78
ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the customer satisfaction and the categories of brand equity assets. The primary research method used in the study of customer satisfaction which analyzes the relationship; brand awareness, brand image, brand perceived quality, brand loyalty and also brand value. It is based on a survey which 300 responses collected from customers around Klang Valley, Malaysia. The questionnaires were used to collect data. The customers were required to compare their satisfaction between local restaurant and quick service restaurant. Regression analysis and several statistical tests were used to test and analyzed the influence of each parameter on customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction that can be achieved by either emphasizing the brand, product and services via satisfied the customer needs and want are having positive relationship towards five dimensions of brand equity (brand awareness, brand image, brand perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand value). The limitation of this research is that the results are obtained from different profile demographic of customers that participate in the questionnaires survey, so more systematic probabilistic sampling procedure that would entail larger nation-wide samples are needed in order to affirm the present result. More research may be needed to develop a valid measurement tool to assess the elements of satisfaction in a Page | 1

Compile Edited

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Compile Edited

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the customer

satisfaction and the categories of brand equity assets. The primary research method used in

the study of customer satisfaction which analyzes the relationship; brand awareness, brand

image, brand perceived quality, brand loyalty and also brand value. It is based on a survey

which 300 responses collected from customers around Klang Valley, Malaysia.

The questionnaires were used to collect data. The customers were required to compare

their satisfaction between local restaurant and quick service restaurant. Regression analysis

and several statistical tests were used to test and analyzed the influence of each parameter on

customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction that can be achieved by either emphasizing the

brand, product and services via satisfied the customer needs and want are having positive

relationship towards five dimensions of brand equity (brand awareness, brand image, brand

perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand value).

The limitation of this research is that the results are obtained from different profile

demographic of customers that participate in the questionnaires survey, so more systematic

probabilistic sampling procedure that would entail larger nation-wide samples are needed in

order to affirm the present result. More research may be needed to develop a valid

measurement tool to assess the elements of satisfaction in a way that does not elicit fatigue,

boredom or inappropriate response behavior from respondents. In managerial implication, the

SME restaurant operator should familiarize with those five dimensions and kept as the

guidelines for them to understand the factors that may meet customer satisfaction.

Page | 1

Page 2: Compile Edited

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

1.1.1 Small and Medium Enterprise

The 2005 Census of Establishment and Enterprises specifies that 99 percent of

519,000 business establishments in Malaysia are small and medium enterprises (SME), of

which 412,000 are micro enterprises. Most of these SMEs are in the service sectors,

particularly in retail, restaurant and wholesale businesses. Total employment in SMEs

accounted for more than 3 million workers, and generated RM 154 billion of value-added in

2003.

Small-Medium Enterprise in Malaysia adopted a common definition of SMEs to

facilitate identification of SMEs in the various sectors and subsectors. This has facilitated the

Government to formulate effective development policies, support programs as well as

provision of technical and financial assistance. In Malaysia, SMEs can be divided into three

categories which are classified as primary agriculture, manufacturing and services.

Manufacturing category includes agro-based and manufacturing-related services whilst

services sector includes Information and Communication Technology (ICT).

In this study, we concentrate on small and medium enterprises (SME) which have

different criteria in terms of sales turnover and number of full time employees. For

manufacturing sector, small enterprise can be described by having between RM250000 sales

turnover and less than RM10 million or full time employees between five and fifty person. In

medium enterprise, we can distinguish by sales turnover between RM10 million and RM25

million or full time employees between fifty one and hundred fifty person.

On the other hand, in primary as well as services sector, small enterprise sales

turnover should be between RM200000 and less than RM1 million or full time employees

between five to nineteen persons. In medium enterprise, we can differentiate by sales turnover

between RM1 million and RM5 million of full time employees between twenty and fifty

person.

SMEs are mainly concentrated on the Central Region (Kuala Lumpur and Selangor),

accounting for 37.1 percent. The next highest concentration is Johor with 10.4 percent. Other

Malaysian states accounted for less than 10 percent (Normah, 2006). Output produced by

Page | 2

Page 3: Compile Edited

SMEs in the services sector in 2003 was 56.7 percent (Malaysia, DOS, Census of

Establishments and Enterprises, 2005). SMEs in restaurants including cafes, coffee shops,

hawkers and stalls covers of 85.1 percent of output of the restaurant services (Malaysia, DOS,

Census of Establishments and Enterprises, 2005).

The food service landscape is evolving rapidly with growing globalization, with

implication for Malaysia’s SME. The environment has become competitive, hence local SME

restaurant supposedly no longer orientate their business merely toward domestic domain, but

must seek opportunities in the global marketplace. Nevertheless, in order to become

competitive with other international restaurants, local SME restaurants are required to

establish their brand and enhance the acceptability of their product amongst local customers.

As a consequence, we will discuss on the customer satisfaction, brand equity together

with brand awareness, brand image (or brand association), brand loyalty, brand perceived

quality and brand value. This research will focus on the comparison of local SME restaurants

and quick service restaurant in terms of brand equity which will lead to customer satisfaction.

1.1.2 Quick service restaurant

The quick service restaurant is one of the restaurant concepts that been recognized

with the fast service and also offers minimal range of menu. According to Birchfield and

Birchfield (2007), who is the author of text book with the title of “Design and Layout of

Foodservice Facilities 3rd edition” , he had wrote in his book that quick service restaurants are

those restaurants that cater more on convenience food with their fast service. The author also

added that other fast food restaurants such as delis, bagel shop and sandwich shops also been

segmented as the quick service restaurant. While Ottenbacher and Harrington (2008) in their

research journal had stated that Mc Donald’s, Pizza Hut, Subways and Kentucky Fried

Chicken (KFC), which are the most successful and most largest restaurant chain also are

segmented as quick service restaurants, (Ottenbacher, M.C., and Harrington, R. J., 2008).

As been stated by other researchers in their journal that, these kind of quick service

restaurants also acknowledged with their small range menu or limited menu, limited service

and also the price range of their food is not expensive (Ninemier and Perdue, 2005). The

foods that are served in the fast food restaurants are not fully prepared in the outlet itself. The

foods are prepared with provision standardized ingredient in bulk first before being blast

Page | 3

Page 4: Compile Edited

chilled at the central food kitchen or the food control supply channel. Then they will be

distributed to the restaurant chains outlet for the last preparation before being served to

customers.

The food usually prepared and served in container such as bags or in a plastic

wrapping. This may help the business to reduce operating costs by; allowing rapid product

identification and counting; promoting; longer holding time; avoiding transfer of bacteria; and

facilitating order fulfillment (encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com). The price of the food in

the quick service restaurants are so called cheap because the price itself is the critical factor of

their success since their customer are more value conscious (Birchfield and Birchfield, 2007)

The restaurant layout of the quick service restaurant is mostly simple and attractive.

With the limited range of service, the seating areas are designed not to make the customers

feel too comfort and the orders are designed to be taken away. These are made purposely to

gain high seat turnover. Even some of the fast food restaurant do not provide traditional

cutleries and their food served are finger food. There are several fast food restaurants

providing drive-through service that allows the customer to order and pick up their meals

from their cars. However, recent trend of the restaurants is providing children mini-

playground and free Wi-Fi. They had become their business survival since the trend had hiked

up constantly.

Common menu item that serves at fast food outlet includes Fried chicken, Fish and

Chips, sandwiches, burgers, French fries, chicken nuggets, pizza, ice cream, mashed potatoes

and many more. The food are easy to consume and convenience. The fast food business

concerns more on taste, speed, product safety, uniformity, and low cost, the ingredient are

designed in a way to achieve specialized flavor, aroma, texture and to maintain the freshness

the food and the palatability of the food (encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com).

Mymalaysiainfo.com had listed in their page several fast food restaurants that exist

and well established in Malaysia. They are Kentucky Fried Chicken, Mc Donald’s, Nando’s,

Nineteen-o-one, Marrybrown, A&W, Pizza Hut, Chicken Rice Shop, Burger King, Secret

Recipe, KLG, Radix Fried Chicken and many more. Marrybrown and Radix Fried Chicken

are the Malaysian originated companies that operated successfully in this homeland country.

Above are stated some information on several quick service restaurants that are well

established in Malaysia.

Page | 4

Page 5: Compile Edited

KFC web page which is www.kfc.com had stated that KFC had commanding over

35% market share in Malaysia. In fact, KFC had been said as the most popular fast food

restaurant in Malaysia (www.qsrbrands.com). In the same page, they also had stated that there

are 620 KFC restaurants in Malaysia, Singapore, India, Brunei and Cambodia. The first KFC

restaurant opened in Malaysia was in 1973 at Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman, Kuala Lumpur.

Meanwhile, Mc Donald’s restaurant was first opened in Malaysia in 1982 at Jalan

Bukit Bintang. Mc Donald’s also named as one of the most popular fast food restaurants in

Malaysia (www.ifranchisemalaysia.com). Current Mc Donald’s franchises restaurant had

exceeded the number of 185 restaurants all over the country with the number keeps arising

with 15 to 20 new restaurants opened yearly. According to www.mfa.org.my, which is the

web page of Malaysian Franchise Association, Golden Arches Restaurants Sdn. Bhd. is the

local company that has been given the authority by McDonalds USA to operate the restaurant

in Malaysia.

A&W restaurant also stands as one of the well established fast food restaurants in

Malaysia. This restaurant had been bought by KUB Malaysia Bhd. in 2001. In this year alone,

there are 39 A&W restaurant outlets and most of them are located in Klang Valley

(investing.businessweek.com)

Another fast food restaurant that are wholly owned and managed by local company is

Marrybrown Restaurant. This restaurant was founded by Lawrence and Nancy Liew in 1981

in Johore Bahru. The Marrybrown Restaurant had over 250 restaurants in Malaysia,

Indonesia, China, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and UAE (www.ifranchisemalaysia.com). Marryborwn

had been listed in the Malaysia Book of Records as the First Malaysian Fast Food Franchise.

Besides that, they also had been awarded with the Prestigious International Homegrown

Franchise of The Year Award and Franchise of The Year Award

1.2 Problem Statements

This paper, at the same time provides a brief review of some of the relevant

approaches that have been used for the measurement of customer satisfaction. It then

discusses different views that have been developed in relation to the transferability of

satisfaction measures across industries and outlines the research questions addressed in this

investigation. One of the main problems faced by customers when it comes to local SME

Page | 5

Page 6: Compile Edited

restaurants is the issue of brand perceived quality as compared with quick service restaurant

(QSR). It is well established that QSR always offered good quality food product with quick

waiting time, thus they become all-time favorite for most of the customers. In contrast, local

SME restaurants often facing difficulty in retaining their customer as well as return intention

due to service delivered.

Apart from that, local SME restaurants have been preferred by the customers due to

the lower price range compares to QSR. The local SME restaurants were always been visited

by the lower income customers especially college and university students. The issue of this

scenario is what will happen when the customers have greater disposable income and how

will the acceptability of the food products and service rendered by the local SME restaurants?

The branding of local SME restaurants thus is very crucial in defeating their QSR

counterparts in terms of customer satisfaction. It is well recognized that satisfied customers

will result to long-term business success (Kristensen et al., 1992; Zeithami et al., 1996;

McColl-Kennedy and Scheider, 2000).

