View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE): E-Journals

European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org

ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2016

The Impact Of Brand Awareness On Market Brand Performance

Of Service Brands: Contextual Consideration of Kenya’s Banking
Industry
Peary Kilei1*; Dr. Mike Iravo (PhD)2 ; .Dr. Jane Omwenga (PhD)3

1. Assistant lecturer, School Of Business and Economics, Department of Management, Mount Kenya
University, Mombasa Campus-Kenya, P.O Box 98640-80100, Mombasa-Kenya
2. Principal, College of Human Resource Development, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and
Technology, Westland Campus, P.O Box 62000-0200, Nairobi, Kenya
3. Lecturer, College of Human Resource Development, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and
Technology, Westland Campus, P.O Box 62000-0200-Nairobi-Kenya.
ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of brand awareness on market brand performance in the
services sector within the context of a developing economy, in particular the banking industry in Kenya. The
study was necessitated by lack of empirical evidence from a developing economy's context linking brand
awareness measures from the perspective of the customer and brand market performance measures from the
brand managers' perspective.The study adopted apositivist, quantitative research design, with cross-sectional
field survey data collection method. Data were collected from stratifies, randomly selected sample of 347
consumers of financial services of 35 commercial banks in Kenya and 35 senior managers of these
banks.Correlation analysis was conducted to investigate the impact of brand awareness variables on market
brand performance. The study finds that brand recall and brand recognition are positively and significantly
correlated, and that brand recall and overall brand awareness are significant predictors of market brand
performance. However, brand recognition has no significant correlation with market brand performance.These
results suggest that marketing/brand managers should continue to develop and implement effective brand
awareness campaigns in order to attract and enhance consumers’ attention towards their brands and thus
enhance market brand performance.

Keywords: Brand Awareness; Brand Recall; Brand Recognition; Market Brand, Brand Performance.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The success of a brand in the market is reflected in the market performance of the brand (Ho&Merrilees,
2008).Consequently, attribution of brand success to brand equity has triggered most business firms in Business-
to-Consumer (B2C) environments to focuson developing and maintaining strong brands as a key element of their
marketing strategy (Aaker, 2002; Keller & Lehmann, 2006). Strong brand equity signals favorable customer
associations toward a brand, which distinguishes a brand from that of the competitors (Keller, 2008). Moreover,
strong brand equity is critical as its perceptions affect both financial and non-financial performance of an
organization (Shamma& Hassan, 2011), resulting in positive market performance reflected in market share and
leadership.

With the contemporary marketplace afloat with a wide assortment of service brands, keeping pace with the
diverse brands in the market becomesa challenge for the simple consumer (Suresh, Monahan & Naresh 2012).
Nevertheless, business firms develop brands with the prime intention of attracting and retaining consumers. At
the centre of branding strategy is enhancing brand awareness, whose special role in driving brand equity in
business markets has been recognized (Davis, Golicic, & Marquardt, 2008). It is argued that effective brand
awareness campaigns tend to attract consumers’ attention and convince consumers to venture out to use the
service repetitively, leading to increased sales for the company (McKee 2010).Thus, for many business firms, the
creation of brand awareness- that is, the ability to recognize or recall a brand – is a critical element of branding
strategy (Celi& Eagle, 2008; Munoz & Kumar, 2004). However, information on whether investments in
enhancing brand awareness actually pay dividends for service organizations in B2C markets remains
inconclusive.

92
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2016

Whilst there have been empirical researches focusing the various dimensions of customer-based brand equity
(CBBE) including brand awareness, the very studies have underlined the necessity for continued empirical
research on the relationship on brand equity measures and brand performance metrics. Previous studies that have
examined the link between brand awareness and brand market performance measures include Homburg,
Klarmann and Schmitt (2010) who examined the impact of brand awareness on firm performance; Huang and
Sarigollu (2012) explored the association between awareness and market outcome, brand loyalty and the
marketing mix; Kim et al. (2013) investigated the relationship between brand awareness and brand performance
in the hotel industry and; Baldaufet al.'s (2013) investigation of performance consequences of brand equity
management in the value chain tile industry.

Notably, most of the previous studies on the effect of brand awareness on brand market performance were
conducted in Western countries were and mostly concentrated in product markets. Furthermore, despite the fact
that studying brand equity using either a consumer-based or financially-based approach has yielded valuable
insights on the different ways that brand equity can be measured and managed, there is a dearth of empirical
research that treat financially-based metrics as exogenous to CBBEmetrics such as brand awareness, yet there is
a general consensus that a brand’s performance in the marketplace is determined in part by consumer
perceptions, behavioural intentions, and attitudes toward the brand (Baldaufet al.,2013). Therefore, the focus of
this study was to understand the link between brand awareness measures from the perspective of the customer
and brand market performance metrics from the brand managers' perspective within the financial services sector
in the context of a developing economy, particularly Kenya.

2.0 BRANDING IN KENYA'SBANKING SERVICES INDUSTRY

Branding of financial services in Kenya is relatively weak, with many brands lacking saliency and true customer
based brand equity. For commercial banks, the challenge is even bigger, more so with regard to maintaining the
consistency of a bank’s brand and customer experience as well as remaining relevant to customers’ specific
needs. Yet, marketers have to grapple with the pressure of justifying their marketing strategies and actions in a
banking industry that continues to experience strong competitive pressures resulting from the integration and
globalization of financial markets, and extensive use of e-commerce to deliver services and create new products,
thus differentiating industry players along market performance. More worrying is the fact that even for
commercial banks that have openly exhibited aggressiveness in brand building activities, they still suffer from a
lack of guidance due to a limited number of published studies concerning the transformation of branding
strategies into CBBE and its effectiveness in creating market brand value. It is possible that brand building
strategies among commercial banks may not be successful in creating value for the brands in the market.

