University brand equity: an empirical investigation of its dimensions

For Review O

nly

University Brand Equity: An Empirical Investigation of Its

Dimensions

Journal: International Journal of Educational Management

Manuscript ID: IJEM-04-2013-0051.R1

Manuscript Type: Original Article

Keywords: University branding, Brand equity scale, Branding, Higher education,

Student experience, Brand Equity

International Journal of Educational Management

For Review O

nly

University brand equity: An empirical investigation of its

dimensions

INTRODUCTION

In today’s global marketplace, the role of brand management has been elevated to a new level of

importance. Brands as powerful assets represent the essence of a company; therefore, they must

be carefully developed and managed. As one of a company’s most valuable intangible assets, a

brand functions as a powerful differentiator for the business and as a decision-making tool for

customers (Aaker, 1996, 1991; Keller, 2013, 1993). Because brands represent consumers’

perceptions and feelings about a product and its performance (Kotler and Keller, 2006), the real

value of a strong brand is its ability to capture customer preference and loyalty. At their best,

brands represent promises kept, and build loyalty through trust which in turn maintain profitable

customer relationships (Kotler and Armstrong, 2012; Reichheld, 2001, 2006). Branding efforts

are no longer limited to “consumer products”. Firms and organizations in various service

industries have been trying to utilize branding strategies to build stronger brands. In this regard,

higher education and universities are not exceptions; they have also begun to realize the need to

develop sustainable brand strategies. In fact, branding has increasingly become a strategic

imperative for universities and other post-compulsory educational institutions in order to develop

meaningfully differentiated brands to communicate their strengths (Jevons, 2006).

As the recent economic environment has had a major negative impact on the financial

situation of most higher education institutions, colleges and universities have begun to realize

that the relatively simple promotional tools of the past no longer work as they once did. As a

result, they are turning to branding as they seek to thrive, and in some cases to survive, in the

current marketplace for higher education. For example, in the UK, because of increased

competition within the education sector and diminishing university funds, there has been a

growing recognition for importance of branding among British universities and educational

institutions (Mazzarol and Soutar, 1999; Mok, 1999). In fact, the UK government supported a

worldwide re-branding campaign to establish a clear and competitive identity for UK universities

in order to attract more international students (Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana, 2007). The

goal of re-branding the UK institutions was to attract students and to differentiate British

education from its major competitors in the USA and Australia. Universities in the United States

face the same competitive pressures, especially as various universities in China and India strive

to develop into world-class institutions (Silverstein and Singhi, 2012).

Given the increasingly complex and highly competitive marketplace, universities and

colleges have turned to branding as a solution in coping with today’s global challenges

(Whisman, 2007). In fact, it is becoming increasingly apparent that multiple brands may exist for

many universities given the complexity of most schools (Stripling, 2010; Waeraas and Solbakk,

2009). As Waeraas and Solbakk state, “[U]niversities may be too complex and fragmented to

both understand and express as single identity organizations” (2009, p. 459). For example,

different university brands for a single school may exist for the following stakeholders:

undergraduate students, graduate students, alumni, corporate recruiters, local community

Page 1 of 21 International Journal of Educational Management

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

members, parents of students, organizations that rely on specialized academic research and

knowledge, fans of sports teams (in the USA), and so on. Even so, as complex as this situation is,

it becomes even more challenging when one takes into consideration perspectives involving

different colleges within a university. For example, does University X have different brands

when various stakeholders think about its college of engineering versus its college of business?

Or, even more tightly defined, its college/department of mechanical engineering versus its

college/department of electrical engineering? Clearly, the presence of multiple brands (i.e., sub-

brands) is possible, although there may be shared meanings and identity elements across the

various brands (i.e., university brand). At this time, as Waeraas and Solbakk (2009) note, there

are more questions than answers given the state of the literature and actual university experience.

Despite the growing importance of branding for the competitiveness of higher education,

Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana (2007) state that while the broader topic of international

marketing of higher education has been a key topic of both empirical research and theoretical

papers, empirical research specifically related to branding of higher education is relatively

scarce. Moreover, the branding literature offers no prior research examining the issues and

factors that are important for developing strong university brands and brand equity. Nor have any

prior studies developed a scale to measure university brand equity and its dimensions that could

guide the development of successful branding strategies for higher education institutions. In

order to help fill this void in the university branding literature, the specific objectives of this

study are to:

1. Review the literature to identify the issues and factors relevant for university brand equity

and branding with respect to undergraduate students.

2. Develop a measurement scale for university brand equity and its dimensions with respect to

undergraduate students, and test the reliability and validity of the measurement model.

3. Determine the relative importance of the brand equity dimensions in creating a strong

university brand with respect to undergraduate students.

4. Discuss the implications of the findings for university branding and marketing strategy with

respect to undergraduate students.

We feel that this study could help brand managers in higher education to identify the key

branding factors (brand equity dimensions) that are critical for creating strong, differentiated

education brands desired and preferred by targeted undergraduate students. Unlike previous

studies which focus on the promotion of universities to attract more students, this paper will

identify brand equity core and supporting dimensions as the drivers for creating strong university

brands. By addressing both core and supporting dimensions, we intend to capture the richness of

university brand equity. Moreover, contrary to other university branding studies where the focus

is on promotion, this paper focuses on the undergraduate student experience as a fundamental

core of higher education branding. Given the wide variety of brands possible for any given

university, this study has intentionally confined its attention to undergraduate students.

Page 2 of 21International Journal of Educational Management

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

BACKGROUND Brand Equity

As a result of recent globalization and increased competition, branding and brand equity have

received a great deal of attention, where the ultimate goal of all branding strategies is to build

strong brand equity. Keller (1993, p. 2) defined customer-based brand equity (CBBE) as “the

differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand.”