There are many classifications for customer satisfaction based on brand equity namely

brand awareness (Aaker, 1996), brand association or brand image , perceived quality, brand

loyalty, brand salience, brand performance, brand imagery, brand feeling, brand judgments

and brand relationship. In this study, these categories have been divided into several aspects

comprising brand awareness, brand association (or brand image), perceived quality and brand

loyalty, and brand value as they are the most acceptable to-date.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the customer satisfaction and

the categories of brand equity assets. There are several objectives of this study:

1.3.1 To study on the brand awareness that will improve the customer satisfaction on

local SME restaurants

1.3.2 To discover the brand image that will improve the customer satisfaction on

local SME restaurants

1.3.3 To determine the brand perceived quality that will improve the customer

satisfaction on local SME restaurants

Page | 6

Page 7: Compile Edited

1.3.4 To observe the brand loyalty that will improve the customer satisfaction on

local SME restaurants

1.3.5 To evaluate the brand value that will improve the customer satisfaction on local

SME restaurants

1.4 Research question

The research questions that act in accordance with the objectives are:

1.4.1 How well the Malaysia consumers aware of the existence of local SME

restaurants?

1.4.2 How does the image branding might assist the consumer to recognize the local

SME restaurants?

1.4.3 If the consumers recognize the SME restaurants, will they regularly visit the

restaurants and be a loyal customer?

1.4.4 How do the customers look into the quality of local SME restaurants as

compared to other restaurants?

1.4.5 How the brand values affect customer satisfaction in local SME restaurants?

1.5 Hypothesis

The research questions that act in accordance with the hypothesis are:

H1a : When customers are aware of the existence of the local restaurants’ brand, they will

be more satisfied.

H1b : When customers are aware of the existence of the quick service restaurants’ brand,

then they will be more satisfied.

H2a : Local restaurants of established brand image will have satisfied customers.

H2b : Quick service restaurant of establish brand image will have satisfied customers.

H3a : There is positive relationship between brands perceived quality and customer

satisfaction in local restaurant.

Page | 7

Page 8: Compile Edited

H3b : There is positive relationship between brands perceived quality and customer

satisfaction in quick service restaurant.

H4a : If the customers are loyal to a local restaurant, then they become satisfied customers.

H4b : If the customers are loyal to a quick service restaurant, then they become satisfied

customers.

H5a : There is relationship between brand value and customers satisfaction in local

restaurant.

H5b : There is relationship between brand value and customers satisfaction in quick service

restaurant.

1.6 Significance of study

The food service industry today has been reputed for its rapid development and stiff

competitiveness in nature. In Malaysia, although the SME industry is smaller than other

developing country, it is consider well growing. The issue on this industry is how well is it

being accepted by the local customers rather than quick service restaurants. For that reason,

this matter needs to be looked upon intensely by the academician, researcher in addition to

food service operator. Consequently, this issue should not been overlooked, but essential

actions should be taken in order to grab the significant inflow of customers by enhancing the

branding and sustaining great deal of business.

This study is anticipated to discover the influence of brand equity toward customer

satisfaction of local SME restaurants. As perceptions on the significance of customer

satisfaction have developed in the food service field, studies on this issue have been

constantly performed. Nevertheless, the availability of this study on local SME restaurants is

very limited. Thus, we observed on this topic so that local SME will generate the vast impact

of the branding, especially in augmenting their competitive edge and marketing function.

Consequently, the literature review chapter will discuss on the branding and customer

satisfaction whereby focus is given solely on food service area, and to be more detail, the

local SME restaurants. This will assist local restaurants to further understand the influence of

brand equity (comprises of brand awareness, brand image, brand perceived quality, brand

loyalty and brand value) toward customer satisfaction. Hopefully with this knowledge, local

SME restaurant operator will understand their customer in line with satisfying their needs and

wants regarding their food product and service encountered. The outcome of this paper will

Page | 8

Page 9: Compile Edited

served as a guidelines for the food service operator, particularly local SME restaurants to

improve the aspects of their operation regarding brand equity so that their performance can

meet customers’ expectations.

1.7 Limitation of the Study

There are several limitations to this research that have been identified for the future

research efforts. The limitation involves the generalizability of the study. The study involved

300 customers in Klang Valley which unable to represent of the population across the

country. Furthermore, most of the respondents were students which might have different

views of branding towards customer satisfaction due to financial constraints.

Another limitation is related to the cooperation of the respondents. The distribution of

questionnaire took place during weekend whereby most of the customers were outing. Some

respondents might have no time to respond to the questionnaire, thus they might answer the

questionnaire for granted. Furthermore, the number of items in the questionnaire is great,

hence its quite time consuming for customer to respond for the whole questions. Perhaps

future studies could encourage genuine responds from customer with a token of appreciation

such as free gifts or coupons upon filling up the questionnaire.

This research also has limitation in terms of time constraints. We only have a semester

which covers four months to complete the study. This four months period was insufficient to

conduct a thorough study on this area. Therefore, if more time was allocated for the study, the

result would be more accurate and representatives of the population.

Page | 9

Page 10: Compile Edited

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Customer Satisfaction

According to Kotler (2003, p.36), it must be pointed out that there is wide consensus

that satisfaction is a person’s feeling of pleasure or disappointment resulting from comparing

a product’s perceived performance (or outcome) in relation to his or her expectations.

Therefore, satisfaction is closely related to customer expectation and experiences. Services are

by their nature intangible and thus their assessment and subsequent evaluation cannot be

achieved prior to their consumption; this justifies their classification as “experiences” product

(Nelson, 1974).

Customer satisfaction has been considered as a fundamental determinant of customer

loyalty. Anderson and Sullivan (1993) found that satisfied customers have greater tendency to

be retained and resist to alternative options, while Fornell (1992) states that high satisfaction

results to customers with increased loyalty, less prone to be approached from competition.

Moreover, satisfaction enhances repeat purchased and positive word of mouth by customer

(Reicheld and Sasser, 1990; Wirtz, 2003).

Based on Oliver (1980) and Rust et. al. (1995), customer satisfaction is strongly

influenced by customer expectation. The gap between perceived quality and expected quality,

called “expectancy disconfirmation” is a strong predictor of customer satisfaction. As a result,

many managers and researchers have chosen to explicitly measure the extent to which a

product or service meets customer expectations. The seminal SERVQUAL framework of

Parasuraman et al. (1988), Parasuraman et al. (1991, 1993) and Zeithaml et al. (1996)

conceptualized and operationalized service quality as the gap between customers’

expectations and perceptions (Parasuraman et al., 1985; 1994).

Satisfaction has been conceptualized in different ways in the marketing literature.

Some researchers have argued that satisfaction is a transaction-specific measure (e.g. Cronin

and Taylor, 1992, p. 56). Other researchers view satisfaction as an overall evaluation based on

the total purchase consumption and experience (e.g. Anderson et al., 1994). In general,

satisfaction has been conceptualized in terms of whether the product/service meets consumer

Page | 10

Page 11: Compile Edited

needs and expectations (Zeithaml and Bitner, 2000). Oliver (1997,p. 28), who defined

satisfaction as “the summary psychological state resulting when the emotion surrounding

disconfirmed expectations is coupled with a prior feelings about the consumer experience”.

Aaker (1991a, b, 2003), Kapferer, (1997) and Blackett (1993) stated that the processes

associated with building a strong relationship between brand and consumer have paid

increasing by marketing practice and marketing research and it is often argued that the brand

is the most valuable asset for any company.

Based on Newman and Werbel (1973) and Kesper (1988), satisfaction is often used as

a predictor of future consumer purchases. Satisfied customers have a higher likelihood of

repeating purchases in time (Zeithaml et al., 1996), of recommending that others try the

source of satisfaction (Reynolds and Arnold, 2000; Reynolds and Beatty, 1999), and of

becoming less receptive to the competitor’s offerings (Fitzell, 1998). Usually a customer

starts judging a product in order to discover the benefits it brings and the satisfaction it

promises (Reynolds and Beatty, 1999).

Schiffman et al., (1997), said that product and brand are not synonymous. Yet, some

authors have used them interchangeably, particularly when they have addressed repeated

purchases (e.g., Dick and Basu, 1994; Oliver, 1997). As defined above, product and brand are

significantly different both conceptually and practically. Similarly, customer satisfaction and

loyalty are significantly different even though they are strongly and unidirectional related.

Usually a customer starts judging a product in order to find the benefits it brings and

the satisfaction it promises (Reynolds and Beatty, 1999). The generic or unbranded product

would be enough to start such a selection process. Inexperienced consumers with a line of

products start with the product benefits and preferences whereas experienced consumers go

directly to the brands. As the customer becomes more experienced with the product, he or she

may focuses on a brand.

Brand equity is important factor in creating short-term customer satisfaction and long-

term customer loyalty. According to Cooper (1999), brands have changed and are no longer

lifeless artifacts created by owners or managers; rather, they have become living entities with

personalities that customers can form relationships with. Brand equity, in the simplest of

terms, is the value of customers’ relationships with a brand. These relationships are formed

based on a mix of actual facts about the brand, such as consumer reports, advertising

Page | 11

Page 12: Compile Edited

messages, packaging, word of mouth, and usage experience, as well as subjective measures

(Ambler, 1997).

For many years, customer satisfaction has been a major goal of business organizations,

since it has been deemed to affect customer retention and companies’ market share

(Hansemark and Albinsson, 2004). The product can be a good starting point for providing

satisfaction and generating loyalty. Services are by their very nature intangible and thus their

assessment and subsequent evaluation cannot be achieved prior to their consumption; this

justifies their classification as “experience” products (Nelson, 1974).

Higher levels of customer satisfaction can lead to a reduction of the perceived benefits

of alternatives suppliers and hence to higher repurchase intentions (Anderson and Sullivan,

1993). In order to further emphasize this point, Anderson and Srinivasan (2003) claimed that

a dissatisfied customer is more likely to search for information on alternatives and more likely

to yield to competitor overtures than is a satisfied customer. Harris and Harrington (2000)

pointed out that customer satisfaction can be attained by companies, which have understood

their customers’ needs and make every effort to provide services in an effective and efficient

manner.

2.2 Brand Equity

Equity of the brand, which is said to be the most crucial and important issues that been

discussed by the researcher, academician even the practitioners (Leone et al., 2006). There

were many of previous research that been done by researchers focusing and had touched on

this brand equity issues (Kim, Bongran & Kim, 2008). According to Kim et al., (2008) they

had stated that brand equity is currently the hot issues being discussed by the hotel industry

player. In the same research, they had found that there is a relationship between

multidimensional customer-based brand equity (brand loyalty, perceived value, brand

awareness, and brand association) and two by product (perceived value and hotel revisit

intention) in midscale hotels with food and beverage operation (p.236).

