Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Brand image strategy affectsbrand equity after M&A
Hsiang-Ming LeeDepartment of Business Administration and Institute of Business& Management, Ching Yun University, Jhongli City, Taiwan
Ching-Chi LeeJean Yves Enterprise Co. Ltd, Taipei City, Taiwan, and
Cou-Chen WuDepartment of Business Administration,
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei City, Taiwan
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the variance of twobrand images and dimensions of brand equity after M&A, especially when the acquirer-dominant isaffiliated to a weak brand image and the acquired one has a stronger brand image.
Design/methodology/approach – In total, 409 responses were collected through random samplingfrom an internet survey platform in Taiwan (weak image differences were gathered from 209respondents and strong image differences were gathered from 200 respondents).
Findings – This study uses an experimental design to discuss how the variance of two brand images(this study uses two kinds of M&A: a company with an inferior brand image acquires one with asuperior or average brand image) affects the acquirer’s brand equity (perceived quality, brandassociation, and brand loyalty). This study also examines how brand equity of an acquired brandchanges after M&A. Results from the MANOVA and paired-sample t-test methods show that thegreater the perceived differences between acquirers and acquired brands, the more the brand equity ofthe acquirer will increase. In addition, all the dimensions of brand equity for the brand with a superiorimage decrease significantly.
Originality/value – Few studies have evaluated the brand image effect of an M&A from amarketing perspective. The contribution is to help managers understand whether the acquirer shouldpreserve the obtained brand and focus on increasing brand equity of the acquired brand to avoid theloss of customer loyalty.
Keywords Brand image, Brand equity, Brand loyalty, Taiwan
Paper type Research paper
IntroductionAs the current economic environment becomes more competitive and introducing newbrands becomes increasingly costly, companies must find new strategies to increasetheir capacity and competitiveness (Lipponen et al., 2004). Mergers and Acquisitions(M&A) is a very important strategy for companies. M&A can enable acquiringcompanies to obtain technologies, products, distribution channels and desirablemarket positions (Schweizer, 2005). Acquiring companies tend to focus on cost cuttingand financial performance after completion of the M&A deal, but they neglect toconsider consumer perceptions of the M&A. This practice may compel manyconsumers (Bekier and Shelton, 2002) given their uncertainty regarding the future
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
Brand imagestrategy
1091
Received May 2008Revised January 2009
Accepted September 2009
European Journal of MarketingVol. 45 No. 7/8, 2011
pp. 1091-1111q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0566DOI 10.1108/03090561111137624
performance of the acquiring company (e.g. price, quality of products and services)(Homburg and Bucerius, 2005).
Recently, some companies with an inferior brand image have used an M&Astrategy to acquire superior image brands. For example, Tata Motors Limited fromIndia acquired Jaguar Cars Limited and Land Rover in 2008. Under suchcircumstances, customers may have concerns regarding the acquiring company’sability to maintain the quality or image of the superior brand after the M&A. It isimportant for managers to understand how the difference between the two brandimages can influence acquirer and acquired brands. In the M&A process, the worststrategy for brand managers is to do nothing after the M&A and let the brands go theirseparate ways as they did before the pre-merger (Basu, 2006). Hence, the acquiringcompany needs to know how to manage the migration of a brand to the new companyand ensure that customers will remain loyal to their brand (Kumar and Blomqvist,2004). Measurement of brand equity is an ongoing concern, in relation to M&A, andhas received little attention in academic literature (Ratnatunga and Ewing, 2009).However, a few existing research studies have examined the brand image effects onbrand equity after M&A. Therefore, this study utilizes an experimental design toexamine the different effects of brand equity on an inferior brand’s image after it hasacquired a brand with a superior or an average image. In addition, this study examineshow consumer attitudes change towards the acquiring and acquired brand after M&A.Balance theory is useful in explaining attitude formation and attitude change (Dean,2002) and this study uses balance theory for its hypotheses.
Literature review and hypothesisBrand equityCustomer-based brand equity occurs when customers are familiar with the brand andhold favorable, strong and unique brand associations in memory (Keller, 1993). Aaker(1996b) has stated that brand equity is a set of assets and liabilities. Five brand equityassets – brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, brand association and otherproprietary brand assets – are fundamentals of value creation. This study uses these fivebrand equity classifications from Aaker (1991), as they are the most acceptable to-date.
As brand equity is a multidimensional concept (Aaker, 1991), research has varioussuggestions for measuring its dimensions – some include brand loyalty and brandassociation (Schoker and Weitz, 1988). There is also brand knowledge, whichcomprises of brand awareness and brand image (Keller, 1993). Furthermore, Yoo et al.(2000) have suggested that perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand awareness havea strong brand association. Among the five brand equity assets, it is very difficult tomanipulate a consumer’s perception of brand association in an experiment (Pappu et al.,2006). Furthermore, other proprietary brand assets, such as patents, are not easy tomeasure. Therefore, the current study uses brand loyalty, brand association andperceived quality as the measurements of brand equity.
Brand loyalty is an important consideration when estimating the value of a brand asloyalty can translate into profit (Aaker, 1991). Brand loyalty is a barrier for newcompetitors and forms the basis for a price premium (Aaker, 1996b). Brand loyalty alsoencourages repeated purchase behavior from consumers, and discourages them fromswitching to competitor brands (Yoo et al., 2000). Therefore, the greater the customerloyalty, the higher the brand equity will be. Perceived quality is another dimension of
EJM45,7/8
1092
brand value that can encourage customers to choose a product or service (Zeithaml,1988). “Perceived quality can be defined as the customer’s perception of the overallquality or superiority of a product or service with respect to its intended purpose,relative to alternatives” (Aaker, 1991). Customers’ product experiences, expendituresituations and unique needs might influence their judgment of product quality (Yooet al., 2000). Since customers make their choices based on product attributes andcompare these to other products, perceived quality is not an objective measure.Perceived quality can increase customer satisfaction, provided the customer has hadsome previous experience with the product or service (Aaker, 1996a). Hence, perceivedquality is generally associated with brand equity (Motameni and Shahrokhi, 1998), andthe better the perceived quality, the greater the brand equity (Yoo et al., 2000).
From a brand association perspective, Aaker (1991) felt that brand equity is closelyrelated to brand association. “A brand association is anything linked in memory to abrand” (Aaker, 1996a). Keller (1998) suggested that brand association can be dividedinto three major categories: attributes (including product-related attributes andnon-product-related attributes such as price, brand personality, emotions andexperience), benefits (what customers think the product or service can do for them,including functional benefits, symbolic benefits and experiential benefits) and attitudes(customers’ overall evaluations of the brand). The most powerful brand associationsare those that deal with the intangible or abstract traits of a product. Brand associationcan assist with spontaneous information recall (van Osselaer and Janiszewski, 2001)and this information can become the basis of differentiation and extension (Aaker,1996b). Strong association can help strengthen brand and equity. Similar to perceivedquality, brand association can also increase customer satisfaction with the customerexperience (Aaker, 1991).