3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

3.1Brand Awareness
Brand awareness is the first and fundamental attribute of customer brand equity, and sometimes it is
underestimated component of brand equity (Tong & Hawley, 2009). It is an important indicator of consumers’
knowledge about a brand, the strength of a brand’s presence in the consumers’ minds and how easily that
knowledge can be retrieved from memory (O’Guinnet al., 2009). Brand awareness is the probability that
consumers will easily recognise the existence and availability of a company’s product or service (Mowen&
Minor 2011). Implicitly, brand awareness precedes building brand equity in the consumer mind set (Huang and
Sarigollu, 2011).

There are two main types of brand awareness, namely ‘aided awareness’ and ‘top of the mind awareness’ (Farris
et al., 2010). Aided awareness occurs when a consumer is provided with a list of brand names and they recognise
the brand from the given set whereas ‘top of the mind awareness’ occurs when the name of the brand is
automatically recollected because the consumer very promptly associates the brand with the product category
(Keller, 2008). Moreover, brand awareness also comprises brand recognition, which is the ability of consumers
to confirm that they have previously been exposed to a particular brand, and brand recall, which reflects the
ability of consumers to name a particular brand when given the product/service category, category need or some
other similar cue such asbrand logos (Liu et al., 2010).

The key assumption is that brand awareness drives market brand performance through two mechanisms: it
reduces buyer information costs and buyer-perceived risk (Erdem&Swait, 2008). In the first mechanism, the
reduction of information costs for the buying customer reduces the resource requirements associated with

93
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2016

collecting the information necessary for a purchase decision because the buyer may resort to extrinsic cues (Van
Osselaer& Alba, 2011). In this context, brand awareness may function as an important cue and acts as a strong
signal of service quality and service provider commitment (MacDonald & Sharp, 2011). This is premised on the
belief that high levels of service provider investments in areas such as exhibitions, advertising, or packaging are
usually necessary to build high brand awareness. Brand awareness may also signal presence and substance
because high awareness levels imply to the buyer that the firm has been in business for a long time, that the
firm's products/services are widely distributed, and that the services/products associated with the brand are
purchased by many other buyers (Aaker, 2011).

The second mechanism refers to the reduction of perceived risk. It is likely that decision-makers prefer to buy a
brand associated with high awareness levels because it reduces the risk of their being blamed if the decision
turns out to have been a mistake. The buyer may well assume that the brands they know well are likely to be
purchased by many other buyers (Aaker, 2011). Therefore, they have reason to expect that the purchase of a
well-known brand will not result in any competitive disadvantage. At the same time, brand awareness signals a
high service/product quality. Thus, purchasing high awareness brands is also associated with reduced functional
risk for the customer, which further influences brand choice.

3.2Market Brand Performance

Extant marketing literature suggests that a universal brand performance measure does not exist, probably
because no single brand performance metric is likely to be perfect (Farris et al., 2010). A wide range of
measurements have been adopted to operationalize brand performance.Baldaufet al., (2013) considered brand
profitability performance as an index of the financial share of a brand in relation to the retailing profits,
evaluated using the profit and margin of profit while the brand market performance considers the market
demands and evaluates indices such as sale levels and market share. Aaker (2006) proposed some brand
performance indices related to the evaluation of market behaviour: market share, price and distribution coverage
and argued that brand performance measurement using the market share often provides a widespread and
sensible reflection of the condition of a brand or its customers. According to Aaker (2006), when a brand has a
relative advantage in consumer’s mind, its market share should increase or at least not decrease. Keller and
Lehman (2013) operationalized brand performance in terms of profitability, price premium, price elasticity,
market share, cost structure and success in category extension. Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2011) considered
relative price and market share as the outcomes of brand performance. Generally, brand performance is often
taken into account as the outcome of brand equity model and defined as the economic results that the producers
with strong brands wishes to achieve (Tran, 2006).

Keller and Lehman (2013) consider the price elasticity, price premium, market share, cost structure, profitability
and the success in category extension as the main indices of brand performance measurement. According to their
research, the brand premium is in fact the added price that a customer pays for the brand of a product and the
price elasticity is the increase or decrease of brand demand as a result of rise or decline in prices. Market share is
an index that measures the success of marketing programs in brand unit sales. Cost structure or the ability to
reduce the expenditures of marketing programs of a brand is as a result of the prevailing customer mindset. In
other words, because customers already have favorable opinions and knowledge about a brand, any aspect of the
marketing program is likely to be more effective for the same expenditure level. In addition, according to Keller
and Lehman (2013), the profitability and the development of opportunities are other factors of performance
measurement and demonstrate the brand success in supporting line and category extensions and new product
launches to the related categories. It indicates the potential ability of a brand for development and increase of
income flow (Keller & Lehman, 2013).

3.3Brand Awareness and Market Brand Performance

Huang and Sarigollu (2012) investigated how brand awareness relates to market outcome, brand equity and the
marketing mix by combining survey data with real-market data to investigate the relationship between brand
awareness and market outcome and the relationship between brand awareness and brand equity. These authors
use brand sales and market share to measure brand market outcome and adopts measures of brand market
performance, that is, revenue premium due to its ability to offer a more complete view than other brand market
performance measures, such as market share or price premium and its consideration for both the price and the
sales of a brand as well as competitors’ performance, which is consistent with brand equity which symbolizes the
strength of the brand in the marketplace relative to competitors. Using both regression and cross-prediction
analyses to test whether brand awareness is an antecedent of market outcome, the results of Huang and
Sarigollu's (2012) study established that a positive correlation exists between brand awareness and brand market

94
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2016

outcome. Specifically, there was positive correlation between brand awareness and sales is and between brand
awareness and market share at p <.0001.