According to Keller (2013), brand equity is the value that consumers associate with a brand;

thus, the power of the brand lies in what customers have learned, felt, heard, and responded to

regarding the brand over time. As a key indicator of the state of health of a brand (Keller, 1993;

Kim and Kim, 2004), brand equity is built through an effective management of the brand. Brand

equity is the positive differential effect that knowing the brand name has on consumer responses

to the product or service (Keller, 1993). The value of a brand is created by marketers through the

brand’s superior quality, social esteem the brand provides for users, consumer trust in the brand,

and self-identification with the brand (Keller, 1993, 2013; Schiffman and Kanuk, 2007).

Keller (2013, p. 45) states that, “CBBE occurs when the consumer has a high level of

awareness and familiarity with the brand and holds some strong, favorable, and unique brand

associations in memory.” A powerful brand enjoys a high level of consumer awareness and

loyalty, and it forms the basis for building strong and profitable customer relationships (Aaker,

1996; Keller, 1993, 2013). Also, Aaker (1991), defining brand equity as a set of assets

(liabilities), conceptualized it as a multidimensional concept consisting of brand awareness,

brand associations, perceived quality, and brand loyalty that are important from the customer

perspective. In the past, consumer-based brand equity has been measured with multiple

constructs, such as brand awareness (Aaker, 1991), perceived quality (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Yoo et

al., 2000), brand loyalty (Yoo et al., 2000; Yoo and Donthu, 2001), brand association and brand

personality (Aaker, 1997), organizational association (Aaker, 1996), and brand trust (Aekura and

Mat, 2008; Lioa and Wu, 2009). Therefore, this study measures the concept of overall university

brand equity described by multiple constructs some of which include perceived quality, brand

trust, brand loyalty, brand awareness, brand associations. The other constructs and reasons for

including them in measuring university brand equity are discussed next.

Branding in Higher Education

A review of the literature reveals very few studies (Gatfield et al., 1999; Gray et al., 2003;

Mazzarol, 1998) that concentrate on university branding, with some attention given to the

international marketing of higher education. A study by Gatfield et al. (1999) shows that

recognition (quality of teachers and resources), campus life (added features), and guidance

(access services) are the most salient promotional features used in marketing universities. In

related research, Gray et al. (2003) identify a university’s learning environment, reputation,

graduate career prospects, destination and cultural integration as the main brand positioning

dimensions for higher education institutions.

Prior research also indicates that much of the branding effort in higher education appears

to be focused on promotion and brand identity elements, including logos, mottos, promotional

materials, advertising, mascots, names, and the like (Argenti, 2000; Bunzel, 2007; Jevons, 2006).


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

These efforts appear to be largely concerned with promotion and external branding without a

clear understanding of the holistic nature of what constitutes a brand. In this regard, Jevons

(2006, p. 467) has questioned the effectiveness of these promotional exercises, stating,

“Uncertain about what is important for the brand, their students, or other stakeholders, they

[universities] grasp at less-than-differentiating value propositions…” Likewise, referring to

external branding efforts, Bunzel (2007, p. 153) states, “In the final analysis there has been little

evidence to show that a university branding program really creates a change in perception or

ranking of a university.” With increasingly common mottos and tag lines, Goldney (2008)

wonders, “Could these words become, if it has not already occurred, weasel words, meaning they

have essentially lost any true meaning because of their frequent and at times rather

indiscriminate use?” Clearly, there are limitations to focusing on the external promotional

dimensions of a brand without fully considering what is important for students and their

educational experience. Thus, to the extent the focus is simply on “better” marketing and

communications, branding efforts are not likely to deliver the intended results.

Fortunately, the historically narrow approach to brand development and management

may be changing. Black (2008) specifically addresses the concept of brand promise and “the role

of all faculty, staff, and administrators as ‘institutional trust agents’” in the delivery of the

promise. Ng and Forbes (2009) have developed a compelling gap model for the university

experience based on the service quality literature that explicitly recognizes the various parties

involved in the creation of the learning experience, including the students themselves. While

recognizing the importance of physical evidence and processes, Ng and Forbes (2009) rightly

highlight the complexity of the university experience as it is co-created, emergent, unstructured,

interactive, and uncertain, and that not all students share the same goals and orientation

(academic, personal, vocational, social) with respect to the university experience. Notably, Ng

and Forbes (2009) also highlight the importance of trust in delivering effective experiences. In

her book review, Lafferty (2001) points out that Gobe (2001) describes generational differences

in brand emotions and suggest firms to use differentiated emotional branding strategies when

targeting different generations. To Baby Boomers, emotional branding means comfort,

reassurance, and solutions while gen Xers value relationships, imagination, and creativity. Gen

Yers responds well to interactivity, fun, and experience (Gobe, 2001). Indeed, Spake et al.

(2010) and Joseph et al. (2012) found that students are increasingly valuing extravagant lifestyle

facilities (e.g., housing, recreation, student centers) as they select schools to attend. In today’s

marketplace, colleges and universities must have a better understanding of the holistic

complexity of the university experience and its impact on creating strong university brands and

brand equity.

The role of faculty and staff in creating a university brand cannot be overstated. Whisman

(2009, p. 368) puts it well when he writes, “Like their corporate counterparts, colleges and

universities must recognize that their most valuable tangible asset is their passionate employees.”

Hatch and Schultz (2013) echo and elaborate on this theme in their work on corporate brand

charisma and its infusion in everyday organizational life, particularly with respect to the work of

middle management. Chapleo (2010) also clearly identifies “internal support/buy-in” as a key

success factor in university branding. In her work on moral brands, Jeanes (2013) rightly

emphasizes that employee actions must not merely be robotic, but must be authentic in that

employees have flexibility in delivering a brand’s promise. Thus, the brand enables employees


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

“in terms of what they can accomplish” (p. 170). This enabling may be particularly important in

academia, where “[a] too stringent focus on precision, consistency, and ‘corporate commitment’ .

. . is likely to fail” (Waeraas and Solbakk, 2009, p. 460). Not surprisingly, hiring the right people

is critical in being able to give employees the autonomy to deliver a brand’s promises in an

authentic manner. Having a compelling vision is a prerequisite, not only to hiring the right

people, but also to developing meaningful, sustainable brands (Whisman, 2009; Jeanes, 2013;

Chapleo, 2010; Waeraas and Solbakk, 2008; Brown and Carasso, 2013).