Brand imageKeller (1993) defined brand image as “perceptions about a brand as reflected by thebrand association held in consumer memory”. These associations refer to any brandaspect within the consumer’s memory (Aaker, 1996a, b). Basically, brand imagedescribes the consumer’s thoughts and feelings towards the brand (Roy and Banerjee,2007). In other words, brand image is the overall mental image that consumers have ofa brand, and its uniqueness in comparison to the other brands (Faircloth, 2005).
Brand image comprises a consumer’s knowledge and beliefs about the brand’sdiverse products and its non-product attribute. Brand image represents the personalsymbolism that consumers associate with the brand, which comprises of all thedescriptive and evaluative brand-related information (Iversen and Hem, 2008). Whenconsumers have a favorable brand image, the brand’s messages have a strongerinfluence in comparison to competitor brand messages (Hsieh and Li, 2008). Therefore,brand image is an important determinant of a buyer’s behavior (Burmann et al., 2008).In the B2B market, brand image also plays an important role. This is especially sogiven that it is difficult to distinguish between products and services, based on theirtangible attributes (Mudambi et al., 1997).
Balance theoryBalance theory owes its origins to Heider (1958) and its basic model is the triad of aperson (p), another person (o) and an entity (x) (Carson et al., 1997). This theory states
Brand imagestrategy
1093
that an individual wants to maintain consistency among the triad of linked attitudes(Russell and Stern, 2006). According to balance theory, these triadic relationships caneither be balanced or imbalanced (Dean, 2002). A balanced relationship comprises oftwo people who have the same attitude towards an object (Heider, 1958). When arelationship is imbalanced, it will cause systematic tension. If the tension persists, thenthe individual will attempt to both mentally and physically, decrease tension and movetowards a balanced state (Woodside, 2004; Homburg and Stock, 2004). A relationship isimbalanced if there are two people in a relationship with opposing attitudes towardsthe object another (e.g. A dislikes the object but B likes it). These circumstances, incognitive tension, would lead to behavior that attempts to balance the system; that is,A can change his attitude to be consistent to B’s attitude in order to rebalance thesystem (Homburg and Stock, 2004).
In this study, balance theory is applied to a relationship system involving threeseparate entities: inferior brand image, superior or average brand image andcustomers. Based on the balance theory, this system reaches a balanced state if acustomer’s attitude towards a brand with an inferior image changes after purchasing abrand with a superior or average image, and is similar to customers who havepurchased a brand with a superior or average image.
Effects of brand image on customer-based brand equityA favorable brand image would have a positive influence on consumer behaviortowards the brand in terms of increasing loyalty, commanding a price premium andgenerating positive word-of-mouth (Martenson, 2007). Marketing studies argue thatbrand image is an important factor affecting brand equity (Biel, 1992, 1993;Villareji-Ramos and Sanchez-Franco, 2005). Faircloth et al. (2001) also found that themore positive the brand image, the more consumers are willing to pay and thus thegreater the brand equity.
Many successful companies with an inferior brand image merge and acquirecompanies with a superior brand image in order to increase their market share(Nguyen and Kleiner, 2003). Meanwhile, companies also want to take advantage of astronger brand image to improve their own image (Rao et al., 1991). In this acquisition,companies endeavor to change consumer perception of the inferior brand, and maintaintheir cognitive consistency towards brands with an inferior and superior image, as perthe balance theory (Heider, 1958). The balance theory proposes that, “consumers’ valueharmony among their thoughts and they are motivated to reconcile incongruentthoughts” (Dean, 2002). Therefore, when there is imbalance, people change theirattitudes or behaviors to restore balance. In addition, the stronger the attitude towardsthe original object, the more likely it is that similar attitudes will be held towards otherassociations related to that object (Dalakas and Levin, 2005). This image improvementis the most important goal that a company, with an inferior brand image, desires toaccomplish after completing the M&A. Based on the aforementioned point, ifconsumers have a positive attitude towards the obtained brand, they may adopt apositive attitude or change their existing attitude towards the obtained brand. That is,the stronger the image of a company with an inferior brand, the greater a company’sbrand equity. The relationships between brand image and consumer-based brandequity sub-dimensions are as follows:
EJM45,7/8
1094
Brand association can help consumers’ process and recall information, serve as thebasis of dissimilarity and extensions and provide a reason to purchase and createpositive feelings toward the brand (Aaker, 1992). Brand association, based on the typesof associations held, leads to a stronger market position in comparison to other brands.Such associations include brand image, price and country-of-origin (O’Cass and Lim,2002). A brand image can be an association set and is usually organized in somemeaningful way (Aaker, 1991). Keller (1993) has argued that if a brand’s image isrelated to association (e.g. attribute and attitude), the brand’s association gains,favorable strength and uniqueness in the mind of the consumer. A positive brandimage is created by marketing programs that link powerful and unique associations toa consumer’s memory of the brand (Keller, 1998). That is, brand image can createassociations that elicit positive feelings and attitudes towards the brand (Porter andClaycomb, 1997). Besides, Biel (1992) has argued that brand association could also arisefrom corporate image, product image and user image. Most of the corporate associationtheory has been developed from corporate image (Power et al., 2008).
Application of balance theory, suggests that consumers will increase their positiveassociation with an inferior brand image, when it is acquired, by a company, with agood brand image. Therefore, the more superior the brand image, the stronger thebrand association will be (Dalakas and Levin, 2005). Based on the previous overview,our hypothesis is that:
H1. The better the brand image acquired by one with an inferior image, the morethe brand association will increase.