While Prasad and Dev (2000) in their studies determined that, if those hotel industry

players had keep track of the equity of their brand, they are said to be able to assess the

relationship of their chain brand positioning with the other industry player’s hotel chain brand

position; able to determine the value of the particular hotel brand’s equity; and to create their

‘plan B’ for their marketing strategies. In other research, there were several researchers

Page | 12

Page 13: Compile Edited

believed that any hotel industry player that are not lacking of brand equity and got high level

of it (brand equity), is aiming more on directing a series of premiums which have more

customers that elastic to the price, brand extension and licensing opportunities (Keller, 2001);

the degree of customer loyalty that are so called ‘high’ and also higher resiliency to tolerate

with environment of crisis; higher profit margin; and lastly got higher market value (O’ Neil

and Xiao, 2006). In fact, any particular hotel firm that gains higher brand equity level is likely

to control higher repeat purchase intention from their customers (Kim et al., 1998).

Aaker (1991) had stated in his journal the definition of brand equity as “a set of assets

and liabilities that affect any name of the brand and attribute that attach to or subtract from the

value provided by a product or service to a firm and the customers of the firms” (p. 15) and

believed that brand equity act as an incontrovertibly vital source of capital in food and

beverage industry. While Simon and Sullivan (1993) and Biel (1997) had cleared the term of

brand equity in term of cash flow; of a situation where the brand name is given to a company

product; and another situation where there are no name given to the particular company’s

product are not the same. Through having the estimation of financial value for the particular

brand, it is believed that they are useful, but unnecessarily help those marketers to

comprehend the process of brand equity development.

In 2001, Capon, Berthon, Hulbert and Pitt, had indicated in their study that brand

equity had two different approaches which are organizational brand equity and also customer

brand equity. However discussion on organizational brand equity topic had been touched less

at the current time. Many researchers believed that, “in service brand marketing, it is a sort of

new occurrence to estimate brand equity based on customer’s cognitive aspects rather than

firms’ financial values” (Berry, 2000; Cobb-Walgren, Ruble and Donthu, 1995; Kim, Kim

and An, 2003; Mackay, 2001). Simon and Sullivan (1993) stated in their research that, the

central point of organizational brand equity is relying on financial values for example; market

value, potential earning and replacement cost. In the other hand, the customer brand equity are

spotlight more on the customer’s state of mind such as awareness, perceived quality, attitudes,

preferences, attachment and loyalty (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Agawal and Rao, 1996; Blackston,

1995; Dyson, Farr and Hollis, 1996; Keller, 1993; Lassar, Mittal and Sharma, 1995; Vasquez,

Del Rio and Iglesias, 2002; Yoo, Donthu and Lee, 2000).

Aaker in 1991 indicated that the brand equity’s assets can be clustered into five

different dimensions which are; brand awareness, brand association, perceived quality, brand

Page | 13

Page 14: Compile Edited

loyalty and other proprietary assets. Other proprietary brand assets are also included with

patents, trademarks and channel relationship (Kim et al., 2008). However Yoo and Donthu

(2001) had deny the fact in their research that other “proprietary brand asset” which is the

fifth element of customer brand equity is not really related to customer perception, thus make

only four of the dimensions; brand awareness, brand association (or brand image), perceived

quality, brand loyalty are regarded as customer-based brand equity. This also supported by

Hyun and Kim (2011) after they had stated in their research that there are four dimensions of

brand equity; brand awareness, brand association (or brand image), perceived quality, brand

loyalty are interrelated for restaurants brand.

The definition of brand equity later been discussed in Keller’s, journal and defined

brand equity as diversity in customer reaction to the activity of marketing (2003).In the same

research Keller also proposed with different brand equity model that comprised of six

components that are; brand salience, brand performance, brand imagery, brand feeling, brand

judgments and brand relationship (Keller, 2003). According to Young and Rubicam’s brand

asset valuator, they had conceptualizes the brand equity into four other dimensions including

brand knowledge, brand esteem, brand relevance and brand differentiation. Brand

differentiation is so called as the philosophy of branding and related with the relevance,

however both Aaker (1991) and Keller (2003) research have not stated “differentiation” in

their brand equity model (Kimpakorn and Tocquer, 2010).

According to Zeithaml et al. (1985), the concepts of brand equity need variation for

extension into the perspective of services business upon the particular nature of services.

There are many other literature review discussed on brand equity related consumer goods

( Aaker, 1991, 2002; Ambler et al., 2002, De Chernatony, 2002; Franzen and Bouwman,

2001; Keller, 2001; Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Pitta and Katsanis, 1995; Srivasta and Shocker,

1991) while the other literature on service brand management (De Chernatory and

McDonalds, 1998; Berry, 2000; Prasad and Dev, 2000; Kim and Kim, 2004) had indicated

that the theory of brand equity are not just being justified with other viewpoint such as

financial or marketing, but current existence models also have disparate construct with other

common dimension like brand awareness, perceived quality, brand association and brand

relationship. Kimpakorn and Tocquer (2010) their research indicate that the writing on

branding highlighted the marketing programmed as a main basis of brand equity because a lot

of customer goods brands have been constructed in the course of advertising (p. 380).

Furthermore, the service branding model which constructed by Berry in 2000 had shown that

Page | 14

Page 15: Compile Edited

the service brand equity can be breed by the function of effective brand communication and

also by customer experience.

In other Aaker (1991) and Keller (2003) research, they confessed that the concept of

brand equity has both aspect of marketing and financial. From the financial viewpoint, it is

not impossible to develop the certain level value to the brand in monetary term, which is

helpful for manager in case of merger, acquisition and divestitures function. While from the

marketing viewpoint, brand equity is conceptualized with the customer perspectives to ease

marketers to comprehend the brand in the minds of customers and construct effectives

marketing programs to develop the brand. There are some researchers believed that brand

equity is related with the firm itself (the relationship between brand equity and a firm’s cash

flow, revenue, and marketing effectiveness (Simon and Sullivan, 1993; Mahajan, Rao and

Srivastava, 1994; and Aiwaldi, Lehmann and Neslin, 2003). Keller (1993, 1998) added in the

studies, that customer-based brand equity is based from knowledge about the brand.

Measurement of brand equity definition through the definition of customer based

brand equity can be done in two basic approaches. The main approach is “indirect approach”

that estimate potential sources of customer-based brand equity by categorize and determine

customers’ brand knowledge structures. While other approach which is “direct” approach

would estimate customer-based brand equity in a straight line by assessing the real impact of

brand knowledge on customer react to different elements of marketing program. Lastly, it is

stated in other research that figure of the direct approach consists of the financial or market-

outcome-based measures of brand equity such as revenue premium (Ailawadi, Lehmann and

Neslin, 2003), brand equity as a determinant of brand extendibility (Randall, Ulrich and

Reibstein, 1998).

2.3 Brand Awareness

Brand awareness may referred to the aptitude to recall the product through their brand

(Brewer and Zhao, 2010), their name, figure, characteristic and etc. The researchers also

define brand awareness as the prelude phase of behavior processing. Customer’s buying

capability is connected to both brand awareness and brand perceived value whereby the brand

awareness is dominant and takes place when the customer do not really recognize the product

itself (Hoyer and Brown, 2001; Keller, 1993; Stephen, 1993). Besides that, both brand

awareness and brand perceived value that are also known to be active rather than passive are

related to perception and formation of behavior.

Page | 15

Page 16: Compile Edited

In other written literature, researchers had indicated that brand awareness play a major

role in forecasting the attitude of customer. It is going aligned in 3 ways which are:

1. Goods with stronger brand awareness will have higher potential to be chosen by the

customer with less concern upon their quality and price (Macdonald and Sharp, 2000).

2. Brand awareness also assists customers to make decision and pace up the decision

making process during goods purchasing session (Macdonald and Sharp, 2000).

3. Customer repurchase behavior is highly affected by brand awareness (Macdonald and

Sharp, 2000).

Besides that, according to Fullerton (2005), customer satisfaction is also directly

connected to the brand commitment and intention to repurchase the product. In the same

research paper Brewer and Zhao (2010) had stated that consistent reputation will build brand

awareness. According to Cretu and Brodie (2005), they indicated that brand awareness is

connected to the customer’s definite preference in the process of decision making, in the other

hand, reputation is more towards to affect the customer choices or behavior.

By applying the ideas of previous literature, restaurants in food service industry therefore

should intensively market their brand so that might create awareness of their brand, since the

customers possibly preferred restaurant with greater brand awareness regardless other factors

such as food quality and the price. Restaurant with stronger brand awareness are likely to be

chosen and speed up the decision of customers where to dine in. Apart of that, customers of

the restaurants might regularly visit the restaurants that have stronger brand awareness

compared to the other competitors.

Brand awareness is associated with the capability of the customer to recap the brand

itself. According to Brewer and Zhao (2010), brand awareness can be acknowledged as the

first step of attitude processing. In the same research, the author had stated that brand

awareness and perceive value have a relationship and their linked are more vibrant and not

stagnant (Brewer and Zhao 2010). Perceived value is the factor that contributes to the

purchasing selection. The customer may buy any particular product if the product has good

perceived value. Several researches believed that brand awareness and perceived value are

linked to the patron buying power. They also agreed that the customers that have no

knowledge or experience on the product or service are helped and may depend on the brand

knowledge (Hoyer and Brown, 2001; Keller, 1993; and Stephen, 1993).

Page | 16

Page 17: Compile Edited

Meaning that those customers who are unfamiliar with the product or service will rely

more on well established brand that more trustable and have a positive image (Brewer and

Zhao 2010). For example, when people tend to buy shampoo or any kind of product on a shelf

at any supermarket store, and they do not really have an idea, what is the brand of the product

that they may choose? In this situation they may use their familiarity upon the product or their

knowledge about the existence product that they may get from such as; advertisement,

exposures, interactions with sales promoters of that supermarket store itself, word of mouth

communication, or trial and consumption (Tam, 2008).

This fact also been support in Brewer and Zhao (2010) studies when they had clarified

that brand awareness is so called the determinant of consumer buying attitude in such three

ways; the first point is that the customer will not concern more on price and the quality, they

are moving forward to select the product with higher degree of brand awareness (Mc Donald

and Sharp (2000); Brand awareness also facilitate and foster customer to make choice of

product or service which they may prefer more in buying process; When the customers have

the intention to reiterate buy the same product or service, their selection may strongly affect

by the brand awareness (Brewer and Zhao 2010). These may shows that brand awareness is

one of the important dimension that may exist as the factor that may contribute to the buying

decision making process.

Brand awareness also been affected by the reputation, principally in long-held

reputation. In fact, brand reputation is likely unwavering rather than brand. Even in the

process of buying decision making, customer choices or preference believed to be related with

the reputation. In other hand, customer real choice is significantly related with the brand

awareness (Brewer and Zhao 2010). Directly or indirectly, these may show that the brand of

the product that has good reputation may not particularly act as the determinant of the

successful factor of that brand and also if the brand of the product have a not such a good

reputation, they also may had a problem to develop their strong brand (Page and Fearn, 2005).

In the other research, there are been said that some of dimension of brand equity such

as brand awareness, brand distinctive, brand loyalty and brand association, are positively

related to the country of origin of the product, service, even the brand itself (Yasin et al.,

2007). Lee and Ganesh (1999) had done their research and believe that those buyer or in the

research case, visitor that have not familiar with the country that they may visit and having a

low brand awareness, they intend to depend on that country origin information, if their image

Page | 17

Page 18: Compile Edited

are good, more positive evaluation they may get but if there are not, vice versa evaluation will

be made. However, Balabanis and Diamantopoulos (2008) clarified that those buyer that

evaluate the brand through their country of origin, their perception is not precise and

incorrect. Above fact can be adopt in this research situation in a way to state that those brand

that are originated from the country that have a good image are tend to be evaluated as good

brand while those brand that are came from country that have bad image are tend to be

evaluated as not good brand or product.