In other related studies of the relationship between brand awareness and brand performance, Kim et al. (2013)
using sales as market performance outcome in the hotel industry establishes that brand awareness has a positive
relationship with market performance, and that significant differences in brand awareness are found between
high and low market performance hotels. Baldaufet al.'s (2013) investigation of performance consequences of
brand equity management in the value chain tile industry using profit and sales as market performance outcomes
established that brand awareness is the antecedent of brand profitability and sales. Kim and Kum (2010), in a
study of the relationship between brand equity and firms' performance using sales as a market performance
outcome in the restaurant industry report that brand awareness has a positive relationship to market performance.
Similarly, Kim and Kim (2013) using sales as a market outcome in hotel and restaurant industry report that brand
awareness has a positive relationship to market performance. Srinivasan et al. (2008) use sales as a market
performance outcome in the consumer-packaged goods industry and report that brand awareness could explain
for approximately 3% of the variations in sales. Based on the foregoing literature, the following hypotheses were
proposed:

H1: There is a significant and positive relationship between brand recall and brand recognition
H2: There is a significant and positive relationship between brand recall and market brand performance
H3: There is a significant and positive relationship between brand recognition and market brand performance
H4: There is a significant and positive relationship between overall brand awareness and market brand
performance

4.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A positivist,quantitative research design utilizing a cross-section filed survey method was employed to examine
the impact ofbrand awareness on market brand performance (Berry, 2011; Martenson, 2007; Norazah, 2013).
The use of the quantitative approach in this study was based on its suitability in test for relationships using
hypotheses as the study was primarily designed to examine hypothesised relationships (Glasow 2005). The
cross-sectional field survey method was preferred due to the fact that data was collected from a large group of
study participants at one point in time with minimum investment in developing and administering the survey
(Zikmundet al. 2009).

Target population comprised 25.5 million account holdersconsumers of various financial services of 43
commercial banks in Kenya as well as senior managers of these commercial banks (CBK, 2014). The choice of
the banks' services consumers as the study's target population was premised on the fact that CBBE, one side of
brand equity relates to brand strength which is the set of associations and behaviors on the part of the brand's
customers, channel members, and parent corporation that permits the brand to enjoy sustainable and
differentiated competitive advantages. On the other hand, the views of the branch managers on the market
performance of the brand to a large extent represented brand value, the financial outcome of management's
ability to leverage brand strength via tactical and strategic actions in providing superior current and future profits
and lowered risks for the brand/organization. Thus, the sampling frame was developed from a list of all
customers of 80 branches of the 43 commercial bank branches in Mombasa City and senior managers all the 43
commercial banks.An optimum sample of 384 account holders that was billed to fulfill the requirements of
efficiency, representativeness (Kothari, 2010), reliability and flexibility, was targeted based on cost, accepted
confidence level and size of the population. Probability proportionate to size sampling methods were used to
allocate the study's bank customers' sample to commercial banks such that banks with larger populations of
account holders/customers were allocated commensurate portions of the sample. The ultimate participants in the
study were picked through simple random sampling techniques.

Quantitative primary data were collected by use of two sets of structured questionnaires to control for common
method variance (Podsakoffet al., 2013).The first set of the questionnaire measuring brand awarenesswas
administered to by the banks’ individual customers while the second set of the questionnaire measuring market
brand performance was responded to by the senior managers of the commercial banks.Both sets of bank
customers' and managers' questionnaires were divided into two sections each. For the bank customers'
questionnaire,Section A elicited general and demographic information of the respondents including age, gender,
educational qualification and experience with the bank in years.The questions in Section B elicited information
on brand awareness and were adapted from Yooet al. (2011) measuring both brand recall and brand recognition.
For the bank managers' questionnaire, Section A collected general and biographical information about the

95
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2016

respondents while Section B sought information on market brand performance with items adapted from Coleman
et al. (2011). With the exception of Sections A in both questionnaires, Likert scales anchored by strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) were used in the questionnaires' Section B.

The bank customers' questionnaire was pretested on a convenient sample of 40 respondentsin order to identify
and eliminate problems, determine the time for the completion of the questionnaire (Presser et al., 2004) and
establish early reliability estimates. Feedback from both the pre-test was used to make minor revisions to the
questionnaire (Radhakrishna 2007) before the actual survey was conducted. Thereafter, the
customersquestionnaire was administeredto respondents at their branches during the working hours over a period
of three weeks while the managers' questionnaire was administered online.

5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Sample Profile

Seven main variables were used in order to describe the bank customers' sample characteristics: sex; nationality;
age; level of education; type of bank account operated by the respondent; experience in years of operating the
bank account and; average monthly income. The final bank customers'sample had a higher number of male (236)
respondents than female (111), representing a ratio of 68% and 32%, respectively. An overwhelming 81% of the
respondents were Kenyans while 19% reported being non-Kenyans. The modal age group was 35-44 years to
which 42.4% of the respondents belonged, followed by the 25-34 age group that covered 36.3% of the
respondents. Slightly less than 2% of the respondents were above the age of 55 years.