The effect of brand loyalty on marketing costs is critical because attracting a newconsumer costs more than retaining an old one (Wood, 2001). Furthermore, loyalconsumers create a barrier that makes it difficult for competitors to enter the market(Keller, 1998). There are no other assets in a business comparable to its brand and asuperior brand can attract consumers, develop their loyalty and capture theirimagination (Schultz, 2005). A popular brand not only attracts more customers, butthose consumers also have greater loyalty to the brand (Ehrenberg et al., 1990). Brandpopularity occurs due to factors such as a superior brand image, word-of-mouth andimitation (Kim and Chung, 1997). In B2B markets, brand image is also an importantfactor in a customer’s perception of a product or service, especially when it is difficultto differentiate products or services based on tangible features (Cretu and Brodie,2007). Nandan (2005) believed that a company could increase brand loyalty by assuringconsumers that its brand image and identity are congruous. In addition, many studieshave proposed that brand image has a positive influence on consumer loyalty(Zeithaml, 1988; Zins, 2001). More favorable brand images lead to greater customerloyalty (Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998; Johnson et al., 2001). As per the balancetheory (Heider, 1958), brand loyalty towards an inferior image brand will increase afterit merges with a brand with a superior image, and vice versa. In addition, the moresuperior the brand image, the more the brand loyalty increases (Dalakas and Levin,2005). Based on the aforementioned literature, our hypothesis is that:
H2. The better the brand image acquired by one with an inferior image, the morethe brand loyalty will increase.
Brand imagestrategy
1095
Perceived quality is defined as a buyer’s evaluation of a product’s cumulativeexcellence (Zeithaml, 1988; Grewal et al., 1988). Perceived quality refers to a consumer’sintangible perception of the whole quality or superiority of a product or service – theiroverall feeling about the brand (Ramaseshan and Tsao, 2007). Information aboutintrinsic cues (e.g. brand features) and other extrinsic cues such as brand image,country-of-origin image, brand name, price or the amount that advertising caninfluence perceived quality (Speece and Nguyen, 2005; Ahmed et al., 2006). A brand,which is usually associated with quality, can create an image in the consumer’s mindand can be motivation to buy a particular product (Vranesevic and Seancec, 2003).Hankinson (2005) has investigated the brand image of a travel destination from theperspective of a tourist and has identified three dimensions: overall attractiveness ofthe destination, functionality and ambience. All three dimensions were correlated toperceived quality. Research has demonstrated the positive relationships betweenbrand image and quality of service or products in both qualitative studies (Browanet al., 2001) and quantitative studies (Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998; Bloemer et al.,1998; Cretu and Brodie, 2007). According to the balance theory (Heider, 1958), aconsumer’s perceived quality of a brand with a negative image will improve after itmerges with a brand with a positive image, and vice versa. In addition, superiority ofthe brand image they acquire is correlated to the perceived quality of the brand(Dalakas and Levin, 2005). Based on the literature about brand image and perceivedquality, this study makes the following hypothesis:
H3. The better the brand image acquired by one with an inferior image, the higherthe perceived equity will increase.
MethodologyResearch designThis study was conducted to measure how different levels of variance in two brandimages affect brand equity after M&A. This study uses an experimental design wherethe difference in variance for two brand images after M&A is the manipulatedtreatment variable (using two levels: a brand with a poor image acquires one with anaverage image, and another brand with a poor image acquires one with a good image).Brand equity is hypothesized as a three-dimensional construct as shown in Figure 1.Each brand equity dimension is a dependent variable in this framework and isexpected to be influenced by different levels of variance in two brand images, after theM&A. The unit of analysis was the individual consumer.
PretestThe data from National Information and Communication Initiative Committee inTaiwan showed that the household computer penetration (number of computers per100 households) reached 82.9 per cent in Taiwan this year (www.nici.nat.gov.tw/index.php) and the data based on ITU (International Telecommunication Union)showed that the personal computer penetration (number of computers per 100 persons)reached 57.5 per cent. Computer penetration in Taiwan ranked as 14th in the world in2005 (www.itu.int/net/home/index.aspx); that is, computers have gained popularity inTaiwan. Besides, Ahmend et al. (2005) used computer brands sold in Taiwan anddemonstrated the country of design, country of assembly, brand name and warrantyeffects on Taiwanese consumers’ perceived quality and perceived risk. Hence,
EJM45,7/8
1096
computer end-users are appropriate subjects to be used in this study to examine thebrand image effects on consumer perceptions. Based on the points stated previously,this study will conduct a pre-test to assess consumer perceptions about superior,average, and inferior brand images among computer consumers in Taiwan.
To ascertain whether computer brand images are either: superior, average orinferior, this study surveyed 37 computer users for the pre-test sample and theserespondents have used computers for an average of 11.73 years. On a five-pointLikert-type scale, participants were asked to rate all the computer brands sold inTaiwan across two dimensions: brand image and overall evaluation. The results of thepre-test indicated that the computer brand with the best image is Sony (score 4.37),Lenovo is ranked as medium (score 3.04) and the brand that is ranked inferior is Clevo(score 2.68). This study also used a t-test to verify whether these three brands havesignificantly different brand images. The results confirmed the differing perceptionsconsumers had of the three brand images. Therefore, this study is conducted under twoM&A scenarios: one is that Clevo acquires the Sony laptop department and the other isthat Clevo acquires the Lenovo laptop department. A survey asked how consumers feltabout these M&A scenarios.
Survey instrumentThe questionnaire comprises three parts. Part one of the questionnaire contained threeconstructs measuring various dimensions of brand equity: brand loyalty, brandassociation, and perceived quality. In this part, respondents rated their perception ofthe two brands before the merger, as inferior/medium or inferior/superior. Measures forthe constructs of brand equity were based on previous studies (Aaker, 1991, 1996b,1997; Yoo et al., 2000; Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Pappu et al., 2006). Measures forperceived quality, as adapted by Aaker (1991), Yoo et al. (2000) and Pappu et al. (2006),included four items. Brand loyalty, as adapted by Pappu et al. (2006), included twoitems. In addition, brand association, adapted by Aaker (1991, 1996a, b), Aaker (1997)and Pappu et al. (2006), comprised two parts: brand personality and organizationassociation (which included five items). Each item had the verbal anchors “strongly
Figure 1.A model of different levels
of variance in two brandimage after M&A effects
on brand equity
Brand imagestrategy
1097
disagree” to “strongly agree” for the 1 to 5. Appendix 1 (see Table AI) provides furtherdetails.
Part 2 of the questionnaire also included three constructs regarding variousdimensions of brand equity in part 1. However, as this study manipulated onetreatment as a variance of image difference to demonstrate the image difference effecton brand equity, the beginning of part 2 included information about a computer brandwith an inferior image acquiring one with an average or superior image. Furthermore,both these brands were still sold in the market. Next, respondents rated theirperception of the acquirer and acquired brands in terms of brand equity. All the itemswere displayed in Chinese.
Part three of the questionnaire collected respondents’ demographic information (e.g.gender, age, level of education). Questions in all three sections were identical in both ofthe questionnaires, except for the M&A. Each respondent completed one version of thequestionnaire. Each construct used in other brand equity research exceeded thesuggested level of 0.7 for reliability, across both the automobile and television productcategories. In addition, all the constructs also exceeded the suggested level forconvergent and discriminant validity (Pappu et al., 2006). That is, all the constructs aresuitable for this research.