According to Tam (2008) in his research had showed that knowledge, familiarity and

experience are having a close relationship for each other. This fact is based on Alba and

Hucthison (1987) research since they had defined brand familiarity “as the product related or

service related experiences that had been mounted up by the customer. While Johnson and

Russo with their research in 1984 had believed that, experiences have such a similarity with

knowledge. Several years after that Johnson and Kellaris (1988) had indicated experience

contribute to the knowledge. Several studies also believed that customer buying decision

making process also affected by the familiarity of the product. Bettman and Park (1980), Park

and Lessig (1981). While other researchers added that customer brand familiarity also have a

relationship with price and the quality of the brand (Johnson and Kellaris, 1988) and also the

effectiveness of that brand advertisement (Campbell and Keller, 2003).

2.4 Brand Image

Brand image concept is knowledge about a brand as reflected by the brand association

held in consumer memory (Keller, 1983). These associations include any brand aspect within

the consumer’s recall (Aaker, 1991). Roy and Banerjee (2007) suggested that brand image

expressed as the consumer’s idea and attitude towards the brand. Basically, the brand image is

the overall mind perception that consumers have of a brand, and its distinctiveness in

comparison to the other brand (Faircloth, 2005).

Brand image is encompasses a consumer’s knowledge and beliefs about a brand’s

varied product and its non-product aspects. Brand image signifies the personal symbolism that

consumer associate with the brand, which covers of all descriptive and evaluative brand-

related knowledge (Iversen and Hem, 2008). The brand’s messages have powerful influence

instead of other competitors’ messages when consumers have a favorable brand image (Hsieh

and Li, 2008). Hence, brand image is significant determinants of consumer’s behavior

(Burmann et al, 2008).

Page | 18

Page 19: Compile Edited

Brand image is otherwise known as brand association. Aaker in his 1996a study

mentioned that brand association is anything related in memory to a brand. Keller (1998)

proposed that brand associations are classified into three different types: attributes (including

product-related attributes and non-product related such as brand personality, price, experience

and emotions), benefits (what customers’ feel the product and services can do for them,

including functional benefits, symbolic benefits and experiential benefits) and attitude

(customer overall assessment of the brand). By applying Keller’s concept, in food service

industry, brand image could be reflected through restaurant brand personality, competitive

price, memorable dining experience, happy feeling as well as benefits that customers gained

when dine in particular restaurants.

Martenson (2007) declared that a favorable brand image would portray positive

persuasive power on buyer behavior towards the brand in terms of enhancing loyalty,

generating positive word of mouth and superior price premium. Faircloth et al (2001) claimed

that the more positive the brand image, the more likely customers are willing to pay, hence

the greater the brand equity. Restaurant operator in Malaysia thereby should establish their

brand image extensively in order to generate greater willingness of customers to spend,

indirectly enhance the brand equity of the restaurant.

Rao et al (1991) stated that many company want to gain benefits of stronger brand

image in order to enhance their own image, thus many successful companies with an inferior

brand image merge and attain companies with a superior brand image ultimately expand their

market share. In fast food industry, McDonald has introduced new Oreo Mcflurry in order to

benefit the stronger brand image of Oreo, and apparently this step has created a center of

attention for market share of McDonald. Local SME as well supposed to take relevant actions

in sequence to enhance superior brand image as fast food did.

Country image is the overall consumers’ perception toward a product from a particular

country, based on their prior perception of the country’s production and marketing strength

and weaknesses (Roth and Romeo, 1992). Country as well as brands has different images. The

issue of whether brand image appeals affect customer responses differently in other countries

has brought due to the appearance of global products (Hsieh et al, 2004). In line with Hsieh

(2004), the issue of local SME brand must reset its brand image as compared to other global

brand has questioned many SME operator in Malaysia. SME operator should recognize the

national characteristics would affect the success of brand image strategies.

Page | 19

Page 20: Compile Edited

The relationship between brand image and country-of-origin (COO) information on

consumer view had been deliberate well (D’Astous and Ahmad, 1999; Hsieh et al, 2004;

Kotler and Gertner, 2002; Nebenzahl et al, 2003; Papadopolous, 1993). The significant effect

of COO information and brand image on consumer perception has been proven by most of

these researchers.

Eventually, the power of brand lies in the consumer’s minds (Keller, 2000). The image

of a brand from the consumer’s view may be different from what the firm desires. The image

formation in the mindset of consumer is subject to the internal and external factors. Koubaa

(2006) claimed that internal factors are consumer’s personal characteristics and external

factors which also known as umbrella brand image involved product features and country

image perception.

Brand image represents an important aspect of marketing activities; branding and

market offering with varied definition and approaches to its conceptualization (Burleigh and

Sidney, 1955; Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990; Martinez and Pina, 2003). A widely accepted view

is that brand image represents customers’ perceptions of a brand as reflected by the brand

associations held in consumer memory (Herzog, 1963; Keller, 1993a, b). Brand image is,

therefore, the mental picture or perception of a brand or a branded product or service and

includes symbolic meanings that consumers associate with the specific attributes of a product

or service (Dodni and Zinkhan, 1990; Padgett and Allen, 1997; Aperia and Back, 2004).

Brand image represents the reasoned or emotional perceptions consumers attach to

specific brands which distinguished by Low and Lamb (p. 352, 2000) a set of belief held by

customers about a particular brand, based upon some intrinsic and extrinsic attributes (Aaker,

1994; Gracia Rodriguez and Bergantinos, 2001).

Brand image, which usually includes the product’s name, its main physical features

and appearance including the packaging and logo, and its main function, is the key to answer

the question of how the consumer chooses among alternatives brands after information

gathering processes of buyer behavior. The perspective is focusing on psychological attributes

with certain life-style, a self image or an ascribed status. For that reason, marketing

academicians and practioners see the symbolic image of products or services as more

important in their success (Aaker, 1991).

Page | 20

Page 21: Compile Edited

2.5 Brand Perceived Quality

Perceived quality can be defined as the customer’s perception of the overall quality or

superiority of a product or service with respect to its intended purpose, relative to

alternatives” (Aaker, 1991). In 1990, Zeithaml et. al. also had defined perceived service

quality as “the degree of organization success in meeting the customer satisfaction”.

Customer’s evaluation of their past service consumed and service expectation are the factors

that may contribute to their perceive quality result to the particular restaurants. Yoo et. al.

(2000) added that customer may evaluate the restaurant’s product quality through their past

experience, their economic level and the uniqueness of the product. . Perceived quality

measurement are so called subjective because its derived from customer’s product comparison

with the competitors. Based on Aaker (1996a) statement in his research, Perceived quality is

believed able to hike up customer satisfaction through past experience that provided from last

product or service consumption.

There are several factors that may manipulate customers’ assessments of restaurant

quality. Several last studies had determined that the major keys of overall restaurant service

quality are qualities of the food, environment of restaurant’s physical and also their delivered

service (Dulen 1999; Susskind & Chan 2000). Sulek & Hensley (2004) clarifies that the

quality of the food is the most significant elements for the restaurant service experienced

among those three elements. However, the important consideration that the restaurant’s

operator should concerned more is their customer need and satisfaction (Peri, 2006).

According to Wu and Liang (2009), they had affirmed that there are three service

encounter in the setting of restaurant which are comprised of environmental elements that

examplized by design of the restaurant, surround sound and music, and also the lighting;

restaurant staff that have professional skills and high degree of reliability; and also different

attribute or behavior of the customers. After several testing been done, thankfully, in 1985,

Parasuraman with the other researchers had invented the SERVQUAL instrument that

believed may evaluate the service quality from the customer’s perspective (Parasuraman et.

al. 1985). This SERVQUAL had used five service dimensions to evaluate service quality,

which are tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. Later, 10 years after

that, Stevens, Knutson and Patton (1995) had created an instrument called DINESERV which

been modified from SERVQUAL that purposely created to evaluate customers’ opinions of

Page | 21

Page 22: Compile Edited

restaurant service quality. This instrument later had proposed as a reliable and relatively

simple tool in a way to determine the customer’s view a restaurant’s quality.

Three years after they invented SERVQUAL instrument, Parasuraman et. al. (1988),

had used SERVQUAL to represents service quality as the difference between a customer's

expectations for a service offering and the customer's perceptions of the service received,

requiring respondents to answer questions about both their expectations and their perceptions.

The uses of perceived quality as contrast to actual service received make the SERVQUAL

measure an attitude measure that is related to, but not the same as, satisfaction (Parasuraman

et. al., 1988). Parasuraman et. al. (1991) presented some revisions to the original

SERVQUAL measure to remedy problems with high means and standard deviations found on

some questions and to obtain a direct measure of the importance of each construct to the

customer.

DINESERV items included five service quality dimensions. In the restaurant industry,

tangibles refer to a restaurant’s physical design, appearance of staff and cleanliness.

Reliability involves freshness and temperature of the food, accurate billing and receiving

ordered food. Responsiveness in restaurants relates to staff assistance with the menu or wine

list or appropriate and prompt response to customers’ needs and requests. Assurance means

that restaurant customers should be able to trust the recommendations of staff, feel confident

that food is free from contamination and be able to say any concern without fear. Finally,

empathy refers to providing personalized attention to customers by anticipating special dietary

requirements or by being sympathetic towards customers’ problems.

Consumers tend to become more and more demanding as the recent market turn out to

be more challenged. In the event of challenges such as the growing worldwide opposition, the

continuous increase in customer thoughts and customers’ subsequent demands as the quality

of service increase (Parasuraman et al., 1988; Rao and Kelkar, 1997), service firms incapable

to successfully fulfill the needs and wants of customers risk not only losing displeased

customers to opponents, but also losing of profits and, as a result, failure. Thus, these

challenges are forcing firms to take strategic planning which will enable them in creating and

having competitive advantages (Kandampully, 1998).

Page | 22

Page 23: Compile Edited

As mentioned by Berry et al. (1988), service quality has become an important

differentiator and the most influential competitive arm which diverse leading service firm

own. While Zeithaml, (1988) stated that, in order to gain customer loyalty, leading service

firms struggle to sustain a first-class quality of service. Therefore, a service firm’s strategic

achievement in a market is basically discovered by its capability to develop and sustain a

great and loyal customer base. The link between perceived service quality and customer

loyalty are comparatively underdeveloped (Bloemer et al., 1999; Gremler and Brown, 1996)

in spite of the reality that customer loyalty is necessary for business survival (Reichheld,

1993).

According to Gronroos (1984), he had defined service quality as “a perceived

decision, consequential from an assessment process where customers evaluate their

expectations with the service they expected to have received” (p. 38). The author also

suggested that service quality should be divided into technical quality (what is done) and

functional quality (how it is done). Gronroos (1984) further declared that the quality of a

service is dependent on two variables: expected service and perceived service, and that any

previous experience with a service could influence the expectations of a consumer, whereas

the perceived service is the result of a consumer’s perception of the service itself. Service

quality has also been described as a form of attitude, related but not equivalent to satisfaction

that results from the comparison of expectations with performance (Bolton and Drew, 1991;

Parasuraman et al., 1988).