In terms of the respondents’ level of education, the highest percentage (35.2%) had secondary school level of
education, 26.8% were diploma holders, 24.5% were undergraduate degree graduates, 12.7% primary school
drop outs and less than 1% had post graduate education qualifications. With regard to the type of account
operated, almost as many respondents operated the savings account (47%) as those who operated the current
account type (47.6%), while the lesser of 5.4% of the respondents were corporate account holders. Majority of
the bank customers (61.1%) had operated their respective accounts for 1-5 years while only 5.2% had reported
having operated their respective accounts for over 10 years. In regard to the level of income, the highest
percentage of the respondents (43.5%) earned 50,000 - 100,000 shillings, 33.4% earned less than 50,000
shillings, 18.2% earned from 100,001 to 150,000 shillings while 4.9% earned over 150,000 shillings.

As for the bank managers, the three main variables that were used to describe their characteristics were sex, level
of education and experience working with their respective banks. An overwhelming 77.1% were male compared
to 22.9% female bank managers. In terms of highest level of education attained, 71.4% had bachelor's degrees
while 28.6% had masters' degrees. Slightly over half of the bank managers (54.2%) had 1-5 years' working
experience with their respective banks, 42.9% had worked with their banks for 6 - 10 years while a paltry 2.9%
had over 10 years' working experience with their respective banks.

5.2 Results of Descriptive Analysis of the Study Variables

5.2.1Means and Standard Deviations of Brand Awareness Measurement Scale
The brand awareness scale of consisted of 8 items reflecting the customers’ ability to recall and recognize the
brand (commercial bank) as reflected by their ability to identify their bank under different conditions and to link
the brand name, logo and symbol to certain associations in memory (Keller, 2013). Based on the mean scores for
each item (Table 1), the banks' customers demonstrated their agreement that they could quickly recall the symbol
or logo of their respective banks (M=3.80; S.D = 0.915) as they knew how the colours of their banks look like
(M=3.76: S.D =0.964). Additionally, they also agreed that whenever they think of their favourite bank, the
particular bank comes to mind quickly (M=3.66; S.D = 1.003); when someone talks about banking, their
favourite bank always comes to mind (M=3.65; S.D = 1.038) and; among their respective banks' competitors,
they know what their bank looks like (M=3.65; S.D = 1.081). Further, the customers of commercial banks in
Kenya fundamentally agreed that their respective bank was the only bank they recall whenever they need to
make a decision on financial/banking services (M=3.57, S.D = .984) and that they can recognize the bank in
comparison with other competing banks in the banking sector (M=3.51; S.D = 1.027).

96
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2016

Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations of the Brand Awareness Scale Items
Item No. Questionnaire item description Mean Std.
Dev
BAW_1 I have no difficulty in imagining this bank in my mind. 3.32 1.340
BAW_2 I can recognize this bank in comparison with other competing banks in the banking 3.51 1.027
sector
BAW_3 This bank is the only bank I recall whenever I need to make a decision on 3.57 .984
financial/banking services
BAW_4 I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of this bank 3.80 .915
BAW_5 I know how the colours of my bank look like. 3.76 .964
BAW_6 When I think of my favourite bank, this bank comes to mind quickly 3.66 1.003
BAW_7 When someone talks about banking, my favourite bank always comes to mind. 3.65 1.038
BAW_8 Among its competitors, I know what my bank looks like 3.65 1.081

5.2.2Means and Stand Deviations of Market Brand PerformanceMeasurement Scale

The final market brand performance measurement scale comprised 6subjective scale items (2customer, 2
financial and 2 employee measures). The respondents were asked to state the extent to which they agreed that
over the past three years, that on average, their banks had performed significantly better than their main
competitor on each of the 6 performance measurement items. The results (Table 2) indicated that the bank
managers tended to agree strongly that on average, their respective banks had performed significantly better than
their main competitors with respect to market share based on revenue (M=4.43; SD=0.61) andemployee
retention (M=4.40; SD=0.50). In addition, the bank managers agreed that their banks had performed better with
respect tocustomer awareness (M=4.37; SD=0.60), employee satisfaction (M=4.37; SD=0.49) and relative
customer satisfaction (M=4.31; SD=0.50). Theyfurtheragreed that on average their respective banks had
performed significantly better than their main competitors with regard to net profit (M=4.26; SD=0.56).

Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations of Market Brand Performance Measurement Scale
Item No. Questionnaire item description Mean Std. Deviation
MBP_1 Relative customer satisfaction 4.31 .530
MBP_2 Market share (based on revenue) 4.43 .608
MBP_3 Net profit 4.26 .561
MBP_4 Customer awareness 4.37 .598
MBP_5 Employee satisfaction 4.37 .490
MBP_6 Employee retention 4.40 .497

5.2.3 Reliability Analysis

Table 3 presents the initial reliability examination of brand awarenessand market brand performance
measurement scales.

Table 3: Brand Awareness and Market Brand Performance- Item-Total Correlation Statistics
Item No. Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Cronbach's Alpha
Deleted
Brand Awareness
BAW_1 .520 .817 0.827
BAW_2 .623 .798
BAW_3 .524 .811
BAW_4* .428 .822
BAW_5 .561 .806
BAW_6 .613 .799
BAW_7 .624 .797
BAW_8 .548 .808

Market Brand Performance

MBP_1 .562 .754 0.790
MBP_2 .507 .769
MBP_3 .601 .744
MBP_4 .477 .776
MBP_5 .608 .745
MBP_6 .519 .764
Note: *Item was deleted

97
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2016

The Cronbach alpha coefficients were calculated in SPSS 23.0 along with item-to-total correlations (ITC).
Straub (1989) states that high correlations between alternative measures or large Cronbach alphas are usually
signs that the measures are reliable. Whilst a standard cut-off point for the alpha coefficient seems to be not
agreed upon, the generally agreed upon lower limit for Cronbach alpha is .70, although it may decrease to .60
(Hair et al., 2010) or even .50 (Nunnally, 1978) in exploratory research. The Cronbach alphas of each
measurement scale in this study are shown to be above 0.70, showing a high degree of internal consistency. The
brand awareness scale shows an alpha value at 0.83, while market brand performance indicates an alpha value of
0.79. While one item was deleted from the brand awareness measurement scales, for market brand performance,
the ITC values indicated that theCronbach alpha value would degrade considerably if any of the 6 items were to
be removed. This implies that the six items were an adequate measure of market brand performance. The item
was based on ITC of less than .50 (Hair et al., 2010).