SamplingThe survey comprised 409 respondents (171 males and 238 females) completing anonline questionnaire in Chinese made available on a secure research web site(www.my3Q.com) in Taiwan (209 respondents with low image differences and 200respondents with high image differences), and the unit of analysis was the individualconsumer. The questionnaire was advertised on a mailing list and on internet researchweb sites. The profiles of respondents are shown in Table I. The questionnaire used tocollect data contained an experimental design.
Analysis proceduresAll construct scales were analyzed using Cronbach’s a to determine if the scalesexhibited acceptable levels of reliability (Nunnally, 1978). Table II shows the reliabilityestimates in four parts – acquiring and acquired companies before and after M&A. Allthe Cronbach’s a value were more than 0.7, indicating that all constructs hadacceptable reliability. Convergent and discriminant validity were assessed through
Item Description Frequency Percentage
Gender Male 171 41.8Female 238 58.2
Education High school 11 2.6College 20 4.8University 331 80.9Master/PhD 47 11.5
Age ,20 76 18.521-30 212 51.831-40 74 18.141-50 33 8.0.50 14 3.4
Table I.Description ofrespondent
EJM45,7/8
1098
confirmatory factor analysis (Fornell, 1983; Bagozzi and Yi, 1989). Appendix 1 showsthe validity of measurements. The estimated factor loadings indicated that all the itemsloaded as expected ( j or 3t j or 3value . 1.96), with significant and positive parameterestimates. These results provide strong evidence of convergent validity. As fordiscriminant validity, Appendix 2 (see Table AII) shows that the correlation of pairedconstructs is significantly less than 1. In addition, the smallest t-value observed was25.5, which corresponds to t , 21.96. This result implies the discriminate validity,as suggested by Bagozzi et al. (1991).
The MANOVA used three consumer-based equity variables (perceived quality,brand association and brand loyalty), which were computed by averaging the scores ofitems as the dependent variables. The data were verified to ensure all the assumptions(e.g. equality of variance-covariance, normality, linearity and absence ofmulticollinearity) of MANOVA were satisfied and, in all cases, the cell sizes wereapproximately the minimum recommended size (Hair et al., 1998). A requirement forMANOVA is that the dependent variables have to be correct. Bartlett’s test ofsphericity (Hair et al., 1998) indicated that MANOVA was suitable for analyzing thedata (Bartlett’s x 2 ð5Þ ¼ 800:583, p , 0:001) and that the assumption of equity ofvariance-covariance matrices was satisfied. The Box’s test (p ¼ 0:821 . 0:05) showedthe absence of statistically significant deviation from the homogeneity of covariancematrices.
Results of MANOVATable III summarizes the results of the MANOVA. This table shows that the differentlevels of variance between two brand images after M&A have a significant effect onconsumer-based brand equity. The results indicate that the sets of threeconsumer-based brand equity variables vary according to different levels ofvariance between two brand images after M&A. Consequently, Univariate F-tests(Table IV) show that each of the consumer-based brand equity dimensions (perceivedquality, brand association and brand loyalty) varies significantly with the variance of
PQ BA BL
Low brand variance Before M&A Acquirer brand 0.879 0.903 0.887Acquired brand 0.906 0.908 0.857
After M&A Acquirer brand 0.887 0.908 0.786Acquired brand 0.919 0.915 0.885
High brand variance Before M&A Acquirer brand 0.891 0.912 0.888Acquired brand 0.871 0.860 0.905
After M&A Acquirer brand 0.926 0.924 0.818Acquired brand 0.941 0.932 0.900
Table II.Reliability estimates
Wilks’ l F-value p-value
Variance of two brand images after M&A 0.941 8.507 0.000 * *
Note: * *deemed significant at the 0.05 level
Table III.MANOVA results:
significance ofmultivariate tests
Brand imagestrategy
1099
the two brand images after M&A. As per the balance theory, the stronger the attitudetowards the original target, the more likely the attitude will impact association with thetarget in a similar manner (Dalakas and Levin, 2005). From Table IV we are able toconclude that a brand with an inferior image, which acquired one with a superiorimage, had higher perception scores among respondents across all the threedimensions of brand equity, compared to if it acquired a brand with an average image.That is to say, the better the brand image acquired by one with an inferior image, themore the brand equity (perceived quality, brand association and brand loyalty) willincrease. These results support the statement of balance theory and supporthypotheses H1, H2 and H3.
Results of paired-sample t-testThe following paired-sample t-test examined whether a brand with an inferior imagecan increase its brand equity by acquiring one with a better image, and the potentialeffects of the superior brand image. Tables V and VI present the results of thepaired-sample t-test.
Table V showed that all the dimensions of brand equity, for the brand with aninferior image significantly increases after it acquires a brand with a superior image.However, all the dimensions of brand equity of the brand with a superior imagedecrease significantly after it is acquired by a brand with an inferior image. The resultsin Table VI show that all the dimensions of brand equity of a brand with an inferiorimage increase significantly after acquiring a brand with an average image. However,
Brand equity Mean difference SD t-value p-value
Inferior brand imagePerceived quality 20.32 0.73 26.12 0.000 * *
Brand association 20.46 0.72 29.19 0.000 * *
Brand loyalty 20.80 0.96 211.67 0.000 * *
Superior brand imagePerceived quality 0.58 0.91 8.95 0.000 * *
Brand association 0.69 0.86 11.40 0.000 * *
Brand loyalty 0.43 1.04 5.90 0.000 * *
Note: * *deemed significant at the 0.05 level
Table V.Paired-sample t-testresults for high imagedifference
Low-variance High-varianceSource measure F-value p-value h 2 Mean SD Mean SD
Brand image variancePerceived quality 5.415 0.020 * * 0.013 3.06 0.74 3.23 0.72Brand association 21.438 0.000 * * 0.050 2.80 0.77 3.14 0.71Brand loyalty 16.592 0.000 * * 0.039 2.78 0.89 3.13 0.83
Note: * *deemed significant at the 0.05 level
Table IV.MANOVA results:multivariatetests-between subjecteffects
EJM45,7/8
1100
only loyalty for the brand with an average image increases, and perceived quality andbrand association do not change significantly after M&A. The conclusion andimplications section explores possible reasons for this phenomenon.
