Brand equity

Brand equity is a phrase used in the marketing indus-try which describes the value of having a well-knownbrand name, based on the idea that the owner of a well-known brand name can generate more money from prod-ucts with that brand name than from products with a lesswell known name, as consumers believe that a productwith a well-known name is better than products with lesswell-known names.[1][2][3][4]

Brand equity refers to the value of a brand. In the re-search literature, brand equity has been studied fromtwo different perspectives: cognitive psychology and in-formation economics. According to cognitive psychol-ogy, brand equity lies in consumer’s awareness of brandfeatures and associations, which drive attribute percep-tions. According to information economics, a strongbrand name works as a credible signal of product qualityfor imperfectly informed buyers and generates price pre-miums as a form of return to branding investments. It hasbeen empirically demonstrated that brand equity plays animportant role in the determination of price structure and,in particular, firms are able to charge price premiums thatderive from brand equity after controlling for observedproduct differentiation.[5]

Some marketing researchers have concluded that brandsare one of the most valuable assets a company has,[6] asbrand equity is one of the factors which can increase thefinancial value of a brand to the brand owner, although notthe only one.[7] Elements that can be included in the valu-ation of brand equity include (but not limited to): chang-ing market share, profit margins, consumer recognitionof logos and other visual elements, brand language asso-ciations made by consumers, consumers’ perceptions ofquality and other relevant brand values.Consumers’ knowledge about a brand also governs howmanufacturers and advertisers market the brand.[8][9]Brand equity is created through strategic investments incommunication channels and market education and ap-preciates through economic growth in profit margins,market share, prestige value, and critical associations.Generally, these strategic investments appreciate overtime to deliver a return on investment. This is directlyrelated to marketing ROI. Brand equity can also appre-ciate without strategic direction. A Stockholm Univer-sity study in 2011 documents the case of Jerusalem's citybrand.[10] The city organically developed a brand, whichexperienced tremendous brand equity appreciation overthe course of centuries through non-strategic activities.A booming tourism industry in Jerusalem has been themost evident indicator of a strong ROI.

While most brand equity research has taken place inconsumer markets, the concept of brand equity is alsoimportant for understanding competitive dynamics andprice structures of business-to-business markets. In in-dustrial markets competition is often based on differ-ences in product performance. It has been suggestedhowever that firms may charge premiums that cannot besolely explained in terms of technological superiority andperformance-related advantages. Such price premiumsreflect the brand equity of reputable manufacturers.[11]

Brand equity is strategically crucial, but famously diffi-cult to quantify. Many experts have developed tools toanalyze this asset, but there is no agreed way to measureit. As one of the serial challenges that marketing profes-sionals and academics find with the concept of brand eq-uity, the disconnect between quantitative and qualitativeequity values is difficult to reconcile. Quantitative brandequity includes numerical values such as profit marginsand market share, but fails to capture qualitative elementssuch as prestige and associations of interest. Overall,most marketing practitioners take a more qualitative ap-proach to brand equity because of this challenge. In asurvey of nearly 200 senior marketing managers, only26 percent responded that they found the “brand equity”metric very useful.[12]

1 Purpose

The purpose of brand equity metrics is to measure thevalue of a brand. A brand encompasses the name, logo,image, and perceptions that identify a product, service,or provider in the minds of customers. It takes shape inadvertising, packaging, and other marketing communica-tions, and becomes a focus of the relationship with con-sumers. In time, a brand comes to embody a promiseabout the goods it identifies—a promise about quality,performance, or other dimensions of value, which can in-fluence consumers’ choices among competing products.When consumers trust a brand and find it relevant, theymay select the offerings associated with that brand overthose of competitors, even at a premium price. Whena brand’s promise extends beyond a particular product,its owner may leverage it to enter new markets. For allthese reasons, a brand can hold tremendous value, whichis known as brand equity.[12]

Brand Equity is best managed with the development ofBrand Equity Goals, which are then used to track progressand performance.[13]

1

2 2 CONSTRUCTION

2 Construction

There are many ways to measure a brand. Some mea-surements approaches are at the firm level, some at theproduct level, and still others are at the consumer level.Firm Level: Firm level approaches measure the brand asa financial asset. In short, a calculation is made regard-ing how much the brand is worth as an intangible asset.For example, if you were to take the value of the firm, asderived by its market capitalization—and then subtracttangible assets and “measurable” intangible assets—theresidual would be the brand equity.[6] One high-profilefirm level approach is by the consulting firm Interbrand.To do its calculation, Interbrand estimates brand valueon the basis of projected profits discounted to a presentvalue. The discount rate is a subjective rate determinedby Interbrand and Wall Street equity specialists and re-flects the risk profile, market leadership, stability andglobal reach of the brand.[14] Brand valuation modeling isclosely related to brand equity, and a number of modelsand approaches have been developed by different con-sultancies. Brand valuation models typically combine abrand equity measure (e.g.: the proportion of sales con-tributed by “brand”) with commercial metrics such asmargin or economic profit.Product Level: The classic product level brand measure-ment example is to compare the price of a no-name orprivate label product to an “equivalent” branded product.The difference in price, assuming all things equal, is dueto the brand.[15] More recently a revenue premium ap-proach has been advocated.[4] Marketing mix modelingcan isolate “base” and “incremental” sales, and it is some-times argued that base sales approximate to a measure ofbrand equity. More sophisticated marketing mix modelshave a floating base that can capture changes in underly-ing brand equity for a product over time.Consumer Level: This approach seeks to map the mindof the consumer to find out what associations with thebrand the consumer has. This approach seeks to measurethe awareness (recall and recognition) and brand image(the overall associations that the brand has). Free as-sociation tests and projective techniques are commonlyused to uncover the tangible and intangible attributes, at-titudes, and intentions about a brand.[8] Brands with highlevels of awareness and strong, favorable and unique as-sociations are high equity brands.[8]