5.3Exploratory Factor Analysis

The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to identify underlying dimensions of brand awareness
measurementscale. The latent root criterion (eigenvalue) of 1.0 was used for factor inclusion and a factor loading
of 0.40 was used as benchmark to include items for each factor. The appropriateness of factor analysis was
determined by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (value of KMO =0.748) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett's test
of sphericity ((χ2 = 1144.68, df = 21, p= .000). Results showed that two factors were derived from 7 items of
brand awareness measurement scale, which explained 60.5% of the variance. Based on the information of
loadings and content of the factors, the factors derived were labeled as brand recall (eigenvalue = 3.436, α =
0.827) and brand recognition (eigenvalue = 1.509, α = 0.833)as shown in Table 4. The properties of these two
constructs of brand awareness were tested with SEM procedure (Hairet al., 2006).

Table 4: EFA, Factor Loadings, Eigen Valuesand Cronbach’s Alpha of Brand Awareness
Factor
Brand Brand
Item No. Description recall recognition
BAW_7 When someone talks about banking, my favourite bank always comes to mind. .852
BAW_6 When I think of my favourite bank, this bank comes to mind quickly .820
BAW_5 I know how the colours of my bank look like. .655
BAW_8 Among its competitors, I know what my bank looks like .641
BAW_2 I can recognize this bank in comparison with other competing banks in the .929
banking sector
BAW_1 I have no difficulty in imagining this bank in my mind. .832
BAW_3 This bank is the only bank I recall whenever I need to make a decision on .650
financial/banking services
Eigen Value 3.436 1.509
% of Variance 43.81 16.67
Cronbach's α 0.827 0.833
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.

5.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using structural equation modelling (SEM) in Analysis of
Moment Structures (AMOS) Version 23.0 in order to establish confidence in the measurement of the brand
awareness indicators.In the result of CFA analysis, the items havingrelatively low-standardized loadings on that
factor less than (0.60) (Hair et al., 2010) and/or a squared multiple correlations (R2) value below 0.4 were
unacceptable and deleted for further analysis (Joreskog&Sorbom, 1993). In addition, evaluation of model fit was
obtained by inspecting the normalized residual and modification indices (Hair et al., 2010; Holmes-Smith et al.,
2006). Residuals more than ±2.58 are indicative of a specification error in the model, whereas a modification
index value greater than 3.84 shows that the chi-square would be significantly reduced when the corresponding
parameter is estimated (Hair et al., 2010; Holmes-Smith et al., 2006).The two-factor brand awareness was
estimated using the maximum likelihood estimation method in AMOS 23.0. Given that the two constructs of
brand awareness (brand recall and brand recognition) were considered as exogenous variables, the statistical
SEM model specifies that they are intercorrelated as shown in the path diagram in Figure 1.

98
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2016

Figure 1: Measurement Model for Brand Awareness

The CFA results demonstrated that all the t-values associated with the individual items were greater than ±1.96,
hence achieving the threshold level of convergent validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). In addition,
standardized parameter estimates were all significant (P<0.001). However, as displayed in the 'Initial' column of
Table 5, all the fit statistics of the CFA except GFI (.929), NFI (.920) and CFI (.930),indicated that the initial
measurement model needed to be re-specified. The chi-square was significant (χ2=92.052; df=13; p=.000;
N=347). The AGFI was .848, RMSEA = .133, TLI = .887, and χ2/df= 7.081). Despite some fit indices indicating
that the model was not a good fit, the CFA results showed that the intercorrelation (covariance between brand
recall and brand recognition was lower than .85 (i.e. .43), demonstrating strong discriminant validity (Kline,
2005).

Inspection of the CFA results revealed that one indicator of brand recognition, 'BAW_3' had a relatively lower
standardisedloading (.65) on its latent variable/factor compared to the other indicators), accompanied by a low
R2 value (.42). In addition, although the item BAW_5 had a relatively high standardized loading of .63 on it
latent variable (brand recall), it had an R2 value less than .4 (.398) (Bollen, 1989; Mueller, 1996). Further
examination of the modification indices indicated that the indicators BAW_5 had unacceptably high value
(27.36). Based on these parameters, the two items 'BAW_3' and BAW_5 were deleted from the model.
Consequently, CFA with the two endogenous variables and 5 indicators was re-estimated to test whether or not
the collected data fit the modified model.