As universities have increased their branding attempts, it is not clear whether such efforts

have been successful (Stripling, 2010; Waeraas and Solbakk, 2009). However, that such

activities are taking place has been quite controversial (Molesworth, M. et al., 2011; Brown and

Carasso, 2013; Stripling, 2010). At issue is the fundamental meaning and purpose of higher

education, and whether or not market forces are a positive influence. While the future outcome

of these efforts is unknown, the present signs are not positive, particularly in the UK. A

complicating variable is governmental influence, which admittedly will be a constraint as

universities seek to become increasingly competitive with less funding (Brown and Carasso,

2013). The perspective held by the authors of this paper is that branding efforts, in and of

themselves, are not necessarily the cause of the controversy. Rather, it is how various

stakeholders are viewed, and how branding is currently being employed as a tool to add value.

University Brand Equity

While not directly investigating university brand equity, Ivy (2008) identifies seven distinct

factors that students find important in the selection of a university business school. In order of

importance, with most important first, the factors are the program (choice of majors, electives),

prominence (reputation), price (tuition), prospectus (communication through direct mail), people

(interactions with faculty, staff, and other students), promotion (publicity and e-media), and

premiums (mixture of various offerings). Other studies have focused on the importance of

facilities (Price et al., 2003), the importance of emphasizing people (i.e., faculty, staff, other

students, community) and processes (logistics of the service delivery) in the marketing of

services (Cowell, 1982; Nicholls et al., 1995), and the tight linkage of positioning to the concept

of branding (Nicholls et al., 1995). With respect to brand positioning, the prior research (Gatfield

et al., 1999; Gray et al., 2003; Mazzarol, 1998) has identified academic instruction and learning

environment, campus life, reputation, and career prospects for graduates as being the most salient

dimensions in higher education.

Ng and Forbes (2009) assert that the focal point of university branding is the learning

experience as a part of core value-creation. Therefore, brand equity dimensions should be

measuring the significance of the core value creation of learning experience. Moreover, the core

value-creation factors are the focus of the higher education brand ecosystem model proposed by

Pinar et al. (2011) for developing university brands and brand equity. Based on their model,

because the core of the university experience is embedded in learning, academics (i.e., teaching

and research) are the core value creation activities for the students’ higher education experience.

In an attempt to capture (or measure) students’ learning experience, the brand equity dimensions

of brand awareness, perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand association and personality,


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

organizational association, and brand trust can be considered as the core factors that are essential

for the students’ brand experience in creating value and brand equity.

Surrounding the core value creation activities that nurture student experience are the

supporting value-creation activities that include student life, sports, and community activities

(Pinar et al., 2011). Also, Ng and Forbes (2009) state that supporting (or supplementary) services

such as the application process, payment of fees, campus facilities, and student accommodations

all play a role in facilitating the core service experience. While these supporting activities, as

hygiene factors, may not necessarily provide a superior university experience, as Ng and Forbes

(2009) indicate, the core academic service cannot function effectively without these supporting

services, such that the two (core and supporting activities) interact dynamically in construction of

the entire university experience for students. The student life experience at its broadest is the

sum of all such student experiences through each and every encounter that make up student life,

including the encounters in their dormitories, payment of fees, campus facilities, or sporting

events may enhance or inhibit the students’ core service experience. Therefore, in addition to

core brand equity dimensions, these supporting factors are also included in this study as a part of

measuring university brand equity.

In addressing the first research objective, using the brand equity and university branding

literature as a foundation, we identified two groups of brand equity dimensions (core and

supporting) that are relevant for creating a university brand and brand equity. The core value-

creation factors that are part of the consumer-based brand equity dimensions established in the

literature include brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations, organizational

associations, brand loyalty, brand emotions, brand trust, learning environment, and reputation.

The supporting value-creation factors include student experience with residence halls, dining

services, career services, physical facilities (e.g., gym, classrooms, labs, etc.), and library

services.

We describe each step of developing and pre-testing of the measurements in the

methodology section. The analysis and results section addresses the reliability and validity of the

measurement model, and the relative importance of the core and supporting brand equity

dimensions in creating a strong university brand.

METHODOLOGY

Survey and Measurement Scales In order to accomplish the objectives of the study, a survey instrument was designed to measure

the CBBE dimensions for university branding. For this purpose, we initially developed multiple-

item scales for core and supporting brand equity dimensions. Because no prior measurement

scales for university branding have existed, the scale measures for this study are compiled from

the literature on brand equity measurements as well as several other branding studies. More

specifically, we developed the core value-creation brand equity scale items from the following

sources: brand awareness (Lasser et al., 1995; Aaker, 1996; Netemeyer et al., 2004; Buil et al.,

2008; Tong and Hawley, 2009), perceived quality (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Buil et al., 2008; Pappu et

al., 2005, 2006; Yoo et al., 2000; Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Tong and Hawley, 2009), brand

associations - career development, organizational, and faculty (Gray et al., 2003; Kim and Kim,

2004; Pappu et al., 2006), brand loyalty (Kim and Kim, 2004; Yoo et al., 2000; Yoo and Donthu,


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

2001), brand trust (Aekuru and Mat, 2008; Lioa and Wu, 2009), reputation - overall brand equity

(Buil et al., 2008; Tong and Hawley, 2009; Gray et al., 2003) and brand emotion/feeling

(developed by authors). The supporting dimensions of residence hall, dining services, and library

services were adapted from Gray et al. (2003). Because these scale measures had originally been

developed for other purposes, the individual items were modified to fit this study. As explained

below, several pretests are conducted to make sure that the scale items are comprehensible and

clearly measure the intended constructs. Respondents were asked how important/unimportant

each statement was for a good reputation of a university. All items were measured on a 7-point

importance scale (1=Very Unimportant; 2=Unimportant; 3=Somewhat unimportant; 4=Neither

unimportant nor important; 5=Somewhat important; 6=Important; 7=Very Important).