2.6 Brand Loyalty

Oliver (p. 34, 1999) acknowledged that brand loyalty is “an intensely held

commitment to repurchase or regularly visits a favored product or service over and over

again, consequently causing the repetitive same-brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite

certain circumstance influences and marketing efforts have the potential to cause switching

behavior”. Olsen (2002) has mentioned that loyalty is in general measured by behavioral

measures rather than attitudinal measures even supposing there might be variation in loyalty

measures between attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty.

As suggested by Dick and Basu (1994), brand loyalty unique treatment is the positive

word of mouth and greater argument among loyal customers to competitive strategies. It

shows that such findings support marketers to build and sustain brand loyalty among

customers in food service industry. In sequence to accomplish for such objectives, goals and

Page | 23

Page 24: Compile Edited

aims, the facts on factors of determining the plan of brand loyalty among customers becomes

an essential issue. The same researchers further supposed that even a moderately necessary

repeat purchase or repeat patronize in particular restaurants might not explained true loyalty to

a product or restaurant, but could simply result from certain situation such the availability of

other restaurants, location and convenient service hours. In their framework, attitude is an

obligation for true loyalty to happen. In view of that, they define repeat purchasing with no

favorable attitude as false loyalty. Comparable judgment were found in Assael (1998) who

conceptualizes brand loyalty as repeat purchase under high participation and defines repeat

purchase under low involvement as disinterest.

According to Aizen and Fishbein (1980), the relationship between attitude and

behavior is well accepted among consumer researchers although this relationship emerges to

be most feasible when applied to high participation situations. Presuming, even with regard to

regularly dine in certain restaurants; some customers will put forward more involvement to

the revisit decision than others. Understanding the role of relative attitude to brand loyalty is

important for food service managers in order to enhance and maintain consumers’ repeat visit

to their restaurant outlet. Only if an increase in relation attitude results in an increase in repeat

visit, it is meaningful for food service operator in seeking to influence repeat visit through

attitude building marketing strategies.

Buzzell et al., (1975) and Raj, (1985) had stated that firms that have large number of

customers that have high loyalty degree have been shown to have high percentage of market

share (Buzzell et al.,1975; Raj, 1985).The market share, in turn, has been shown to be

associated with higher rates of return on investment. Jacoby (1971) had clarifies the definition

of brand loyalty as “repeat purchase behavior” but he also stated that this behavior is a

function of psychological processes. The customer behavior of repeat purchase is not just an

arbitrary response but it is the consequences of some proceeding factor such as psychological,

emotional or situational factors. Likewise Dick and Basu (1994) point out that even a

relatively important repeat purchase may not reflect true loyalty to a product but may merely

result from situational conditions such as brands stocked by the retailer.

Among the concepts used to describe a strong brand, brand loyalty is perhaps the one

that has received the most attention by academics and practitioners (Malai and Speece, 2005;

Tsao and Chen, 2005). For that reason, there are several definitions and measures of brand

loyalty; some focus on the attitudinal dimension and others focus on the behavioral aspect of

Page | 24

Page 25: Compile Edited

brand loyalty (Gee et al., 2008; Oliver, 1997). Oliver (1997), noted that brand loyalty is a

deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred brand consistently in the future,

despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching

behavior.

In most models of brand equity, brand loyalty is posited to either a component (Aaker,

1991) or an outcome (Erdem amd Swait, 1998) of brand equity. Brand loyalty is a valuable

asset for every brand. Research has indicated that the cost of recruiting new customers is very

high due to advertising, personal selling, establishing new accounts and customer training

(Mittal and Lassar, 1998). More importantly, profits generated by loyal customers increase

significantly over time which founded by Reichheld and Sasser (1990).

It is widely considered that loyalty is one of the ways with which the consumer

expresses his/her satisfaction with the performance of the product or service received

(Bloemer and Kasper, 1995). Therefore, it is not surprising that one of the key global

constructs predicting consumer behavior as been overall satisfaction. There are many studies

that have examined the relationship between this variable and loyalty, where the latter has

been approached as a repurchase intention (Anderson and Sullivan, 1998; Cronin and Taylor,

1992) or as an emotional and psychological bond or commitment (Bloemer and Kasper, 1993;

Samuelsen and Sandvik. 1997).

The preceding literature review demonstrates the lack of attention paid to “brand

trust”, in spite of the empirical and theoretical evidences existing about its relationship with

satisfaction (Hess, 1995; Selnes, 1998) and loyalty (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). According to

Hess (1995), this is explained not only by the newness of the research that characterizes the

interactions between a customer and a brand as a long term relationship, but also because

there is a lack of accepted measures of brand trust. In any case, this situation contrasts with

the variety of opinions (Fournier, 1995; Gurviez 1996; Morgan and Hunt, 1994) supporting

the importance of trust in developing positive and maximum expression of a successful

relationship between the consumer and the brand.

Whatever represents the meaning of brand loyalty as the list of authors with varied

approaches seems endless, the fact remains that brand loyalty exist as a result of the

interaction between a customer’s relative attitude to a special brand, and also their repeat

purchase behavior for the brand. Brand loyalty may, therefore, exist as a result of repeat

purchase or due to the absence of perceived differences between brand alternatives (Muncy,

Page | 25

Page 26: Compile Edited

1996). It could also exist as a result of simple habitual purchase behavior (Assael, 1998),

which could mean long or short term involvement on repeat purchasing of a market offering

or brand.

Knowledge of brand loyalty is, therefore, necessary as according to Wood (2000)

brand image tailored to the needs and wants of a target market so as to facilitate brand loyalty.

That is customer involvement in repeat purchase behavior on a brand and the success or

otherwise of this process determines the degree of brand loyalty and will probably have

influence on customer long term loyalty.

2.7 Brand Value

Brand value is, on the other hand, a notion that is not really well definite (Zeithaml,

1988). Principal of this theory is the view that brand values possibly be as delicate in the eyes

of the consumer at the present time. Brand values idea entails that what makes a brand is its

characteristics or personality which differentiates it from others and that the presence of this

characteristics conveys several usefulness, nevertheless tangible to the costumer. There is a

rigorous organization of study supporting the idea of brand personality as a source of value to

the consumer (King, 1973). Conversely, what seems to be occurrence is that the

transformations in the industry environment are tending to lessen the power of that value.

In contrast, brand value is still a key aspect in many buying decisions even if it

appears that there has been a return to a concept of value based on conventional tangible or

core benefits rather than the more emotionally-based, which includes intangible benefits

(Christopher, 1996). The beginning of a revolution by customers who were preliminary to

subject the worth of paying radically more for branded products which were no longer seen as

delivering a proportionate amount of added value (The Economist, 1994a)

If the restaurant can offer a superior value package with a considerable constructive

economic impact on the customer, then the possibility is that they will win over other

restaurant competitors. Even though value is perceptual, but it encompasses the customers’

perceptive of what they are receiving compared to what they are paying (Christopher, 1996).

From the customers’ standpoint, value is created when the benefits obtained from a

transaction exceed the costs of ownership. The same idea can be expressed as a ratio:

Page | 26

Page 27: Compile Edited

Customer value = Perceptions of benefits

Total cost of ownership

Hence, the force of product or service favored by the customers as offered by the

restaurant operators are value for money, convenience, reliability, safety and functionality

(Christopher, 1996). In order to gain competitive advantages in terms of value, the restaurant

operators in the industry need to define, communicate and deliver a value proposition which is

acknowledged by the target markets as the superior proposal to them compared to other

competitors.

In general, brand value relates to the influence of a brand in the marketing mix or the

impact of the brand name on reactions to other features of the marketing mix, such as the

reactions to the actual product. Brand value increases as the brand becomes better known and

as the company supports the brand at the different contact points.

In addition, value can be described as the quality of a thing which makes it more or

less desirable. This definition of value implies that value and the perception of value are based

on numerous personal, product and services. Examining consumers perceptions of value and

developing strategies based on these perceptions is a difficult task for restaurant. Value has

been provided to customer through pricing and branding strategies and the offering of

additional services. Thus, an orientation toward providing better value to customers whether it

be via brands, pricing strategies or services, appears to be one of the differential advantages

for restaurants.

In the food products industry which including beverages, businesses is cope with the

challenge of seemingly or factually homogeneous products by creating brands (Woodruff,

1997). Srinivasan (1979) demonstrated that the brand adds a value benefit of its own

independently from those of the product.

Marketing experts generally agree that there is a strong link between advertising and

building value for a brand (Cobb Walgren et al, 1995). Miller and Berry (1998) note that

established brands are stronger and more robust than many suspected. Brand value goes

beyond brand awareness o include favorable attitudes toward the brand (Moore et al., 2002).

Building bran equity is related to the degree of brand recognition, the strength of consumers’

mental and emotional associations, as well as perceived brand quality (Aaker, 1996). When

Page | 27

Page 28: Compile Edited

brands are positioned correctly, consumers feel strong ties toward them (Cobb Walgren et al.,

1995).

Brand perceived value is the evaluation of a cycle including consumption and

purchase experiences (Cronin et al., 2000). As a consequence, the purchase experience

participates in the creation of value. In this perspective, the restaurant is a strategic location

where a physical encounter takes place between brands and consumers. Thus, at the point of

purchase, brands are able to deliver services in addition to physical products, which is a way

to increase perceived value and differentiation (Buchanan et al., 1999).

Zeithaml (1988) note that customer value as the consumer’s overall assessment of the

utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given. Otherwise,

according to Monroe and Krishnan (1985) and Dodds et al. (1991), perceived quality us

positively related to perceived value. Recognizing a brand name or logo can lead to positive

customer assessments in terms or considering a product as good value for money or a good

bargain.

Furthermore, Sheth et al. (1991) developed an important theory that explains the basic

values of consumption that guide consumers when they make choices. Following Hunt

(1995), it is equated here with the worth that customers as individuals, as market segments, or

as a mass place on the consequences they attribute to a product or service. Most commonly,

customer value means judgments or assessments of what a customer perceives he or she has

received from a seller in a specific purchase or use situation (Bagozzi, 1999). Woodruff

(1997) defining customer value is as customer’s perceived preference for and evaluation of

those product attributes, attribute performances, and consequences arising from use that

facilitate achieving the customer’s goals and purposes in use situations.

Value is defined in terms of customer needs and what is desirable. Rakeach (1973)

suggested a value is an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of

existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or

end state of existence. The development of means-end theory (Gutman, 1982) enables

laddering techniques to ascertain customer values. There are many subtle variants of

Rekeach’s definition. Some define value in terms of the mental images or cognitive

representations underlying customers’ needs and goals (Peter and Olson, 1987), ultimately

affecting customers’ responses in particular situations (Schiffman and Kanuk, 1987).

Page | 28

Page 29: Compile Edited

A brand is influenced by consumers and their behavior and attitudes toward brand,

which are in turn affected by factors that are mutual and interactive. These factors affect

brand cognition, or the brand recognition of customers, which is how the brand accrues its

value (Low and Blois, 2002). According to Wood (2002), the process of the generation of

brand value includes brand cognition, brand description, brand strength generation and brand

value creation. Brand value is classified as an intangible asset of a company and thus is

adequately reflected in its financial results.