Conclusion and implicationsPrevious studies only examined the relationship between brand image and brandequity, while in contrast; the present study first examined the relationship between thevariance of two brand images and then the dimensions of brand equity after M&A.The test results show that a company with an inferior brand image can makesignificant improvements to its consumer-based brand equity by acquiring a brandwith a better image. In other words, by acquiring a better brand, companies will beimproving the existing image of its brand.
H1, H2, and H3 test the relationship variance between the two brand images afterM&A, and also the three dimensions of brand equity. Each of the three dimensions ofbrand equity (perceived quality, brand association, and brand loyalty) was expected tovary significantly based on the variance of the two brand images after M&A. Findingssuggest that brand image does have an influence on brand association, and this resultsupports a previous study by O’Cass and Lim (2002). This study also finds that thevariance with the greatest value across both brand images was brand association. Forexample, the magnitude of variance for brand association across brand image wasapproximately four times that of perceived quality. In addition, this study finds thatbrand association for a respondent varies significantly across both brand images afterM&A. In other words, acquiring a brand with a superior image can create better brandassociations than acquiring one with an average image.
Meanwhile, acquiring a brand with a better image creates the same effect on brandloyalty as it does on brand association in this study. Previous studies also demonstratethat brand image influences consumer loyalty (Zins, 2001; Cretu and Brodie, 2007). Inaddition, the difference between the variance of two brand images was the greatest forbrand loyalty. In other words, acquiring a brand with a superior image could increaseloyalty for the new brand rather than acquiring one with an average image.
Richardson et al. (1994) expressed their belief that consumers tend to use brandimage as an extrinsic cue to evaluate the quality of a brand or product. Dodds et al.(1991) also pointed out that brand image can serve as a product guarantee. Thus, the
Brand equity Mean difference SD t-value p-value
Inferior brand imagePerceived quality 20.30 0.81 25.28 0.000 * *
Brand association 20.28 0.78 25.20 0.000 * *
Brand loyalty 20.73 0.96 211.06 0.000 * *
Middle brand imagePerceived quality 7.30E-02 0.73 1.41 0.151Brand association 8.23E-02 0.72 1.63 0.103Brand loyalty 29.81E-02 0.83 21.70 0.090 *
Notes: * *deemed significant at the 0.05 level; *deemed significant at the 0.1 level
Table VI.Paired-sample t-test
results for low imagedifference
Brand imagestrategy
1101
better the brand image, the better the quality as perceived by consumers. The presentstudy also demonstrates the relationship between brand image and perceived quality.The results show that acquiring a brand with an excellent image creates the perceptionof better quality among consumers rather than acquiring a brand with an inferiorimage.
In addition, this study explores how M&A affects the brand equity of the obtainedbrand. Tables V and VI show that all three dimensions of brand equity for the brandwith a superior image significantly decrease after M&A, and brand associationexperiences the sharpest decline. Brand associations take on different forms, and thecompany that makes the product is a non-product-related attribute affecting brandassociation (Keller, 1993). M&A means that the ownership of a brand or a company istransferred to the other company i.e. a brand with a superior image might take on aninferior image after M&A. Consumers may doubt whether the superior brand canmaintain its product attributes, intangible assets, consumer benefits, and even brandpersonality. All of the concerns are critical factors that affect consumer associationswith a brand (Aaker, 1991). As a result, a brand with a superior image experiences adramatic decline in brand association after M&A.
As for the brand with an average image, only brand loyalty significantly increasesafter M&A. The average brand (Lenovo) used in this study is a brand from MainlandChina. Although this is a famous computer brand in China, products labeled “Made inChina” generally do not have a good reputation (Chao et al., 2005). On the other hand, acomputer brand with a good reputation in Taiwan is seen as favorable in internationalmarkets (Chang and Yu, 2001). When consumers perceive the brand to providesuperior quality and thus they will become more brand loyal (Kayaman and Arasli,2007). In addition, many studies demonstrate that country-of-origin image positivelyand significantly influences brand loyalty (Yasin et al., 2006; Pappu et al., 2006).Therefore, the better the country-of-origin, the stronger the brand loyalty (Yasin et al.,2006; Pappu et al., 2006). This study showed that if Lenovo (from China) was acquiredby Clevo (from Taiwan), consumer loyalty to Lenovo would increase significantly.
From the aforementioned results, this study suggests that the acquirer should paymore attention to the reciprocal effects of brand image on brand equity. Such reciprocaleffects are important in enhancing or diluting brand equity, given the effects ofco-branding or brand extension (Swaminathan, 2006). In the co-branding studyconducted by Geylani et al. (2006), it was found that co-branding for imagereinforcement might not be a viable strategy for reliable brands. That is becauseuncertainty associated with the reliable brand would increase through co-branding andno matter what partner the reliable brand chooses, its reliability always decreases(Geylani et al., 2006). The present study also found that the equity of brands with anaverage and superior image indeed decreases after M&A. Increasing uncertainty is thecritical factor that decreases a consumer’s faith in brands with an average or superiorimage. It is very important for acquirer to reduce consumer uncertainty. Thus,acquiring a high attribute and complementary company is helpful for enhancingconsumer perceptions and decreasing uncertainty that, in turn, leads to greaterconsequential effects rather than acquiring a company with lower complementaryvalue as simply part of a co-branding strategy (Park et al., 1996).
EJM45,7/8
1102
Managerial implicationsWhen a company endeavors to increase its market share or enter a new market, M&Ais one of the fastest, easiest and valuable strategies. By using M&A, the acquirer canreceive all the assets of the acquired company, including the tangible and intangibleassets; the brand is often being the most valuable of these assets. This is more so whena brand with an inferior image acquires one with a superior image, which leads to agreater investment of time, money, and resources that go into protecting the image ofthe superior brand.
Different brand images significantly affect brand equity measures for purchaseintentions and willingness to pay premium prices (Faircloth et al., 2001). Therefore,brands with a better image are associated with premium prices and higher brandequity (Lassar et al., 1995). The results of the present study demonstrate that acquiringa brand with a better image affects brand equity. That is why many companies fromdeveloping countries (i.e. low country-of-origin image) attempt to acquire companiesfrom developed countries (i.e. high country-of-origin image). An example of this is thelargest Indian steelmaker, Mittal, acquiring French Arcelor (Craze and Deen, 2006).However, in the acquisition process, the efficient migration of the brand to the newcompany is important for managers in the acquiring firm, especially when it comes tothe brand name (Kumar and Blomqvist, 2004). Jaju et al. (2006) found that differentbrand redeployment strategies after M&A create different effects on brand equity.Their research also suggests that if both brands were strong brands, anacquirer-dominant strategy is the most effective. On the other hand, Kumar andBlomqvist (2004) suggested that if the acquired brand is stronger than the acquiringbrand, the latter needs to consider a combination of the two names or even abandoningits own name in favor of the acquired brand. Consequently, it is essential for managersto consider the influence that brand redeployment decisions will have on consumers.