Once the scale items for core and supporting brand equity dimensions (factors) were

developed, we conducted a series of pretesting in order to fine-tune the various scale items. As a

first step, we asked several colleagues who are knowledgeable about scale development and

university branding to evaluate the intended meaning and clarity of the scale items. Based on

their feedback, we modified some of the scale items in order to improve the wording and clarity

of meaning. Because the study’s intention was to learn about the importance of brand equity

dimensions from the perspective of students, who are the main focus and consumers of higher

education, the next pretest was conducted with the target student population and included

students from different class levels. For this purpose, we had 73 completed pre-test surveys.

Based on the results of the exploratory factor analyses, we further modified some of the scale

items and eliminated the items that had poor factor loadings or loaded on multiple factors. Thus,

the pretests provided useful input for improving the survey items and in establishing face validity

of the constructs (Churchill and Iacobucci, 2005; Narver and Slater, 1990). This scale

purification process provided us with core and supporting factors that were used in the survey.

The survey also included demographic questions of gender, age, classification, college, and

living on or off campus.

Sample and Data Collection

As stated above, students are the main focus of the marketing and branding strategies of

universities; therefore, they are the target publics for recruitment (Ivy, 2008) and the direct

receivers of the educational services (Ng and Forbes, 2009; Pinar et al., 2011). Also, as

suggested by Gray et al. (2003), when building a university brand, it is important that

universities need to understand the key educational needs of students and the perceived value of

core and augmented elements of their offerings. Moreover, students are central in defining

intended experience because they are a main reason for the existence of colleges and universities.

Therefore, students are considered as the target population for this study; thus, they represent our

sampling frame. Data for the main study were collected at a comprehensive private university in

the Midwestern United States. In order to have representation of students from all levels of

classification and different colleges across the campus, we used convenience sampling which

was purposefully targeted to include freshmen, sophomore, junior, and senior level classes from

the colleges of arts and sciences, business, engineering, and nursing. No graduate classes were

included in the sample. A total of 30 classes with varying sizes provided a total of 447 potential

respondents. These classes served as clusters where the survey was administered to all of the

students in each class. Moreover, classes were selected in such a way that would minimize


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

student overlap. However, in the few cases where there were duplications, students were told not

to complete the survey a second time. In order to make sure that the survey was completed

properly, three trained students administered the surveys. These students read the instructions for

the survey, distributed them, and collected the completed surveys for each class administration.

These helpers were compensated and they conducted the surveys in a professional manner. This

sampling process produced a total of 439 usable surveys.

As Table 1 presents, 53.1 percent of the respondents were male and 46.9 percent were

female. The student classification is fairly evenly distributed as intended. Six graduate students

were enrolled in dual-credit undergraduate courses. Concerning the distribution of students by

college, 37.3 percent of the respondents were arts and sciences students, 27.5 percent were

business students, 15.9 percent were engineering students, 3.4 percent were nursing students, and

a small number were double majors or undecided. Thirteen percent of responses regarding the

college question were not usable (either no response or the university name was a response). The

majority of the respondents (65.6%) lived on campus, whereas 34.4 percent lived off campus.

The mean age of the respondents was 20.7 years old.

Table 1: Profiles of Respondents

Gender n Percent College n Percent

Male 233 53.1 Arts & Science 164 37.3

Female 206 46.9 Business 121 27.5

Total 439 100.0 Engineering 70 15.9

Class n Percent Nursing 15 3.4

Freshman 113 25.9 Double major 9 2.0

Sophomore 117 26.8 Exploratory/Undecided 4 0.9

Junior 107 24.5 Non or invalid response 57 13.0

Senior 94 21.5 Living on or off campus n Percent

Graduate 6 1.4 On campus 288 65.6

Total 437 100.0 Off campus 151 34.4

Mean St. Dev. Total 439 100.0

Age 20.7 2.69

ANALYSES AND RESULTS

Discriminant and convergent validity

To achieve the second objective of this study, we compiled and adapted measurements from the

literature, and developed new items for university brand equity and its dimensions. We identified

the core and supporting brand equity dimensions in the literature (Ng and Forbes, 2009; Pinar et

al., 2011). In addition, we pretested and purified the scale measures, and then we administered

the survey to students – a sample of our target population. As a part of the pretesting of the

survey instrument, Exploratory Factor Analyses were performed to assess the loadings of the


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

items. To test the discriminant, convergent, and construct validity of the measurement model, we

followed the procedures suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981) (Appendix A and B).

The factor analyses revealed a total of nine clean constructs without any cross-loaded

items, out of which five belonged to core value-creation constructs. Those included brand

awareness, perceived quality, emotional environment, brand loyalty, and university reputation.

Learning experience and university reputation items loaded on the same dimension. Because the

items seem to be very similar in nature and measuring almost the same concept, we kept them

together to measure the overall brand equity. Also, the factor analyses revealed four supporting

value-creation constructs. These factors were labeled as student living (residence halls and

dining services), library services, career development, and physical facilities. The constructs had

the minimum recommended level of loadings of .50 or higher (Hair et al., 2010) (see Appendix

A). As shown in Appendix A, the construct Cronbach’s alphas and reliability values were above

the recommended level of .70 (Hair et al., 2010), demonstrating reliability and convergent

validity of the items for each of the nine brand equity dimensions. Appendix B demonstrates that

the average variance extracted values for the constructs are either equal or higher than the square

of the inter-construct correlations, which confirms discriminant validity.

The third objective of the study was to determine the relative importance of the various

brand equity dimensions in creating a strong university brand. To evaluate the importance of

each brand equity dimension for university branding, we calculated the summated mean scores

for each of the core and supporting brand equity dimensions. Table 2 presents the means,

standard deviations, and correlation coefficients for all of the brand equity dimensions identified

in this study. Because all of the dimensions are measuring the multi-dimensional concept of

consumer-based brand equity, all of them are significantly correlated, as expected.

Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Coefficients for University Brand

Equity Dimensions*

Mean

Std.