Table 5: CFA Results for Brand Awareness Measurement Model

Std Loadings t-Values
BAW_5 I know how the colours of my bank look like. .631 N/A
BAW_6 When I think of my favourite bank, this bank comes to mind quickly .773 11.368
BAW_7 When someone talks about banking, my favourite bank always comes to mind. .872 11.989
BAW_8 Among its competitors, I know what my bank looks like .694 10.530
BAW_1 I have no difficulty in imagining this bank in my mind. .830 N/A
I can recognize this bank in comparison with other competing banks in the banking .933 16.717
BAW_2
sector
This bank is the only bank I recall whenever I need to make a decision on .648 12.868
BAW_3
financial/banking services

Goodness of Fit Statistics Initial Re-specified

Chi-square (χ2) o f estimate model 92.052 (df=13; p=.000) 13.393 (df = 4, P = .010)
χ2/df 7.081 3.348
Goodness-of-fit (GFI) .929 .986
Adjusted Goodness-of-fit Index (AGFI) .848 .946
Normed Fit Index (NFI) .920 .983
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .930 .988
Tuker-Lewis Index (TLI) .887 .970
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) .133 .082

99
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2016

The CFA results of the "re-specified" model revealed that goodness of fit indices had improved, as displayed in
the 're-specified' column of Table 4.15 (χ2 = 13.393, df = 4, P = .010, N = 347). The GFI=.986, AGFI=.946,
RMSEA=.082, NFI=.983, CFI=.988 and TLI=.970 and χ2 /df = 3.348. Even though the chi-square is still
significant, these values suggest that this model fits adequately to the data. It is commonly accepted that the chi-
square estimate would potentially reject valid models in large sample size (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Given that the
model fits the data adequately and the correlation between the underlying factors was less than .85 (i.e. .39), no
further adjustments were required.Although deleting the three items from the model considerably reduced the
number of items measuring brand recognition to a bare minimum of two and those measuring brand recall to
three having deleted a total of 3 items from the originally conceptualized scale of brand awareness, their removal
did not significantly change the content of the construct as it was conceptualized. This is because the remaining
items for brand recall and brand recognition had the highest initial loadings, and thus the meaning of the factors
had been preserved by these items. Therefore, the remaining five items capture a more consistent meaning of the
brand awareness, conceptualized as brand recall and brand recognition.

5.5 Validity and Reliability of Final Brand Awareness Measurement Scale

Convergent validity was accessed by examining the factor loading, construct reliability, and average variance
extracted (Hair et al. 2006). The average variance extracted (AVE) should exceed the recommended level of
0.50, (Fornell and Larcker 1981); construct must meet the minimum reliability of 0.60 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988)
and the standardized factor loadings for all items must be above 0.60 (Hatcher, 1994).As Table 6 shows, the
factor loadings for the final measurement model ranged between 0.69 and 0.97 with t-values significant at p =
0.000, while the AVE for brand recall and brand recognition were 0.99 and 0.98 respectively, thus confirming
convergent validity. The composite reliabilities for brand recall and brand recognition were 0.97 and 0.93
respectively which were above the recommended level of 0.6 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988).

Table 6:Std Factor Loading, t-Values, AVE and Composite Reliability for Brand Awareness
Std Factor t-Value p-Value AVE Composite
Construct Item
Loading reliability
Brand recall 0.99 0.97
BAW_6 .692 N/A
BAW_7 .956 12.683 .000
BAW_8 .698 12.162 .000

Brand Recognition 0.98 0.93

BAW_1 .829 N/A
BAW_2 .936 9.016 .000
The discriminant validity of brand recall and brand recognition was verified by comparing the AVE values for
brand recall and brand recognition to their squared correlation coefficient (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) as well as
correlation between the variables. AVE should be greater than the squared correlation estimate (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981) while correlation between the variables in the confirmatory model should not higher than 0.8
points (Bagozzi and Heatherton, 1994). In this study, AVE values of the variables were 0.99 and 0.98 for brand
recall and brand recognition respectively while the squared correlation coefficient of the pair of variables was
0.15. The correlation coefficient between brand recall and brand recognition was 0.39 thus indicating that the
two variables exhibited discriminant validity.

5.6 Hypothesis Testing

The analytical technique used to test the hypotheses in this study correlation analysis. Structural equation
modelling was not used to estimate the structural model because, whereas data on brand awareness was collected
from the customers of commercial banks who constituted a final sample size of 347, data on market brand
performance measures was collected from senior managers of these commercial banks - one from each bank.
The final sample size of the bank managers was 35, representing 35 commercial banks out of the total 43
commercial banks in Kenya. Consequently, the composite brand awareness score for each of the 35 commercial
banks was established by averaging the responses of customers from each of these respective banks and the
correlating with brand performance scores provided by the bank managers. The unit of analysis was therefore a
commercial bank or "brand". The 35 brands could therefore not constitute an adequate sample size to allow for
SEM.

100
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2016

Prior to hypotheses testing, the measurement scores for each construct were summated both for the validated
brandawarenessdimensions and market brand performance. The averages for brand recall and brand recognition
for each commercial bank were obtained by averaging the responses of customers from each of the commercial
banks on these brand awareness constructs and matching the scores with the responses of the respective bank
managers on market brand performance in a new and separate dataset. The new dataset represented data on the
"brands" and hypotheses testing proceeded by conducting the Pearson's Product Moment Correlation (PPMC)
analysis using average scores of brand awareness constructs (brand recall, brand recognition and overall brand
awareness) and market brand performance.