Many acquiring firms want to preserve the acquired brand name and keep theidentity and brand name of the acquired company as a subsidiary or department in theacquiring company after M&A (such as P&G acquiring Gillette) ( Jaju et al., 2006). Theresults of the present study show that if the difference in image between acquirer andacquired is larger, the equity of the acquired brand would significantly decrease. Toillustrate using this study, if Clevo acquires Sony, consumers may be unsure as towhether the quality of Sony will be maintained to previous standards and this couldresult in a sharp decline in the brand image, which could mean the brand associationwill be harmful to Sony. Hence, consumers could lose faith in the acquired brand, andthe brand equity of the acquired brand decreases. Jaju et al. (2006) also found thatacquisition leads to a decrease in brand equity for the acquired brand. The managers ofthe acquiring company strive to avoid decreasing the brand equity of the acquiredbrand.
This study provides the following suggestions to assist managers seeking toincrease consumer perceptions of an acquired brand:
. The management team of the acquired brand should not be replaced so thatconsumers will assume that the quality of products is still the same.
. Decrease the link between the acquiring and acquired brand.
. Create after-sales services that are better than that of the acquired brand so thatconsumers will increase their perception of and faith in the acquired brand.
Brand imagestrategy
1103
. Continue to communicate with consumers via advertisements to assure themthat we are still the same.
Limitations and directions for future researchAll of the respondents in this study were Taiwanese consumers who were generallyquite familiar with the quality of Japanese and Chinese products. Their responses couldbe different from those consumers who are not familiar with Japanese and Chineseproducts. Hence, future research must be conducted with consumers who are notfamiliar with Japanese and Chinese products to illustrate brand image effects moreobviously.
In addition, this study only examines household electronics. Further study is neededto determine if these results can be applied to other industries, especially the serviceindustry. The features of the service industry are quite different from other industriesand thus future research could analyze consumer perceptions about M&A activitiesbetween service companies (such as banks). Different industry features might generatedifferent effects on consumer evaluations of the new brand.
Moreover, during the M&A process, managers often become too focused on someelements such as negotiations, legal and regulation issues and financial problems.However, they sometimes ignore consumer perceptions of two brands after M&A(Kumar and Blomqvist, 2004; Jaju et al., 2006). Furthermore, previous studies did notanalyze the impacts of M&A activities from a marketing perspective (Homburg andBucerius, 2005). Therefore, future studies can use the consumer behavior perspective(including attitudes, beliefs, and involvement) or some other marketing concepts suchas brand name redeployment strategy to investigate consumer perceptions aboutbrands after M&A.
Furthermore, it is very important to understand cultural problems in aninternational M&A. These cultural problems could affect the M&A activities givenconsumer perceptions of the new brand. Country of origin (COO) effect is one of themost important multicultural factors that can influence consumer brand equity (Pappuet al., 2006; Yasin et al., 2006). Many brands that originate from countries with aninferior image use M&As to increase their market share and create a positive image.An example includes Tata Motors Ltd in India that acquired Jaguar and Land Roverfrom England. It is important for a company, originating from a country with aninferior image, to reduce consumers’ fear about the quality or service of the brand andproduct in the post acquisition phase. In addition to the COO effect, consumeranimosity towards a foreign product will also affect their product perceptions andpurchase intentions (Klein et al., 1998). If consumers have animosity towards a certaincountry, they will not buy the brand or product from this country even if they think thebrand or product is better. When the company wants to use M&A to increase itsmarket share, it must look at utilizing the right information to decrease consumeranimosity. Given the era of globalization, there are many products and brands thatoriginate from various countries and it is very important to reduce consumerethnocentrism. It is also very important for the acquirer to avoid a strategy ofethnocentrism when marketing their products and brands during the post-mergergiven the cultural differences that could be present. There are different customs,values, languages, symbols and religions in different countries and a manager shouldknow the consumer perceptions of the brand or company after the M&A and make the
EJM45,7/8
1104
correct marketing decisions. Based on the aforementioned points, future studies canexamine the effect of multicultural problems such as COO and animosity onconsumer-based brand equity after M&A in order to give managers a theoreticalconstruct for stabilizing situations that involve cultural issues and consequently; howto increase consumer-based brand equity.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, The FreePress, New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. (1992), “The value of brand equity”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 13 No. 4,pp. 27-33.
Aaker, D.A. (1996a), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. (1996b), “Measuring brand equity: across products and markets”, CaliforniaManagement Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 102-20.
Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36No. 3, pp. 345-55.
Ahmed, Z.U., Johnson, J.P., Ling, C.P., Fang, T.W. and Hui, K.A. (2006), “Country-of-origin andbrand effects on consumers’ evaluations of cruise lines”, International Marketing Review,Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 279-302.
Ahmend, S.A., d’Astous, A. and Champagne, C. (2005), “Country images of technologicalproducts in Taiwan”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 17 No. 2,pp. 44-70.
Andreassen, T.W. and Lindestad, B. (1998), “Customer loyalty and complex service: the impact ofcorporate image on quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty for customers with varyingdegrees of service expertise”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Bagozzi, R. and Yi, Y. (1989), “On the use of structural equation models experimental designs”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 271-85.
Bagozzi, R., Yi, Y. and Singh, S. (1991), “On the use of structural equation models in experimentaldesigns: two extensions”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 8, pp. 125-40.
Basu, K. (2006), “Managing brands after mergers”, California Management Review, Vol. 48 No. 4,pp. 28-42.
Bekier, M.M. and Shelton, M.J. (2002), “Keeping your sales force after the merger”, The McKinseyQuarterly, Vol. 4, pp. 106-15.
Biel, A.L. (1992), “How brand image drives brand equity”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 32No. 6, pp. 6-12.
Biel, A.L. (1993), “Converting image into equity”, in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A.L. (Eds), BrandEquity and Advertising, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Bloemer, J., de Rayter, K. and Petter, P. (1998), “Investigating devices of bank loyalty: the complexrelationship between image, service quality and satisfaction”, International Journal ofBank Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 276-86.
Browan, J., Easingwood, C. and Murphy, J. (2001), “Using qualitative research to refine servicequality models”, Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 217-23.
Brand imagestrategy
1105
Burmann, C., Schaefer, K. and Maloney, P. (2008), “Industry image: its impact on the brand image
of potential employees”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 159-76.