Dev. 1. UR 2. SL 3. PQ 4. LS 5. EE 6. BL 7. CD 8. BA 9. PF

1. University Reputation 6.1 0.9 1

2. Student Living 5.6 1.1 .54* 1

3. Perceived Quality 6.3 0.9 .66* .54* 1

4. Library Services 5.7 1.1 .50* .69* .51* 1

5. Emotional Environment 6.1 1.0 .38* .24* .22* .18* 1

6. Brand Loyalty 5.8 1.1 .65* .45* .54* .44* .31* 1

7. Career Development 5.5 1.0 .65* .57* .52* .54* .24* .54* 1

8. Brand Awareness 4.8 1.2 .46* .39* .34* .35* .15* .46* .45* 1

9. Physical Facilities 5.2 1.2 .51* .60* .46* .53* .22* .44* .62* .43* 1

Scale: 1=Very unimportant and 7=Very important; * All correlation coefficients are significant at p < .01

The results in Figure 1 show that because mean values of dimensions (or factors) range

from a low of 4.8 (brand awareness) to a high of 6.4 (perceived quality) on a 7-point scale, all of

the brand equity dimensions are perceived as important in varying degrees for creating a strong


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

university brand and brand equity. It is interesting to note in Figure 1 that four out of five core

brand equity dimensions have the largest mean values, suggesting that they are the most

important factors in creating strong university brand. Of the core dimensions, perceived quality

of faculty (all of the items are related to faculty) is the most important brand equity dimension,

followed by university reputation and emotional environment, brand loyalty and brand awareness

dimensions for creating a strong university brand. Among the supporting brand equity

dimensions, library services was the most important for creating a strong university brand,

followed by student living (residence halls and dining services), career development, and

physical facilities (e.g., gym, classrooms, labs).

In order to gain further insight about the importance of the items in each of the brand

equity dimensions for developing a strong university brand and brand equity, we present the

mean values for each item of the brand equity dimensions in Appendix A. An examination of

these mean values for each dimension indicates how important each item is for brand equity.

Concerning the core dimensions, while all the items seem to be important for the perceived

quality dimension, faculty being knowledgeable in their fields is the most important item,

followed by being willing to help students, and being accessible for students’ questions and

concerns. As for the university reputation dimension, graduates being employed before or soon

after graduation is the most important item, followed by having a well-known academic

reputation and possessing high academic standards. All the items in the emotional environment

dimension seem to be equally important for providing a strong emotional environment. For the


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

brand loyalty dimension, being proud to have other people know that students (or graduates) will

have (or have) a degree from the university is the most important item, followed by graduates

being proud of the university and recommending the university to others. The mean values for

items in the brand awareness dimension suggest that they are not as important for a strong

university brand. Of the items, the university being well known is most important. This low level

of perceived importance in brand awareness may be due to the perspective of the student

respondents who are already aware of the brand and therefore they take it for granted.

The mean values of the importance of the supporting value-creation items are also

presented in Appendix A. For the library services dimension, having quality library resources is

the most important item, followed by providing tutoring services and offering a comfortable

study environment. Concerning the student living dimension (residence hall and dining services),

the item mean values range from a low of 5.20 to a high of 5.78, indicating that these items are

somewhat important to important in offering a good student living experience. Of these items,

residence halls offering a good environment to study is the most important, followed by having

modern residence halls, residence hall directors being polite, and dining service personnel being

polite. Because the first three most important items are related to residence halls, this suggests

that providing quality of student living also contributes to a strong university brand. The most

important item for the career development dimension is the career center helping students search

for a job, followed by offering internship programs and experiential learning opportunities.

Finally, for the physical facility dimension, having state-of-art computer labs is most important,

followed by having modern classrooms.

These findings concerning the core and supporting brand equity dimensions and their

specific items can have important implications for developing marketing and branding strategies,

which will be discussed in the implications and conclusion section that fulfills the fourth

objective of this study. In addition, as Table 2 shows, not only all correlation coefficients of the

core and supporting value-creation constructs were significant at p<.01 level, but the constructs

were very highly correlated with the university reputation/overall brand equity dimension. The

significant correlations found among the brand equity dimensions suggest the interconnectedness

of these dimensions. These findings also could have some implications for developing and

implementing university brand strategies; therefore, serious consideration must be given to a

holistic approach to branding efforts.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to review the relevant literature to identify the factors important

for university branding, develop and test the discriminant and convergent validity of

measurement scales for university brand equity dimensions, and investigate the relative

importance of these brand equity dimensions in creating a strong university brand. Through a

review of the literature, we identified brand equity dimensions for university branding, which

were classified as core and supporting (Ng and Forbes, 2009; Pinar et al., 2011). The core value-

creation dimensions identified are brand awareness, perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand

association, organizational association, emotional environment, learning environment, and brand

reputation. The supporting value-creation dimensions identified are student living (residence and


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

dining services), library services, career services, and physical facilities. These supporting brand

equity dimensions are consistent with the discoveries and findings of the limited prior research

regarding brand positioning of higher educational institutions (Gray et al., 2003; Gatfield et al.,

1999).

The results of the exploratory factor analyses produced nine brand equity dimensions

except for brand associations, organizational associations, and brand trust dimensions that loaded

on multiple dimensions. The factor loading for each item on the nine brand equity dimensions

and Cronbach’s alpha and construct reliability values were above the recommended levels (Hair

et al., 2010), demonstrating convergent validity. The average variance extracted of each

construct was also either equal or higher than the square root of the inter-construct correlations,

which confirmed discriminant validity. The results indicated five core brand equity dimensions

and four supporting brand equity dimensions. The summated mean values of the core and

supporting brand equity dimensions indicate that they all are important in varying degree for

creating a strong university brand and brand equity. However, the results indicate that perceived

quality, reputation, and emotional environment as well as brand loyalty are the most important

components for developing a strong university brand.

The first implication of these findings is that following the suggestions of Ng and Forbes

(2009) and Pinar et al. (2011), the factors that are important for university branding are classified

as core factors and supporting factors. Because the core factors have a direct impact on the

students’ educational experience, university administrators now could have a better

understanding of the factors that are important for developing branding strategies for their

universities. Also, as Ng and Forbes (2009) suggest, because the core dimensions cannot exist

without the supporting factors, this study presents factors that support the core educational

experience that are essential for creating a strong university brand.