The results of PPMC (Table 7) indicated that the relationship between brand recall and brand recognition (H1)
was positive and statistically significant (r = .398; p = .013; N=35). The relationship betweenbrand recall and
brand market performance (H2)wasalso positive and statistically significant (r = .402; p = .017; N=35) while the
relationship between brand recognition and market brand performance (H3) was not statistically significant (r =
.133; p =.446; N=35).Further, the relationship between overall brand awareness and market brand performance
(H4)was positive and statistically significant (r = .413; p = .014; N=35). Thus, the hypotheses H1, H2 and H4
were empirically supported by this study while H3 was not confirmed. The findings were consistent with theory
that suggest that brand awareness is a key driver of market brand performance (Erdem&Swait, 2008) as it signals
presence and substance of the brand which causes the services or products associated with the brand to be
purchased by many other buyers (Aaker, 2011). Brands with high awareness are also associated with reduced
functional risk for the customer, which further influences brand choice and ultimate consumption of the
service/product offered by the brand. Empirically, the results of this study on the relationship between brand
awareness and market brand performance validate the results of earlier studies by Huang and Sarigollu (2012),
Kim et al. (2013) and Baldaufet al.'s (2013) who provided empirical support for the existence of a positive
relationship between brand awareness and measures of market brand performance.These results implied that on
the whole, brands (commercial banks) that had high brand awareness among their customers (i.e. banks whose
customers consistently remembered them as their favourite banks, the name of the bank would always come to
the customers' mind when someone would talk about banking, the customers could recognize the looks of the
bank from among their competitors and would have no difficulty in imagining the bank in their mind had better
average market brand performance. Overall, these results provide empirical evidence support that brand
awareness has a positive impact on market brand performance in the services sector Kenya.

Table 7: Correlations Between Brand Awareness Measures and Market Brand Performance
Brand recall Brand recognition Overall Brand
Awareness
Pearson Correlation 1
Brand recall Sig. (2-tailed)
N 35
Pearson Correlation .398* 1
Brand recognition Sig. (2-tailed) .013
N 35 35
Pearson Correlation .742** .599** 1
Overall Brand
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
Awareness
N 35 35 35
Pearson Correlation .402* .133 .413*
Market Brand
Sig. (2-tailed) .017 .446 .014
Performance
N 35 35 35
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of the study was to investigate the impact of brand awareness on market brand performance. Four
hypotheses were proposed and tested in the study. Based on the results of correlation analysis of the data
obtained from a sample of financial services consumers and senior managers of commercial banks in Kenya, it
sufficed to conclude that brand recall and brand recognition are positively correlated as dimensions of brand
awareness, a finding that that provided confirmatory support the first hypothesis of the study. In terms of
hypothesis H2, the correlation analysis revealed a significant positive and predictive relationship between brand
recall and brand market performance thus confirming the second hypothesised relationship but for the third

101
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2016

hypothesis H3, the study failed to find a significant relationship between brand recognition and market brand
performance. Notwithstanding, the overall relationship between brand awareness and market brand performance
as captured in hypothesis H4was significant and positive, confirming that brand awareness as a whole has a
predictive relationship with market brand performance in the context of service brands of a developing economy.
Therefore, the marketing success of a services business to a large extent depends on their ability of brand
managers to continuously enhance their services' brand awareness strategies in order to improve market brand
performance.

Based on the foregoing conclusion, it is important thatmarketing/brand managers should continue to develop and
implement effective brand awareness campaigns in order to attract and enhance consumers’ attention towards
their brands and thus enhance market brand performance. The success of such strategies can be harnessed by
actively engaging customers and building long-term relationships with them in a two-way dialogue using tools a
combination of effective media platforms such as offline interactions and social media platforms as proposed by
Homburget al. (2010).

REFERENCES
Aaker .D .A(2006) Aaker David A. (2006), Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets, California
Aaker, D.A. (2011) Managing Brand Equity. New York: Free Press.
Aaker, 2011) TheMalleableSelf:TheRoleofSelf-ExpressioninPersuasion.Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (1),
45–57.
Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (2008), Structural equation modeling in
practice: A review and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, No. 3, pp.
411-423.
Bagozzi and Heatherton, 1994), On the Nature and Direction of Relationships Between Constructs and
Measures.Psychological Methods,5 (2), 155–74.
Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) Full-informationMissing DataAnalysis withAmos.inSoftStat'95
AdvancesinStatisticalSoftware5,F.FaulbaumandW. Bandilla (Szerk.),Lucius &Lucius, Stuttgart, pp. 219–
228.
Baldaufet al.'s (2013) BaldaufArtur, Cravens Karen S., and Binder Gudrun, (2013), Performance Consequences
of Brand Equity Management Evidence from Organization in the Value Chain, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, vol.12, No.4, pp.220-236.
Berry, 2011; Martenson, 2007; Norazah, 2013). Berry, L. (2011). Cultivating service brand equity.Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 128-137.
Bollen K.A, Hipp, J.K and Bauer, K.A (1996) Conducting Tetrad Tests of ModelFitand Contrastsof Tetrad-
NestedModels:ANew SASMacro.Structural Equation Modeling 12 (1), 76-93.
Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2011) Chaudhuri Arjun, Holbrook Moris B. (2011), The Chain of Effects from Brand
Trust on BrandPerformance:The Role of Brand Loyalty, Journal of Marketing, vol.6No.2,pp.81-93.
Davis,W.RGolicic, G.A and Marquardt,B ( 2008) TwoRulesofIdentificationforStructural Equation
Models.Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 523-536.
Erdem&Swait, 2008)Erdem, T., &Swait, J. (2008).Brand equity as a signalling phenomenon.Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 131−157.
Farris et al., 2010). Farris, P.W., Bendle, N.T., Pfeifer, P.E. &Reibstein, D.J., (2010), Marketing metrics: The
definitive guide to measuring marketing performance, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hair et al. 2006)
Hair,J.F.Jr,Anderson,R.E.,Tatham,R.L.andBlack,W.C.(2006),MultivariateDataAnalysis,5thed.,Prentice-
Hall,Upper SaddleRiver,NJ
Hair., P(2010) Business statistics: Guidelines on quantitative decisions in business, Prentice Hall, New Jersey,
p.190.
Hair J.F, Anderson,R,Tathan,R, and Blach, W(2006) Hair,J.F.Jr,Anderson,R.E.,Tatham,
R.L.andBlack,W.C.(2006),MultivariateDataAnalysis,5thed.,Prentice-Hall, Upper SaddleRiver,NJ
Hatcher, L.R (1994) An EvaluationCost Model of Consideration Sets. Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (4),
393-408.
Homburg, Klarmann and Schmitt (2010)BrandAwarenessinBusiness Markets:Whenisit
relatedtoFirmPerformance?InternationalJournal ofResearchin Marketing, 27 (3), 201-212.
Ho&Merrilees, 2008) Ho, Y. W., Merrilees, B., (2008). The performance benefits of being brand - oriented,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, vol.17, No.6, (2008), pp.372-383.