Carson, P.P., Carson, K.D., Knouse, S.B. and Roe, C.W. (1997), “Balance theory applied to service
quality: a focus on the organization, provider, and consumer triad”, Journal of Business
and Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 99-120.
Chang, C.Y. and Yu, P.L. (2001), Made by Taiwan: Booming in the Information Technology Era,
Imperial College Press, London.
Chao, P., Wuhrer, G. and Wernei, T. (2005), “Celebrity and foreign brand name as moderators of
country-of-origin”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 173-92.
Craze, M. and Deen, M. (2006), “Mittal battle for Arcelor may drag on”, The China Post,
20 December.
Cretu, A.E. and Brodie, R.J. (2007), “The influence of brand image and company reputation where
manufacturers market to small firms: a customer value perspective”, Industry Marketing
Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 230-40.
Dalakas, V. and Levin, A.M. (2005), “The balance theory: how sponsorships may elicit negative
consumer attitude”, Advance in Consumer Research, Vol. 32, pp. 91-7.
Dean, D.H. (2002), “Associating the corporation with a charitable event through sponsorship:
measuring the effects on corporate community relations”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 16
No. 4, pp. 77-87.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991), “Effects of price, brand and store information
on buyers’ production evaluation”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, August,
pp. 307-19.
Ehrenberg, A., Goodhardt, G. and Barwise, T.P. (1990), “Double jeopardy revisited”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 82-91.
Faircloth, J.B. (2005), “Factors influencing nonprofit resource provider support decision: applying
the brand equity concept to nonprofit”, Journal of Marketing Practice and Theory, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 1-15.
Faircloth, J.B., Capella, L.M. and Ahord, B.L. (2001), “The effect of brand attitude and brand
image on brand equity”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 61-75.
Fornell, C. (1983), “Issues in the application of covariance structure: a comment”, The Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 443-8.
Geylani, T., ter Hofstede, F. and Inman, J. (2006), “Image reinforcement or impairment? The
effects of co-branding on attribute uncertainty”, Advances in Consumer Marketing, Vol. 33,
pp. 43-6.
Grewal, D., Monroe, K.B. and Krishnam, R. (1988), “The effects of price-comparison advertising
on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 46-60.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.F., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Hankinson, G. (2005), “Destination brand images: a business tourism perspective”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 24-33.
EJM45,7/8
1106
Homburg, C. and Bucerius, M. (2005), “A marketing perspective on mergers and acquisitions:how marketing integration affects post-merger performance”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 69, pp. 95-113.
Homburg, C. and Stock, R.M. (2004), “Exploring the conditions under which salesperson worksatisfaction can lead to customer satisfaction”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 5,pp. 393-420.
Hsieh, A.T. and Li, C.K. (2008), “The moderating effect of brand image on public relationsperception and customer loyalty”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 26 No. 1,pp. 26-42.
Iversen, N.M. and Hem, L.E. (2008), “Provenance association as core value of place umbrellabrands: a framework of characteristics”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 4/5,pp. 603-26.
Jaju, A., Joiner, C. and Reddy, S.K. (2006), “Consumers’ evaluations of corporate brandredeployments”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 206-15.
Johnson, M.D., Gustafsson, A., Anderessen, T.W., Lervik, L. and Cha, J. (2001), “The evolutionand future of National Customer Satisfaction Index model”, Journal of EconomicPsychology, Vol. 22, pp. 217-45.
Kayaman, R. and Arasli, H. (2007), “Customer-based brand equity: evidence from hotel industry”,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 17, pp. 92-109.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing BrandEquity, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kim, C.K. and Chung, J.Y. (1997), “Brand popularity, country image and market share: an empiricalstudy”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 361-83.
Klein, J.G., Ettenson, R.E. and Morris, M.D. (1998), “The animosity model of foreign productpurchase: an empirical test in the People’s Republic of China”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62No. 1, pp. 89-100.
Kumar, S. and Blomqvist, K.H. (2004), “Merger and acquisitions: making brand equity a keyfactor in M&A decision making”, Strategy & leadership, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 20-7.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995), “Measuring customer-based brand equity”,The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 11-19.
Lipponen, J., Olkkonen, M-E. and Moilanen, M. (2004), “Perceived procedural justice andemployment responses to an organizational merger”, European Journal of Work andOrganization Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 391-413.
Martenson, R. (2007), “Corporate brand image and store loyalty: a study of the store as a brandsand manufacture brands”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 544-55.
Motameni, R. and Shahrokhi, M. (1998), “Brand equity valuation: a global perspective”, Journal ofProduct and Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 275-90.
Mudambi, M.U., Doyle, P. and Wong, V. (1997), “An exploration of branding in industrialmarkets”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 433-46.
Nandan, S. (2005), “An exploration of brand identity-brand image linkage: a communicationsperspective”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 264-79.
Brand imagestrategy
1107
Nguyen, H. and Kleiner, B.H. (2003), “The effective management of mergers”, Leadership& Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 Nos 7/8, pp. 447-54.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
O’Cass, A. and Lim, K. (2002), “Toward understanding the young consumer’s brand associationsand ethnocentrism in the lion’s port”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 9, pp. 759-75.
Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W. (2006), “Consumer-base brand equity andcountry-of-origin relationship”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 5/6,pp. 696-717.
Park, C.W., Jan, Y.J. and Shocker, A.D. (1996), “Composite branding alliances: an investigation ofextension and feedback effects”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 453-67.
Porter, S.S. and Claycomb, C. (1997), “The influence of brand recognition on retail store image”,Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 373-87.
Power, J., Whelan, S. and Davies, G. (2008), “The attractiveness and connectedness of ruthlessbrands: the role of trust”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 5/6, pp. 586-602.
Ramaseshan, B. and Tsao, H-Y. (2007), “Moderating effects of the brand concept on therelationship between brand personality and brand equity”, Journal of Brand Management,Vol. 14, pp. 458-66.
Rao, W.A., Mahajan, V. and Varayia, N.P. (1991), “A balance model for evaluating firms foracquisition”, Management Science, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 331-49.
Ratnatunga, J. and Ewing, M.T. (2009), “An ex-ante approach to brand capability valuation”,Journal of Business Review., Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 323-31.
Richardson, P.S., Dick, A. and Jain, A.K. (1994), “Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on perceptionsof store brand quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 28-37.
Roy, D. and Banerjee, S. (2007), “CARE-ing strategy for integration of brand identity with brandimage”, International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol. 17 Nos 1/2, pp. 140-8.
Russell, C.A. and Stern, B.B. (2006), “Consumers, characters and products: a balance modelsitcom product placement effects”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 7-21.