Page | 29

Page 30: Compile Edited

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

Derived from the previous chapter that has been discussed above, this research study

is mainly about the factors that contribute to customer satisfaction among customers in local

restaurants and also quick service restaurant. The factors that influence the different

satisfaction among customer are reflected from different view and experience of brand

awareness, brand image, brand perceived quality, brand loyalty and also brand value.

The primary research method used in the study of customer satisfaction which

analyzes the relationship; brand awareness, brand image, brand perceived quality, brand

loyalty and also brand value. It is based on a survey which 300 responses collected from

customers around Klang Valley, Malaysia. The questionnaire used to collect data which the

customers required to compare their satisfaction between local restaurant and quick service

restaurant. Regression analysis and several statistical tests were used to test and analyzed the

influence of each parameter on customer satisfaction. The results can be implemented to SME

in term to continuous improvement on their business products and services by enhancing the

elements that can contribute to increase customer satisfaction.

3.2 Respondents of the Study

Respondents are one of main factor that need to be considered. Its plays important

roles in derive the research results. In this study, the respondents are among the customers in

Klang Valley which from different education level background and different range of age.

The survey conducted in Klang Valley area due to the great number of restaurants which

serve varieties of food and beverages.

3.3 Research Instrument

The research was conducted by using primary data. The questionnaire was developed

based on the extensive literature review and adapted from previous survey question from

Stevens, Knutson and Patton (1995). It was divided into seven section and using the interval

scale and nominal scale for demographic section. Interval scale is used because of response to

various items that measure a variable can be tapped on a five-point scale, which can thereafter

be summated across the items. Moreover, the Likert scale is designed to examine how

strongly subjects agree or disagree with given statements on, with anchors “Strongly Agree”

Page | 30

Page 31: Compile Edited

as 1, “Agree” as 2, “Neither Agree Nor Disagree” as 3, “Disagree” as 4, and “Strongly

Disagree” as 5. A survey was used to evaluate customer satisfaction of the restaurants that

their always visited.

First section of the questionnaire is to determine customer awareness and knowledge

regarding the restaurant that there have visited. The second section is to identify the opinion

toward the brand image of the restaurant that customer have visited. On the third section, is to

recognize the customer views towards the perceived quality of the restaurant that they have

visited. Next, is to identify the attitude towards the brand loyalty and to identify the views

toward the brand value of the restaurant. A part from that, the next section is to measure

customer satisfaction towards the restaurant. The last section of the questionnaire consisted of

demographic questions. At the end of the questionnaire, it is include an open ended question

to give some space for corresponded to give their opinion or suggestion for the sake of this

research.

3.4 Research Procedure

Pilot studies is important in ensure the effectiveness of the questionnaires. Before the

actual questionnaires are distribute to the respondents, pilot studies on a small scale were

conducted in gathering information from a limited number of students. A total 25 students are

involved in the pilot studies. This is to assess the validity of the research instrument. During

the actual study, 300 questionnaires were distributed to the student in Klang Valley areas.

3.5 Data Analysis

The questionnaires were distributed to 300 respondents in the area of Klang Valley

that were included in different education level background and different age. Data were

collected a week after the questionnaires were distributed. Moreover, questionnaires were

distributed to the students that were willing to participate in the research.

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Packages for Social Science (SPSS) version

18.0 for further understanding between the relationships of the independent variable to

dependent variable. In order to meet the survey’s goals, reliability analysis and multiple

regression analysis were conducted.

Page | 31

Page 32: Compile Edited

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Reliability analysis of the scale

Local RestaurantVariables Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients

Brand Awareness 0.871Brand Image 0.834Brand Perceived Quality 0.823Brand Loyalty 0.883Brand ValueCustomer Satisfaction

0.7950.874

Quick Service RestaurantVariables Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients

Brand Awareness 0.772Brand Image 0.740Brand Perceived Quality 0.725Brand Loyalty 0.851Brand ValueCustomer Satisfaction

0.6560.789

Prior to testing the hypotheses, each multi-item scale was examined for reliability

using Cronbach's coefficient alpha as the indicator. All construct scales were analyzed using

Cronbach’s alpha to determine if the scales exhibited acceptable levels of reliability (Nunnaly,

1978). All the Cronbach’s alpha value more than 0.7 indicating that all constructs had

acceptable reliability (Othman et al, 2000). The coefficient was uniformly very high as shown

in Table above. The Cronbach’s alpha for Brand Awareness of local restaurant is 0.871, while

Brand Image is 0.874. Further, Brand Perceived Quality Cronbach’s alpha for local restaurant

is strong which 0.823 is, whilst 0.883 is for Brand Loyalty. Besides that, 0.795 is the

Cronbach’s alpha of Brand Value for the local restaurant. Overall, the customer satisfaction in

local restaurant is 0.874.

On the other hand, the Cronbach’s alpha for the QSR is also relatively high coefficient

although the reliability is slightly lesser rather than local restaurant. The coefficient of Brand

Awareness in QSR is reported as 0.772, 0.74 (Brand Image), 0.725 (Brand Perceived Quality)

and 0.851 (Brand Loyalty). Brand Value, however is comparatively lower which 0.656 as

Page | 32

Page 33: Compile Edited

compared with local restaurant is. The customer satisfaction is still high (0.789) even though

somewhat lessen than local restaurant.

4.2 Multiple Regression Analysis

4.2.1 Anova

Local Restaurant

Variables R R Square Sig.

TLBA, TLBI, TLBP, LTBL, TLBV

0.849 0.720.00

0

Quick Service Restaurant

Variables R R Square Sig.

TQBA, TQBI, TQBP, LQBL, TQBV

0.833 0.693 0.000

Multiple regression allows prediction of a single dependent continuous variable from a

group of independent variables. It can be used to test the predictive power of a set of variables

and to assess the relative contribution of each individual variable. Generally, the results of all

dimensions of Brand Equity for both local and QSR restaurants are perfectly significant with

the customer satisfaction. In consequence, the hypotheses of the customer satisfaction are in

general accepted. The coefficient relation, r of local restaurant between Customer Satisfaction

and all dimensions of brand equity (Brand Awareness, Brand Image, Brand Perceived

Quality, Brand Loyalty & Brand value) is significant and positive (0.849). In contrast, for

QSR, the coefficient relation, r between customer satisfaction and all dimension of brand

equity is also strong and positive (0.883).

The coefficient of determination, denote as r², indicate how much contribution of

independent variable in explaining the response variable. For local restaurant, the coefficient

of determination is 0.72. The interpretation of this figure is 72% of the total variation in

customer satisfaction of local restaurant can be explained by all dimension in Brand Equity

and other 27% are clarified by the other factors. In QSR, the r² is 0.693, which indicated that

69.3% of total variation in the Customer satisfaction of QSR can be described by the Brand

Equity dimensions and another 30.7% are explicated by other factors.

Page | 33

Page 34: Compile Edited

4.2.2 Coefficient

Local RestaurantVariabl

eStandardized

Coefficients BetaSignificant Level

TLBA 0.312 0.000TLBI 0.043 0.381TLBP 0.153 0.001TLBL 0.385 0.000TLBV 0.059 0.231

Quick Service RestaurantVariabl

eStandardized

Coefficients BetaSignificant Level

TLBA -0.097 0.039TLBI 0.163 0.000TLBP 0.044 0.334TLBL 0.522 0.000TLBV 0.315 0.000

The next thing we want to know is which of the variables included in the model

contributed to the prediction of the dependent variable. We find this information in the output

box labelled Coefficients. Look in the column labelled Beta under Standardised

Coefficients. To compare the different variables it is important that we look at the

standardised coefficients, not the unstandardised ones. ‘Standardised’ means that these

values for each of the different variables have been converted to the same scale so that we can

compare them.

Then, look down the Beta column and determine which beta value is the largest

(ignoring any negative signs out the front). In the local restaurant, the largest beta coefficient

is 0.385, which is for Brand Loyalty. This means that this variable makes the strongest unique

contribution to explaining the dependent variable which is Customer Satisfaction, when the

variance explained by all other variables in the model is controlled for. Second strongest

contributon is Brand Awareness (0.312), followed by Brand Perceived Quality (0.153). Next,

the Beta value for Brand Value was slightly lower (0.059), on the other hand Brand Image is

0.043 indicating that it made less of a contribution.

Page | 34

Page 35: Compile Edited

Conversely, for QSR, the Brand Loyalty contributes the strongest beta coefficent

which is 0.522, then followed by Brand Value with 0.315. Subsequently, Brand Image give

0.163 beta coefficent, Brand Awareness is 0.097 and Brand Perceived Quality is 0.044. This

demonstrated that Brand Perceived Quality is less significant for QSR, however as a whole,

the dimension is significant as shown in Anova table in column Significance.

Regression analysis for local restaurant also produced a significant positive result. The

finding of Brand Awareness and Brand Loyalty are both perfectly significant. Thus, the H1a

is supported; when customers aware of the existence of the local restaurants’ brand, they will

be more satisfied. The result also applies in the H4 of brand loyalty whereas if the customer

loyal to the restaurant, then they will be a satisfied customer.

H2a is tested by examining the link between Customer Satisfaction and Brand Image.

As in table 1, regression results show Customer Satisfaction has significant positive

relationship with Brand Image (0.01). That is, the Restaurants with established image will

have satisfied customers, hence H2 is supported.

H3a, (There is positive relationship between customer satisfaction and Brand

Perceived Quality), also tested by evaluated the regression analysis. The result demonstrates

that the insignificant of multiple regression analysis of 0.381. That is, the H3a is less

significant to the customer satisfaction in local restaurant. For H5, the finding of Brand Value

is insufficient and insignificant (0.231). Though, as mentioned before, as a whole the result is

significant to the customer satisfaction in local restaurant. Hence, the hypothesis of ‘There is

positive relationship between customer satisfaction and Brand Value’ is approved.

From the QSR perspective, the multiple regression analysis is perfectly significant to

the relationship of the Customer Satisfaction towards Brand Image, Brand Loyalty and Brand

Value. The hypotheses of H2b (Restaurants with established will have satisfied customers),

H4b (If the customer loyal to the restaurant, then they will be a satisfied customer) and H5b

(There is positive relationship between customer satisfaction and Brand Value) has been

approved.

In addition, the relationship of Customer Satisfaction and Brand Awareness of QSR is

also agreed by the results illustrated in the multiple regression significance level of 0.039.

This explains the acceptability of H1b which stated that when customers aware of the

existence of the QSR restaurants’ brand, they will be more satisfied.

Page | 35

Page 36: Compile Edited

H3b, on the contrary is not portray a significant level in the multiple regression

analysis. The 0.334 is not acceptable as significant, but then it is considered significant in

general, thus the H3b (There is positive relationship between customer satisfaction and Brand

Perceived Quality) is not rejected.