102
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.8, No.18, 2016

Ho, Y. W., Merrilees, B., (2008). The performance benefits of being brand - oriented, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, vol.17, No.6, (2008), pp.372-383.
Huang and Sarigollu (2012) Huang, R. &Sarigöllü, E., (2012), ‘How brand awareness relates to market outcome,
brand equity, and the marketing mix’, Journal of Business Research 65, 92–
99.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.003.
Keller and Lehman (2013)*4 Keller, K. L, Lehman Donald R. (2013), How Do Brands Creat value, Marketing
Management, vol.12, No.3, pp.26-31.
Keller, K.L., (2008), Strategic brand management: building, measuring and managing brand equity, 3rd edn.,
Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Keller, K. L. and Lehman Donald R. (2013), How Do Brands Creat value, Marketing Management, vol.12, No.3,
pp.26-31.
Keller and Lehman (2013) How Do Brands Creat value, Marketing Management, vol.12, No
Keller, 2008).Keller K.L., (2013) ‘Strategic Brand Management’, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, p.175.
Kim J, and Kyun, Y.J (2013)A Modelto Investigate the Influence of Marketing-mixEfforts
andCorporateImageonBrandEquity intheITSoftwareSector. Industrial Marketing Management 40(3),
424-438
Kim and Kim (2013) Kim H-b.; Kim W.G.; An J.A.( 2013) The effect of consumer-based brand equity on firms'
financial performance. Journal of Consumer Marketing 20(4): 335-351
Kim and Kum (2010) Kim, H.-B., &Kum, W. G. (2010). The Relationship Between Brand Equity and Firms'
Performance in Luxury Hotels and Chain Restaurants. Tourism Management, 26, 549-560.
Kim et al. (2013 Kim, H.-B., Kim, W. G., &An, J. A. (2013). The Effect of Consumer-based Brand Equity on
Firms' Finance Performance. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(4/5), 335-351
Kline, R,B (2005) Principlesandpractice ofstructuralequationmodeling. Guilford Press, New York. pp.26-31.
Kothari, 2010)Kothari,C.R(2009). Research methodology, New International Pvt publishers, 2nd Edition.
Ling et al., 2013).Ling, K.C and Severi, E. (2013).The mediating effects of brand association, brand loyalty,
brand image and perceived quality on brand equity, Asian Social Science, 9(3), 125-134.
MacDonald & Sharp, 2011).Macdonald, E. K., & Sharp, B. M. (2011). Brand awareness effects on consumer
decision making for a common, repeat purchase product: A replication. Journal of Business Research,
48(1), 5−15.
Mowen& Minor 2011).Mowen, J.C. & Minor, M.S., (2011), Consumer behaviour: A framework, Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
O’Guinnet al., 2009) O’Guinn, T.C., Allen, C.T. &Semenik, R.J., (2009), Advertising and integrated brand
promotion, 5th edn., South-Western, Mason, OH.
Podsakoff P.M,Jarvis,C. B.,Mackenzie,S.B.and2013) ACriticalReviewof Construct
IndicatorsandMeasurementModelMissspecificationin Marketing and ConsumerResearch. Journal of
Consumer Research, 30 (2), 199-218.
Shamma& Hassan, 2011),Shamma, H.M. and Hassan, S.S. (2011). Integrating Product and Corporate Brand
Equity into Total Brand Equity Measurement, International Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 3, No.1
Srinivasan et al. (2008) Srinivasan, S., Vanhuele, M., &Pauwels, K. (2008).Do Mindset Metrics Explain Brand
Sales? Marketing Science Institute.
Suresh, S., Mohanam, P. & Naresh, G., 2012, ‘Brand success redefined: An analysis of the interrelationships
among various brand dimensions’, Psychological Research 2(1), 32–39.
Tong & Hawley, 2009). Tong, X. and Hawley, J. M. (2009) Measuring customer-based brand equity: empirical
evidence from the sportswear market in China, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 18(4), 262-
271.
Tran, 2006). Tran Quan Ha Minh, (2006), Retailers , Perceptions of Product Brand Equity : An Empirical Study
of Vietnamese Independent Grocers, DBA Thesis, Southern Cross University, N.S.W., Australia.
Van Osselaer& Alba, 2011).Van Osselaer, S. M. J., & Alba, J. W. (2011). Consumer learning and brand equity.
Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 1−16.
Yooet al. (2011)Yoo, B. and Donthu N.( 2011) Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based
brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research 52(1): 1-14
Zikmund, W. and D’Amico,M(2009) Marketing. JohnWiley&Sons, Canada.

103