The second implication is that the study presents the relative importance of factors that

drive university branding strategies. The results in Figure 1 suggest that because perceived

quality - faculty was the most important brand equity dimension, university administrators must

make sure to maintain consistently high levels of perceived quality among their students. All of

the perceived quality items were related to the quality of the interaction between the faculty and

students and faculty knowledge. Also, as university reputation was the second most important

core factor, it is essential that a university’s delivery of its promised educational experience is

constantly reinforced to prepare the students well for careers. Brand loyalty and emotional

environment were the third and fourth but equally most important core factors in creating a

strong university brand. This indicates the importance of emotional component of the student

experience and branding. Because the emotional environment dimension was not included in any

of the prior brand equity studies, this may imply that an important component of CBBE might

have been missing in prior brand equity studies. Brand awareness was perceived as fifth core

factor considered as important for creating a strong university brand. While the other core factors

are perceived as somewhat important or important, the results of this study suggest that the main

focus be on the top four factors, which are inter-related and -reinforcing to brand awareness.

The third implication of the study is that in addition to the core factors, university

administrators must also pay attention to the supporting factors when creating a strong university


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

brand. Specifically, given the high level of importance attached to library services and student

living (residence hall and dining services), university administrators must pay special attention to

the physical environment as a key supporting factor for university branding. In this study

supporting and core factors were found to be significantly correlated. This supports the assertion

by Ng and Forbes (2009) that core cannot exist without strong support. This finding also

confirms the importance of the supporting factors presented in the brand ecosystem model by

Pinar et al. (2011).

The forth implication is that in addition to the relative importance of the core and

supporting brand equity dimensions, the mean values of the individual items in each of these

dimensions could be helpful in identifying the relative importance of the specific items in each

brand equity dimension, which in turn, has an impact on the overall university brand. While

brand equity dimensions are beneficial for understanding the main drivers of university brand

equity, we feel that the items in each of the brand equity dimension could be useful to university

administrators in identifying specific areas to address in creating and/or maintaining a strong

university brand and brand equity.

The conclusion and final implication of the results is that developing a strong university

brand is both complex and multi-faceted, with a number of interrelated core and supporting

factors. This is evidenced by the significant correlation coefficients in Table 2 among the core

and supporting factors. Any change in one of these brand equity dimensions is likely to have an

impact on the entire university brand ecosystem proposed by Pinar et al. (2011). Therefore, it is

essential to view university branding as a holistic approach by considering all the brand equity

dimensions collectively. Because there have been no prior studies developing measurements by

identifying and examining the brand equity dimensions for specifically university branding, this

study will help fill such a void.

LIMITATIONS

The results identified the factors important for developing a strong university brand and brand

equity. However, some caution must be exercised in interpreting the results. The first limitation

is that the survey was administered to students at one university. Administering surveys to

students at different universities and comparing the results would improve the reliability of the

brand equity scales. The second limitation is that the results reflect only students’ perceptions.

Future studies may include the perceptions of other stakeholders, such as faculty and staff,

alumni, recruiters, and other community stakeholders, thus improving the richness of

understanding of university brand equity. A third limitation is that the survey was conducted in

the United States. Similar studies conducted in other countries could improve the university

brand equity scale. Improving on these limitations can improve the generalizability of the scale

developed in this study.

FUTURE RESEARCH


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

This paper was aimed at developing a brand equity scale for university brands and investigating

the importance of the contributing brand equity dimensions. However, given the

simultaneousness of production and consumption, and the process nature of education as a

service (Berry, 2000; Ostrom et al., 2005; Zeithaml et al., 2006), the effects of the various brand

equity dimensions could be empirically tested with structural equation modeling (SEM). This

model is supported by the brand ecosystem framework (Pinar and Trapp, 2008; Pinar et al.,

2011) where core and supporting elements of the education experience are presented as on-going

interactions, indicating that student expectations and perceived outcomes are continually updated

and revised through direct and indirect experiences with the university environment (Ostrom et

al., 2005). The results of SEM could help to identify the specific areas of core and supporting

brand equity dimension interaction that are significantly important for creating a strong

university brand. This will be the next phase of our research.

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building Strong Brands. New York: Free Press.

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity. New York: Free Press.

Aaker J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3),

347-356.

Aekuru, N. & Mat, K. N. (2008). The application of structural equation modeling (SEM) in

determining the antecedents of customer loyalty in banks in South Thailand. The

Business Review, Cambridge, 10 (2), 129-139.

Argenti, P. (2000). Branding B-schools: Reputation management for MBA programs. Corporate

Reputation Review, 3 (2), 171-178.

Berry, L. L. (2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 28 (1), 128-137.

Black, J. (2008, January). The branding of higher education.

http://www.semworks.net/papers/wp-The-Branding-of-Higher-Education.html, (accessed

16 October 2009).

Brown, R., & Carasso, H. (2013). Everything for Sale? The Marketisation of UK Higher

Education. London: Routledge.

Buil, I., de Chernatony, L., & Martinez, E. (2008). A cross-cultural validation of the consumer-

based brand equity scale. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17 (6), 384-392.

Bunzel, D. (2007). Universities sell their brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16

(2), 152-153.

Chapleo, C. (2010). What defines “successful” university brands?. International Journal of

Public Sector Management, 23 (2), 169-183.

Churchill, G. A., Jr., & Iacobucci, D. (2005). Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations,

9th ed. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western.

Cowell, D. W. (1982). Do we need to revise the marketing mix for services marketing? In

Thomas, M. J. (Ed.), Marketing: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice. (pp.

78-89). Marketing Education Group 15th Annual Conference, Lancaster.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable

variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39-50.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

Gatfield, T, Braker, B., & Graham, P. (1999). Measuring communication impact of university

advertising materials. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 4 (2), 73-

79.

Gobe, M. (2001). Emotional branding: The New paradigm for Connection Brands to People.

