeling with EQS. Basic Concepts, Applications,
and Programming, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Cadogan, J. (2010), “Comparative, cross-cultural, and crossnational research: a comment on
good and bad practice”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 601-5.

Chaudhuri, A. (1995), “Brand equity or double jeopardy?”, Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 26-32.

Chaudhuri, A. (1999), “Does brand loyalty mediate brand equity outcomes?”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 136-46. Chen, K.J. (2001), “Using free
association to examine the relationship between the characteristics of brand associations and
brand equity”, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 439-51.

Christodoulides, G. and de Chernatony, L. (2010), “Consumer-based brand equity

conceptualisation and measurement”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 52 No.
1, pp. 43-66.

Cobb-Walgren, C., Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N. (1995), “Brand equity, brand preference and
purchase intent”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 25-40.

Craig, C.S. and Douglas, S.P. (2005), International Marketing Research, 3rd ed., John Wiley
& Sons, Chichester. Czellar, S. (2003), “Consumer attitude towards brand extensions: an
integrative model and research propositions”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 97-115.

Dean, D.H. (2004), “Evaluating potential brand associations through conjoint analysis and
market simulation”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 506-13.

03_I Buil, 2013, The influence of brand equity on consumer responses

ANNEXURE