Schoker, A.D. and Weitz, B. (1988), “A perspective on brand equity principles and issues”,in Leuthesse, L. (Ed.), Defining, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, MarketingScience Institute, Cambridge, MA, pp. 2-4.
Schultz, H. (2005), “The customer isn’t always”, Marketing Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 9-10.
Schweizer, L. (2005), “Organization integration of acquired biotechnology companies intopharmaceutical companies: the need for a hybrid approach”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 1051-74.
Speece, M. and Nguyen, D.P. (2005), “Countering negative country-of-origin with low price:a conjoint study in Vietnam”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 1,pp. 39-48.
Swaminathan, V. (2006), “When brands join hands: examining the reciprocal effects of brandalliance strategies on partner brand equity”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 33,pp. 43-5.
van Osselaer, S.M.J. and Janiszewski, C. (2001), “Two ways of learning brand association”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28, September, pp. 202-23.
Villareji-Ramos, A.F. and Sanchez-Franco, M.J. (2005), “The impact of marketing communicationand price promotion on brand equity”, Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 431-44.
EJM45,7/8
1108
Vranesevic, T. and Seancec, R. (2003), “The effect of the brand on perceived quality of foodproducts”, British Food Journal, Vol. 105, pp. 811-26.
Wood, L.M. (2001), “Dimensions of brand purchase behavior: consumers in the 18-24 age group”,Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 4, pp. 9-24.
Woodside, A.G. (2004), “Advanced means-end chains incorporating Haider’s balance theory andFournier’s consumer-brand relationship typology”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 21No. 4, pp. 279-94.
Yasin, N.M., Noor, M.N. and Mohamad, O. (2006), “Does country-of-origin matter to brandequity?”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 38-48.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-basedbrand equity scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), “An examination of selected marketing mix element andbrand equity”, Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 195-211.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end modeland synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, July, pp. 2-22.
Zins, A.H. (2001), “Relative attitudes and commitment in customer loyalty model: someexperiences in the commercial airline industry”, International of Service IndustryManagement, Vol. 2 Nos 3/4, pp. 269-96.
Further reading
Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.R. and Donthu, N. (1995), “Brand equity, brand performance, andpurchase intent”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 25-40.
Dalakas, V. and Kropp, F. (2002), “Attitudes toward purchasing from sponsors: a cross-culturalperspective”, Journal of Euromarketing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 19-39.
Mahajan, V., Rao, V.R. and Srivastava, R.K. (1994), “An approach to assess the importance ofbrand equity in acquisition decisions”, Journal of Product InnovationManagement, Vol. 11,pp. 221-35.
Mitra, D. and Golder, P.N. (2006), “How does objective quality affect perceived quality?Short-term, long-term and asymmetric?”, Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 230-47.
Rossiter, J.R. and Percy, L. (1987), Advertising and Promotion Management, McGraw-Hill,New York, NY.
Corresponding authorHsiang-Ming Lee can be contacted at: [email protected]
Brand imagestrategy
1109
Appendix 1
Con
stru
ctIt
ems
Sta
nd
ard
ized
load
ing
(t-v
alu
e)S
ourc
es
Per
ceiv
edq
ual
ity
PQ
1B
ran
dX
mu
stb
eof
ver
yg
ood
qu
alit
y10.
8220.
89(1
9.86
)(2
2.70
)A
aker
(199
1);Y
ooetal.
(200
0),P
app
uetal.
(200
6)P
Q2
Bra
nd
Xof
fers
pro
du
cts
ofco
nsi
sten
tq
ual
ity
10.
7220.
78(1
8.72
)(1
6.66
)P
Q3
Bra
nd
Xof
fers
ver
yd
ura
ble
pro
du
cts
10.
8520.
84(2
1.19
)(2
0.77
)P
Q4
Bra
nd
Xof
fers
ver
yre
liab
lep
rod
uct
s10.
8520.
89(2
0.94
)(2
2.78
)B
ran
das
soci
atio
nB
A1
Itr
ust
the
com
pan
yw
hic
hm
akes
Bra
nd
X10.
8020.
82A
aker
(199
1),
1996
)A
aker
(199
1),
1996
a,b
);A
aker
(199
7),
Pap
puet
al.
(200
6)B
A2
Itis
app
rop
riat
eto
des
crib
eth
ep
rod
uct
sof
fere
db
yB
ran
dX
asu
p-m
ark
et(1
)0.7
920.
73(1
9.03
)(1
6.94
)B
A3
Itis
app
rop
riat
eto
des
crib
eth
ep
rod
uct
sof
fere
db
yB
ran
dX
asto
ug
h
10.
8220.
86(1
9.94
)(2
1.82
)B
A4
Ili
ke
the
com
pan
yw
hic
hm
akes
Bra
nd
X10.
8520.
88(2
1.24
)(2
2.63
)B
A5
Iw
ould
feel
pro
ud
toow
np
rod
uct
sfr
omth
eco
mp
any
wh
ich
mak
esB
ran
dX
10.
8220.
85(2
0.17
)(2
1.45
)B
ran
dlo
yal
tyB
L1
Bra
nd
Xw
ould
be
my
firs
tch
oice
10.
9020.
92(2
2.71
)(2
4.08
)P
app
uet
al.
(200
6)
BL
2I
con
sid
erm
yse
lflo
yal
toB
ran
dX
10.
8920.
89(2
2.38
)(2
2.65
)
Notes
:1A
cqu
irer
bra
nd
;2ac
qu
ired
bra
nd
Table AI.Items in scales
EJM45,7/8
1110
Appendix 2
Bef
ore
M&
A(a
cqu
irer
)B
efor
eM
&A
(acq
uir
ed)
t-v
alu
eP
QB
AB
LP
QB
AB
L
Bef
ore
M&
A(a
cqu
irer
)P
QB
A2
6(0
.94,
0.01
)B
L2
9.6
(0.7
1,0.
03)
27.
5(0
.85,
0.02
)B
efor
eM
&A
(acq
uir
ed)
PQ
212
.6(0
.27,
0.05
)2
15.6
(0.2
2,0.
05)
217
.2(0
.14,
0.05
)B
A2
15(0
.25,
0.05
)2
15(0
.25,
0.05
)2
16.6
(0.1
7,0.
05)
28
(0.9
2,0.
01)
BL
215
.8(0
.21,
0.05
)2
15.2
(0.2
4,0.
05)
214
.4(0
.28,
0.05
)2
8(0
.76,
0.03
)2
5.5
(0.8
9,0.
02)
Table AII.
Brand imagestrategy
1111
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