Canada: Allworth Press.

Goldney, R. (2008, February 27). It’s all in the brand power. The Australian. Web archive:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23280453-5015710,00.html,

(accessed 18 October 2009).

Gray, B. J., Fan, K. S., & Llanes, V. A. (2003). Branding universities in Asian markets. Journal

of Product & Brand Management, 12 (2/3), 108-112.

Hair, Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis

with Readings. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2013). The dynamics of corporate brand charisma: Routinization

and activation at Carlsberg IT. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29 (2), 147-162.

Hemsley-Brown, J., & Goonawardana, S. (2007). Brand harmonization on the international

higher education. Journal of Business Research, 60 (9), 942-948.

Ivy, J. (2008). A new higher education marketing mix: The 7Ps for MBA marketing.

International Journal of Educational Management, 22 (4), 288-299.

Jeanes, E. L. (2013). The construction and controlling effect of a moral brand. Scandinavian

Journal of Management, 29 (2), 163-172.

Jevons, C. (2006). Universities: A prime example of branding gone wrong. Journal of Product &

Brand Management, 15, (7), 466-447.

Joseph, M., Mullen, E. W., & Spake, D. (2012). University branding: Understanding students’

choice of an educational institution. Journal of Brand Management, 20 (1), 1-12.

Keller, K. L. (2013). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand

Equity, 4th ed. Boston: Pearson.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer based brand equity.

Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), 1-22.

Kim, W. G., & Kim, H. B. (2004). Measuring customer-based restaurant brand equity:

Investigating the relationship between brand equity and firms’ performance. Cornell

Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45 (2), 115-131.

Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2012). Principles of Marketing, 13th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Kotler, P., & Keller K. L. (2006). Marketing Management, 12th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Lafferty, Barbara A. (2001). Emotional Branding: The New Paradigm for Connecting Brands to

People. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 10 (6/7). 466.

Lassar, W., Mittal, B., and Sharma, A. (1995). Measuring consumer-based brand equity. The

Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12 (4), pp. 11-19.

Liao, N. N. H. & Wu, T. C. (2009). The pivotal role of trust in customer loyalty: Empirical

research on the system integration market in Taiwan. The Business Review, 12 (2), 277-

282.

Mazzarol, T. (1998). Critical success factors for international education marketing. International

Journal of Education Management, 12 (4), 163-175.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (1999). Sustainable competitive advantage for educational

institutions: a suggested model. International Journal of Education Management, 13 (6),

287-300.

Mok, K. H. (1999). Education and market place in Hong Kong and mainland China. Higher

Education, (37), 133-158.

Molesworth, M., Scullion, R., & Nixon, E., (Eds.). (2011). The Marketisation of Higher

Education and the Student as Consumer. London: Routledge.

Narver, J., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The Effects of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability.

Journal of Marketing, (54), 20-35.

Netemeyer, R., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Yagci, M., Ricks, J., & Wirth, F. (2004). Developing and

validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity. Journal of International

Business Research, 57, (February), pp. 209-224.

Nicholls, J., Harris, J., Morgan, E., Clarke, K., & Sims, D. (1995). Marketing higher education:

The MBA experience. International Journal of Educational Management, 9 (2), 31-38.

Ng, I., & Forbes, J. (2009). Education as service: The understanding of university experience

through the service logic. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19 (1), 38-64.

Ostrom, A. L., Iacobucci, D., & Morgan, F. N. (2005). Services branding. In Tybout, A. and

Calkins, T., (Eds.), Kellogg on Branding. (pp. 186-200), Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2005). Consumer-based brand equity: Improving

the measurement–empirical evidence. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14

(2/3), 143-154.

_____ (2006). Consumer-based brand equity and country-of-origin relationships: Some empirical

evidence. European Journal of Marketing, 40 (5/6), 696-717.

Pinar, M., Trapp, P., Girard, T., & Boyt, T. (2011). Utilizing Brand Ecosystem for Branding and

Building Brand Equity in Higher Education. International Journal of Educational

Management, 25 (7), 724-739.

Pinar, M., & Trapp, P. (2008). Creating competitive advantage through ingredient branding and

brand ecosystem: The case of Turkish cotton and textiles. Journal of International Food

& Agribusiness Marketing, 20 (1), 29-56.

Price, I., Matzdorf, F., & Agathi, H. (2003). The impact of facilities on student choice of

university. Facilities, 21 (10), 212-222.

Reichheld, F. (2001). Loyalty Rules. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Reichheld, F. (2006). The Ultimate Question. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Schiffman, L. & Kanuk, L. (2007). Consumer Behavior, 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Prentice-Hall.

Silverstein, M. J., & Singhi, A. (2012). Can U. S. Universities Stay on Top?. Wall Street Journal,

(September 29 – 30), C3.

Spake, D., Mullen, E. W., Joseph, M., & Wilde, S. (2010). Higher education branding:

Importance of and differences between private and public university students’ views. In

B. A. Vander Schee (ed.), Marketing Management Association 2010 Fall Educators’

Conference Proceedings, September 29 – October 1, Indianapolis, Indiana, 82-83.

Stripling, J. (2010). Brand new dilemma. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved June 27, 2013, from

http://insidehighered.com/news/2010/10/19/branding.

Tong, X., & Hawley, J. M. (2009). Measuring customer-based brand equity: Empirical evidence

from the sportswear market in China. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 18 (4),

262-271.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

Waeraas, A., & Solbakk, M. (2009). Defining the essence of a university: Lessons from higher

education branding. Higher Education, 57 (4), 449-462.

Whisman, R. (2007). Internal branding: A university’s most intangible asset.

www.brandchampionablog.com, (retrieved September 20, 2009).

_____ (2009). Internal branding: A university’s most valuable intangible asset. Journal of

Product & Brand Mangement, 18 (5), 367-370.

Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based

brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 52 (1), 1-14.

Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and

brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2), 195-211.

Zeithaml, V., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, G. D. (2006). Services Marketing: Integrating Customer

Focus Across the Firm. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

Appendix A. Results of Factor Analyses for University Brand Equity Scale

Measures of Core and Supporting Value-Creation

Constructs Mean

Std.