Page | 36

Page 37: Compile Edited

5.0 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

In an industry that is becoming increasingly international, such as services, it is

important to develop standardized measure to adequately capture consumer satisfaction, brand

awareness, brand image, brand perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand value in local

restaurant. Customer satisfactions have positive relationship towards five dimensions discuss

above. Customer satisfaction can be achieved by either emphasizing the brand, product and

services via satisfied customer needs and want. It appears that there are many benefits flowing

from increases customer satisfaction. Higher satisfaction scores lead to higher levels of

customer retention.

The restaurant cannot reach the highest stage without the customer’s help. The

customer would finally to ensure the success of the restaurant. By then, the restaurant should

take progressive action in ensuring the customers are satisfied with the service quality,

product, and also the branding factor. Interaction between the customer and the employee is

also important in ensuring the effectiveness of the service.

Through such measurement, restaurant can learn how they are doing from the point of

view of their targeted consumers, identify what it takes to compete, find ways to deliver better

service to their customers and compare their achievements with competitors. By doing so,

they will be positioned to create satisfied, loyal and committed customer who “will not only

return for repeat business but will also bring their friends and family with them” (Veloutsou et

al., 2005). Clearly, satisfaction are linked to brand awareness, brand image, brand perceived

quality, brand loyalty and brand value.

5.1 Managerial Implications

The results of our study confirm to a large extend the proposed hypotheses and

suggest a number of important managerial implications for consumer researchers and brand

managers. First, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that attempts to measure

relative customer satisfaction on Malaysia SME restaurants, in fact covers the comparison to

QSR restaurants. For that reason, local SME operators enable to utilize this study as tools for

an area of improvement in their branding aspects.

This study has clear implication for Malaysia’s SME restaurant towards the service

quality and customer satisfaction. It can be considered as an approach that captures the nature

of satisfaction and loyalty of customers towards the restaurants. Therefore, it is expected that

Page | 37

Page 38: Compile Edited

customers have their own perspective, need and want to full fill by the service provider. Brand

awareness, brand image, brand perceived quality, brand loyalty and also brand value is play

huge roles in measured customer satisfaction.

Furthermore, result supports that in order for service industry deal with the factor that

can improve the customer satisfaction on local SME restaurants. Comparing with the QSR

showed that the restaurant is more systematic, strategic and have clear vision and mission.

These points should be instilling in SME restaurant to ensure they can provide better service

in gaining customer satisfaction. Since the relationship of customer satisfaction increases with

the repeat purchase of services, loyalty requires special and primary attention to ensure the

restaurant can retain their customer.

As ratified by the respondents, the strongest contribution for customer satisfaction of

local SME restaurant is Brand Loyalty. Customers are less sensitive towards any

circumstances that exist for the particular restaurant, but they prone to visit them regularly.

Therefore, it is important to the local restaurant operator to enhance on their Brand Loyalty

aspects. Alas, our local SME restaurants possess little effort in retaining their customers.

Investment for attracting new customer is basically more costly than sustaining existed

customers. Customer Relationship Programs applied in most QSR such as McDonald

supposedly developed in our local restaurants so that the bonding between restaurants and the

locals will be created. By adopting such an approach, companies can gain long-term

competitive advantage by optimally delivering value and satisfaction to the customer and

extract business value from the exchange (Kumar, 2010).

As results demonstrated that Band Awareness in local SME restaurants is considered

crucial, nonetheless in QSR the results showed that it is less significant to the customer

satisfaction. As mentioned Richarm and Colias (2007), things change with time. As consumer

preferences change, and as different brands alter their messaging and positioning strategies,

the perceptual also changes. In other words, in spite of of any promotional and marketing

effort highlighted in order to create the brand awareness, consumer will visit QSR as they

already conscious on the branding of QSR. This reflects the strong perception of brand

awareness of QSR to the extent that it requires less effort in marketing.

Page | 38

Page 39: Compile Edited

5.2 Limitations and future research

This study’s contribution must be considered in light of its limitations. First and

foremost, results are obtained from different profile demographic of customers that participate

in the questionnaires survey. This study is actually to help Malaysia’s SME in order to

perform better product and services toward customers. Given the great diversity of service

industries, it would helpful to carry out similar studies in other service factory industries.

Further shortcomings of the study resulted from problem in the measurement of overall

satisfaction. More research may be needed to develop a valid measurement tool to assess the

elements of satisfaction in a way that does not elicit fatigue, boredom or inappropriate

response behavior from respondents (Drolet and Marrison, 2001). Additionally, more research

is needed in the field of developing a valid measurement tool to assess the services cape.

The limitation of the study derives from the sampling context and procedures to

collect the primary data. A more systematic probabilistic sampling procedure that would

entail larger nation-wide samples is needed in order to affirm the present results. In addition,

tapping instrumental along with affective commitment might enhance the understanding of

the customer satisfaction relationship. In conclusion, this study has laid the foundation for

future researchers to explore these relationship using more experimental research designs.

Page | 39

Page 40: Compile Edited

6.0 REFERENCES

Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing brand equity: capitalizing on the value of a brand name, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Aaker, D.A. (1996a), Building strong brands, The Free Press, New York, NY.

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

Aaker, D.A. and Jacobson, R. (1994), The financial information content of perceived quality, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 191-201.

Ailawadi, K., Lehmann, D.L. and Neslin, S.A. (2003), Revenue premium as an outcome measure of brand equity, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67, pp. 1-17.

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, W. (1987), Dimensions of consumer expertise, Journal of the Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 411-5.

Ambler, T. (1997), How much of brand equity is explained by trust?, Management Decision, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 283-92.

Ambler, T., Bhattacharya, C.B., Edell, J., Keller, K.L., Lemon, K.N. and Mittal, V. (2002), Relating brand and customer perspectives on marketing management, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 13-25.

Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. (1994). A Customer Satisfaction Research Prospectus In Rust, R.T, Oliver, R.L. (Eds). Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice, Thousand Oaks, Sage, CA, pp. 241-68.

Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993), “The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms”, Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 125-43.

Anderson, R. E. and Srivivasan, S.S. (2003), “E-satisfaction and e-loyalty: a contingency framework”, Psychology and Marketing, 20, pp. 123.

Agarwal, M.K. and Rao, V.R. (1996), An empirical comparison of consumer-based measures of brand equity, Marketing Letters, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 237-47.

Assael, H. (1998), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Actions, 6th ed., South-Western College Publishing, Mason, OH.

Balabanis, G. and Diamantopoulos, A, (2008) Brand origin identification by customer: a classification perspectives, Journal of International marketing. vol 16, pp. 39

Page | 40

Page 41: Compile Edited

Berry, L.L. (2000), Cultivating service brand equity, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 128-37.

Bloemer, M.J. and Kasper, P.D. (1995), The complex relationship between consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 311-29.

Bloemer, J. and Ruyter, K.D. (1999), Customer loyalty in high and low involvement servicesettings: the moderating impact of positive emotions, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 315-30.

Bagozzi, R.P. (1999), Goal setting and goal striving in consumer behavior, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, Special Issue, pp. 19-32.

Bettman, J. A. and Park, C. W. (1980), “Effect of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice process on consumer decision making process: a protocol analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), pp. 234.

Birchfield, J. C. and Birchfield, Jr. (2007), Design and Layout of Foodservice Facilities (3rd

edition). Hoboken, NJ; John Wiley and Son Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H. (1991), A multistage model of customers’ assessment of service quality and value, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, March, pp. 375-84.

Brewer, A. and Zhao, J. (2010), Impact of pathway collage on reputation, International Journal of Educational Management, vol 24, 1, pp. 34 – 47.

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.

Buzzell, R.D., Gale, B.T. and Sultan, R.G.M. (1975), Market share – a key to profitability, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 53, pp. 97-106.

Buchanan, L. , Simmons, C. J., and Bickart, B. A.,(1999), “Brand equity dilution: retailer display and context brand effect”, Journal of Marketing Research, 36, pp. 345.

Berry, L., Leftkowith, E., Claek, T. (1988), “In service, what in a name?”, Harvard Business Review, 66, pp. 28.

Blackston, M. (1995), The qualitative dimension of brand equity. Journal of Advertising

Research, 35(4), RC2-RC7.

Capon, N. , Berthon, P., Hulbert, J. M., & Pitt, L. (2001). Brand custodianship: A new primer

for senior managers. European Management Journal, 19 (3), p. 215-227.

Christopher, M. (1996), From brand values to customer value, Journal of Marketing Practice, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 55-66.

Page | 41

Page 42: Compile Edited

Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N. (1995), Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase intent, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24, pp. 25-40.

Cooper, R.G. (1999), From experience: the invisible success factors in product innovation, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 115-33.

Cretu, A.E. and Brodie, R.J. (2005), The influence of brand image and company reputation where manufacturers market to small firms: a customer value perspective, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 36, pp. 230-40.

Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T. (2000), Assessing the effects of quality, value, andcustomer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments, Journalof Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 193-218.

Cronin, J.J., Taylor, S.A. 1992. Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension, Journal of Marketing 56, (July), 55-68.

D’Astous, A. and Ahmad, A.S. (1999), The importance of the country images in the formation of the consumer product perceptions, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 108-125.

Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.

De Chernatony, L. (2002) Would a brand smell any sweeter by a corporate name?,Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5, No. 2/3, pp. 114-132.

de Chernatony, L. and McDonanld, M. (1998), Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer, Service and Industrial Markets, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

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.

Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G. M. (1990), In search of brand image: a foundation analysis,

Low, G. S. and Lamb, C. W. (2000), The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 350-62.

Dulen, J. (1999). Quality control. Restaurant & Institutions, 109 (5), 38-52.

Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (1998), Brand equity as signaling phenomenon, Journal of ConsumerPsychology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 131-57.

Faircloth, J.B., Capella, L.M. and Alford, B.L. (2001), The effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand equity, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 61-76.

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.

Page | 42

Page 43: Compile Edited

Fornell, C. (1992), A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, January, pp. 6-21.

Fournier, S. (1995), Toward the development of relationship theory at the level of the product and brand, Advences in Consumer Research, Vol. 22, pp. 661-2.

Fullerton, G. (2005), “The impact of brand commitment on loyalty to retail service brands”, Canadian Journal of Administration Science, 22 (2), pp. 97

Harris, J. (2004), Professional Liability Insurance Update 2004, AIA, Washington, DC, available at: www.aia.org/aiarchitect/ thisweek04/tw1022/1022insure_survey.htm (accessed November 23, 2004).

Hess, J. (1995), Construction and Assessment of a Scale to Measure Consumer Trust, in Stren, B.B et al., (Eds), American Marketing Associatin Chicago IL, Summer, Vol. 6, pp.20-6.

Hoyer, W. D. and Brown, S. P. (2001), Effect of brand awareness on choice for a common, repeat purchase product , Journal of Consumer Research, vol 17, pp. 141.

Herzog, H. (1963), “Behavioral science concept for analyzing the consumer”, in Bliss, P. (ed), Marketing and The Behavioral Sciences, Allyn and Bacon, Inc, Boston, MA, pp. 76

Hunt, S.D. (1995), The comparative advantage theory of competition, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, April, pp. 1-15.

Gee, R., Coates, G. and Nicholson, M. (2008), Understanding and profitably managing customer loyalty, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 359-74.

Gremler, D.D. and Brown, S.W. (1996), Service loyalty: its nature, importance, and implications, in Edvardsson, B., Brown, S.W. and Johnston, R. (Eds), Advancing Service Quality: A Global Perspective, International Service Quality Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 171-80.