Dev. LD

% of

Var. CA CR

Core - Perceived Quality - Faculty 6.35 0.98 10.0 0.96 0.91

The university's faculty are knowledgeable in their fields 6.47 1.02 0.69

The faculty are willing to help students 6.46 1.02 0.81

The faculty are accessible for students' questions and concerns 6.36 1.11 0.74

The faculty care about students’ needs 6.29 1.10 0.87

The faculty are responsive to student needs 6.29 1.09 0.84

The faculty are polite in responding to students 6.17 1.19 0.8

Core - University Reputation: Overall Brand Equity 6.11 0.93 13.8 0.94 0.91

The university's graduates are employed before or soon after

graduation 6.26 1.14 0.78

The university has a well-known academic reputation 6.26 1.10 0.63

The university has high academic standards 6.24 1.11 0.56

The university's graduates receive good job offers 6.22 1.12 0.77

The university's graduates have successful careers 6.21 1.11 0.79

Based on the cost of tuition, the university offers a good

educational value 6.15 1.27 0.54

The university's graduates have no trouble getting accepted to

graduate school 6.13 1.23 0.63

Companies prefer recruiting the university's graduates 6.02 1.16 0.75

The university offers well-known degree programs 6.02 1.19 0.61

The university's graduates are well-recognized in their professions 5.97 1.14 0.74

The graduates of the university earn higher incomes than industry

average 5.71 1.28 0.71

Core - Emotional Environment 6.11 1.04 7.0 0.94 0.95

The university provides a supportive environment 6.17 1.10 0.95

The university provides the students with a sense of community 6.12 1.21 0.95

The faculty/staff-student interactions are warm 6.08 1.14 0.95

Student relationships are characterized as warm and friendly 6.06 1.14 0.79

Core - Brand Loyalty 5.82 1.11 6.2 0.91 0.83

Its students (or graduates) are proud to have other people know

that they will have (or have) a degree from the university 5.91 1.21 0.74

The university’s graduates are proud of the university 5.88 1.23 0.79

The university’s graduates recommend the university to others 5.86 1.27 0.71

The university’s graduates are loyal to the university 5.64 1.29 0.74

Core - Brand Awareness 4.79 1.28 4.4 0.8 0.8

The university is well-known 5.25 1.33 0.71

The university's logo is instantly recognizable 4.65 1.64 0.74

The university is among the first to come to mind when one thinks

of all universities in the country 4.46 1.56 0.83

Supporting - Library Services 5.70 1.16 9.5 0.94 0.89

The university has quality library resources (e.g., online databases,

journals, books, etc.) 5.82 1.27 0.69


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

The university provides student tutoring services 5.74 1.30 0.66

The library offers a comfortable study environment 5.73 1.29 0.71

The library personnel are helpful 5.67 1.35 0.82

The library personnel are polite in responding to student questions 5.64 1.36 0.8

The library personnel are knowledgeable 5.57 1.37 0.81

Supporting - Student Living: Residence Hall and Dining

Services 5.59 1.12 12.2 0.93 0.89

The university residence halls offer a good environment to study

(e.g., study lounge) 5.78 1.30 0.73

The university has modern residence halls 5.74 1.36 0.71

The university residence hall directors are polite 5.68 1.40 0.76

The dining service personnel are polite 5.68 1.38 0.66

The dining service personnel are professional 5.63 1.38 0.67

The dining service personnel serves the food quickly 5.52 1.35 0.65

The dining service personnel are knowledgeable about the food

they serve 5.41 1.57 0.68

The university residence halls provide opportunities for student

activities 5.23 1.50 0.62

The university residence halls has the latest technology in the

rooms 5.20 1.52 0.78

Supporting - Career Development 5.50 1.08 5.5 0.85 0.76

The university’s career center helps students search for jobs 5.92 1.63 0.67

The university offers an internship program 5.69 1.34 0.67

The university offers experiential learning opportunities (e.g.,

projects, community work) as a part of its educational program 5.69 1.34 0.52

The university offers a career placement center with supportive

resources (e.g., staff, room, training) 5.64 1.26 0.58

The university organizes alumni networking events 5.00 1.54 0.66

Supporting – Physical Facilities 5.22 1.21 4.0 0.79 0.73

The university has state-of-art computer labs 5.49 1.39 0.5

The university has modern classrooms 5.48 1.31 0.56

The university has modern gym facilities 4.98 1.62 0.78

The university has intercollegiate athletic teams 4.90 1.84 0.68

Scale: 1=Very Unimportant; 2=Unimportant; 3=Somewhat unimportant; 4=Neither important nor important;

5=Somewhat important; 6=Important; 7=Very Important

(LD: Loading; CA: Cronbach’s Alpha; CR: Construct Reliability; AVE: Average Variance Extracted for the construct)


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

Appendix B: Discriminant Validity of Core and Supporting Value-Creation Constructs

Uni. Repu.

Stud.

Living Perc.Qual. Lib. Svs Emo. Env. Br. Loyal Career Dev. Br. Aware

Phys.

Facilities

Univ. Repu. 0.47

Student

Living 0.29 0.48

Perc.Quality 0.45 0.29 0.63

Library Svs 0.25 0.48 0.27 0.56

Emo. Envir. 0.14 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.83

Br. Loyalty 0.43 0.20 0.29 0.19 0.10 0.56

Career Dev. 0.27 0.20 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.26 0.39

Br. Aware 0.21 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.22 0.21 0.58

Physical

Facilities 0.26 0.36 0.21 0.29 0.05 0.20 0.28 0.19 0.41 Note: Diagonal elements are average variance extracted (AVE), which should be larger than the square of the inter-construct

correlations (off-diagonal elements) for discriminant validity.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

Acknowledgments

This paper was originally presented at the MMA Spring 2013 Conference, February 27–March 1, 2013 in Chicago, IL, USA and received the Best Paper Award in the Services Marketing Track.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Documents

University brand equity: an empirical investigation of its dimensions