Gronroos, C. 1984. Service Management and Marketing, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Gurviez, P. (1996), The trust consept in the brand-consumers relationship, in Beracs, J., Bauer, A and Simon, J. (Eds), EMAC Proceedings Annual Conference, European Marketing Academy, Budapest, pp. 559-74.

Hsieh, M.H., Pan, S.L. and Setiono, R. (2004), Product-, corporate-, and country-image dimensions and purchase behavior: a multicountry analysis, Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 251-70.

Hsieh, A.T. and Li, C.K. (2008), The moderating effect of brand image on public relations perception and customer loyalty, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 26 No. 1,

Page | 43

Page 44: Compile Edited

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.

Jacoby, J. (1971), A model of multi-brand loyalty, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 11,pp. 25-30.

Johnson, R. and Kellaris J. (1988) An exploratory study of price and perceived quality among consumer services, Advance in Consumer Research, pp. 316

Kapferer, J.N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management, Kogan Page, London.

Keller, K.L. (2001), Building customer-based brand equity: a blueprint for creating strongbrands, Marketing Management, July/August, pp. 15-19.

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.

Keller, K.L. (2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Kim, W.G. and Kim, H.B. (2004), Measuring customer-based restaurant brand equity, CornellHotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 115-31.

Kim, J.Y., Morris, J.D. and Swait, J. (2008), Antecedents of true brand loyalty, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 99-117.

Kim, W. G., Bongran, J. S. & Kim, H. J. (2008). Multidimensional customer-based brand

equity and its ceonsequences in midpices hotels. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,

32, p. 235-254.

Kimpakorn, N. & Tocquer, G. ( 2010). Service brand equity and employee brand

commitment. Journal of Services Marketing, 24 (5), p. 378-388.

King, S. (1973), Developing New Brands, Pitman, London.

Kotler, P. (2003), Marketing Management, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Kotler, P. and Gertner, D. (2002), Country as brand, product, and beyond: a place marketing and brand management perspective, Journal of Brand Management, London, Vol. 9 Nos. 4-5,pp. 249-62.

Page | 44

Page 45: Compile Edited

Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995), Measuring customer-based brand equity, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 11-19.

Lee, D. and Ganesh, G. (1999) Effect of partitioned country image in the context of brand image and a familiarity: a categorization of theory perspective, International Marketing Review, pp. 18-39

Leone, R.P., Rao, V.R., Keller, K.L., Luo, A.M., Mcallister, A.L.,and Srivasta, R. (2006), “Linking brand equity to customer equity”, Journal of Research Service, 9(2), pp. 125.

Low, J. and Blois, K. (2002), The evolution of generic brands in industrial markets: the challenges to owners of brand equity, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 385-92.

Low, G.S. and Lamb, C.W. Jr (2000), Measurement and dimensionality of brand associations, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 350-70.

Macdonald, E. and Sharp, B. (2000), Brand awareness effects on consumer decision-making for a common, repeat purchase product: a replication, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 48, April, pp. 5-15.

Mackay, M.M. (2001), Application of brand equity measures in service markets, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 210-21.

Mahajan, V., Rao, V.R. and Srivastava, R.K. (1994), An approach to assess the importance of brand equity in acquisition decisions, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 11, pp. 221-35.

Malai, V. and Speece, M. (2005), Cultural impact on the relationship among perceived servicequality, brand name value, and customer loyalty, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 7-39.

Malaysia, DOS (Department of Statistics) (2005), Census of Establishments and Enterprises, 2003, Kuala Lumpur.

Martenson, R. (2007), Corporate brand image, satisfaction and store loyalty, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 544-55.

Martinez, E. and Pina, J.M. (2003), The negative impact of brand extensions on parent brand image, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 432-48.

Miller, S. and Berry, L. (1998), Brand salience versus brand image: two theories of advertising effectiveness, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 77-82.

Mittal, B. and Lassar, W.M. (1998), Why do customers switch? The dynamics of satisfactionversus loyalty, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 177-94.

Monroe, K. B. and Krishnan, R. (1985), The effect of price on subjective product evaluations, in Jacoby, J. and Olson J. (Eds) Perceived Quality, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 209-32.

Page | 45

Page 46: Compile Edited

Moore, E.S., Wilkie, W.L. and Lutz, R.J. (2002), Passing the torch: intergenerational influences as a source of brand equity, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 17-37.

Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), The commitment trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 20-38.

Muncy, J. (1996), Measuring perceived brand parity, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 23, pp.411-7.

Nebenzahl, D.I., Eugene, D.J. and Usinier, J.C. (2003), Personifying country of origin research, Management International Review, Vol. 43, p. 383.

Nelson, P. (1974), Advertising as information, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 729-54.

Normah Mohd Arjs (2006), SMEs: Building Blocks for Economic Growth, Paper presented at the National Statistical Conference, Kuala Lumpur.

Oliver, R. (1980), A cognitive model of the antecedence and consequences of satisfaction decisions, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17, September, pp. 46-9.

O’ Neil, J. W., & Xiao, Q. (2006). The role of brand affiliation in hotel market value. Cornell

Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 47 (3), p. 210-223

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Oliver, R.L. 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective of the Consumer, McGraw-Hill: New York.

Oliver, R.L. (1999), Whence consumer loyalty, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 33-44.

Othman, R., Abdul-Ghani, R. and Arshad, R. (2000), Great expectations – CEOs’ Perception of the Performance Gap of the HRM Function in the Malaysian Manufacturing Sector, Personnel Review 30(1): 61-80.

Olsen, S.O. (2002), Comparative evaluation and the relationship between quality, satisfaction, and repurchase loyalty, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 240-9.

Page G. and Fearn H. (2005), Corporate reputation: what do consumers really care about, Journal of Advertising Research ,vol 45, pp. 305

Papadopolous, N. (1993), What product country images are and are not in Al-sulaiti, K.I. and Baker, M.J. (1998), Country of origin effects: a literature review, Marketing Intelligence Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 150-99.

Parasuraman, A. (1991),Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale, Journal ofRetailing, Vol. 67, Winter, pp. 420-50.

Page | 46

Page 47: Compile Edited

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L.L. (1985), A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for further research, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, Fall, pp. 41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of retailing, Vol. 64, Spring, pp. 12-40.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1994), Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for further research, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 111-24.

Park, C.W. and Lessing, V.P. (1981), Familiarity and its impact on consumer decision biases and heuristics, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 223-31.

Padget, J. and Allen, J. (1997), “Communicating experience: a narrative approach to creating service brand image” Journal of Advertising, 26(4), pp. 49.

Peri, C. (2006). The universe of food quality. Food Quality and Preference, 17 (1-2), 3-8.

Peter, J.P. and Olson, J.C. (1987), Consumer Behavior. Marketing Strategy Perspectives, Irwin, Homewood, IL.

Prasad, K. and Dev, C.S. (2000), Managing hotel brand equity: a customer-centric framework for assessing performance, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 22-31.

Pitta, D. A. & Katsanis, L. P. (1995). Understanding brand equity for successful brand

extension. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12(4), pp. 51-64.

Raj, S.P. (1985), Striking a balance between brand ‘popularity’ and brand ‘loyalty’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 53-9.

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.

Randal, Taylor, karl Ulrich & David J. R. (1998). Brand equity and vertical product line

extent. Marketing Science, 17 (4), pp. 356-79.

Reichheld, F.F. (1993), Loyalty-based management, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 64-73.

Reichheld, F. and Sasser, W.E. (1990), Zero defections, Harward Business Review, Vol. 68, pp. 105-11.

Rust, R.T., Zahorik, A.J. and Keiningham, T.L. (1995), Return on quality (ROQ): making service quality financially accountable, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, April, pp. 58-70.

Page | 47

Page 48: Compile Edited

Reynolds, K.E. and Beatty, S.E. (1999), Relationship customer typology, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 509-23.

Roth, M. S. and Romeo, J. B. (1992), “Matching product category and country image perception: a framework for managing country of origin effect”, Journal of International Business Studies, 23(3), pp. 477Roy, D., and Banerjee, S. (2007), “Care-ing strategy for integration of brand identity and brand image”, International Journal of Commerce and Management, 17, pp. 140.

Samuelsen, B. and Sandvik, K. (1999) Antecedents of affective and calculative commitment in consumer-brand relationship, in Hildebrandt et al., (Eds.), EMAC Proceedings, Annual Conference, European Marketing Academy, Berlin, p. 98.

Schiffman, L., Bendall, D., Watson, J. and Kanuk, L.L. (1997), Consumer Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Sydney.

Schiffman, L.G. and Kanuk, L.L. (1987), Consumer Behavior, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Selnes, F. (1998), Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer-seller relationships, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 No. ¾, pp. 305-22.

Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991), Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption values, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22, March, pp. 159-70.

Srivastava, R.K. and Shocker, A.D. (1991), Brand equity: a perspective on its meaning and measurement, working paper, Marketing Science Institute, Boston, MA, pp. 91-124.

Srinivasan, S.V. (1979), Network models for estimating brand-specific effects in multi-attribute marketing models, Management Science, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 11-21.

Stephen J. S, (1993), Understanding brand awareness; let me give you a clue, Advance in Consumer Research, vol 20, pp.383

Stevens, P., Knutson, B. & Patton, M. (1995). DINESERV: A Tool for Measuring Service Quality in Restaurants. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36 (2), 56-60.

Sulek, J. M. & Hensley, R. L. (2004). The relative importance of food, atmosphere and fairness of wait. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,45 (3), 235-247.

Susskind, A. M. & Chan, E. K. (2000). How restaurant features affect check averages: a study of the Toronto restaurant market. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41 (6), 56.63.

Simon, C. J. and Sullivan , C. J. (1993), “The measurement and determinants of brand equity: a financial approach”, Marketing Science, 12, pp. 28

Page | 48

Page 49: Compile Edited

Tam, J.L.M. (2008), Brand familiarity; its effect on satisfaction evaluation, Journal of Service Marketing, vol 22, pp. 3-12

The Economist (1994a), Man Friday, 25 June.

The Economist (1994b), Death of the brand manager, 9 April.

Tsao, H.-Y. and Chen, L.-W. (2005), Exploring brand loyalty from the perspective of brandswitching costs, International Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 436-41.

Vazquez, R., del Rio, A.B. and Iglesias, V. (2002), Consumer-based brand equity: development and validation of a measurement instrument, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 18 No. 1-2, pp. 27-48.

Wood, L. (2000), Brands and brand equity: definition and management, Management Decision, Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 662-9.

Woodruff, R.B. (1997), Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 139-53.

Wu, C. H. & Liang, R. (2009). Effect of experiential value on customer satisfaction with service encounters in luxury-hotels restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 586-593.

Yasin, N.M., Noorm M, N, and Muhammad O. (2007), Does country of origin matter to brand equity?, Journal of Product and Brand management, vol 16, 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 model and synthesis of evidence, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, July, pp. 2-22.

Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (1996), Service Marketing, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Zeithaml, V., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), The behavioral consequences of service quality, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.

Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J. 2000. Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across

the Firm (2nd edition), McGraw-Hill: Boston.

Page | 49

Page 50: Compile Edited

Page | 50