All of these calculations are, at best, approximations. Amore complete understanding of the brand can occur ifmultiple measures are used.

Positive brand equity vs. negative brand equity

Brand equity is the positive effect of the brand on the dif-ference between the prices that the consumer accepts topay when the brand known compared to the value of thebenefit received.

There are two schools of thought regarding the existenceof negative brand equity. One perspective states brandequity cannot be negative, hypothesizing only positivebrand equity is created by marketing activities such asadvertising, PR, and promotion. A second perspective isthat negative equity can exist, due to catastrophic eventsto the brand, such as a wide product recall or continuednegative press attention (Blackwater or Halliburton, forexample).Colloquially, the term “negative brand equity” may beused to describe a product or service where a brand has anegligible effect on a product level when compared to ano-name or private label product.

Family branding vs. individual branding strategies

The greater a company’s brand equity, the greater theprobability that the company will use a family brandingstrategy rather than an individual branding strategy. Thisis because family branding allows them to leverage theequity accumulated in the core brand. Aspects of brandequity include: brand loyalty, awareness, association[16]and perception of quality.

Automobile Industry

One of Oldsmobile best known brands was "Cutlass".First used in 1961, by the 1980s it was confusinglyused on three different platforms, with the OldsmobileCutlass Ciera becoming Oldsmobile’s best selling modelwhich at different times would be sold alongside thesmaller Cutlass Calais, and a newer Cutlass Supreme.The Aurora-inspired Intrigue introduced in 1988 retiredthe aging Cutlass nameplate with the intention to re-cast Oldsmobile into a future as in import fighter and itsstodgy past as existing model names which had servedin the past including Cutlass were phased out. But saleswould continue to decline, as Cutlass briefly re-appearedas a rebadged Malibu in 1997. To reduce costs at Gen-eral Motors by consolidating a profusion of divisions, theOldsmobile division was entirely phased out in 2004.In the early 2000s in North America, the Ford MotorCompanymade a strategic decision to brand all new or re-designed cars with names starting with “F.” This alignedwith the previous tradition of naming all sport utility ve-hicles since the Ford Explorer with the letter “E.” TheToronto Star quoted an analyst who warned that chang-ing the name of the well known Windstar to the Freestarwould cause confusion and discard brand equity built up,while a marketing manager believed that a name changewould highlight the new redesign. The aging Taurus,which became one of the most significant cars in Amer-ican auto history, would be abandoned in favor of threeentirely new names, all starting with “F,” the Five Hun-dred, Freestar, and Fusion. By 2007, the Freestar wasdiscontinued without a replacement. The Five Hundredname was thrown out and Taurus was brought back for

3

the next generation of that car in a surprise move by AlanMulally.In practice, brand equity is difficult to measure. Becausebrands are crucial assets, however, both marketers andacademic researchers have devised means to contemplatetheir value.[12] Some of these techniques are describedbelow.

3 MethodologiesBrand Equity Ten (Aaker)

Main article: Aaker Model

David Aaker, a marketing professor and brand consultant,highlights ten attributes of a brand that can be used to as-sess its strength. These include Differentiation, Satisfac-tion or Loyalty, Perceived Quality, Leadership or Pop-ularity, Perceived Value, Brand Personality, Organiza-tional Associations, Brand Awareness, Market Share, andMarket Price and Distribution Coverage. Aaker doesn'tweight the attributes or combine them in an overall score,as he believes any weighting would be arbitrary and wouldvary among brands and categories. Rather he recom-mends tracking each attribute separately.[12]

Brand Equity Index (Moran)

Marketing executive Bill Moran has derived an index ofbrand equity as the product of three factors:

• Effective Market Share is a weighted average. It rep-resents the sum of a brand’s market shares in all seg-ments in which it competes, weighted by each seg-ment’s proportion of that brand’s total sales.

• Relative Price is a ratio. It represents the price ofgoods sold under a given brand, divided by the av-erage price of comparable goods in the market.

• Durability is a measure of customer retention or loy-alty. It represents the percentage of a brand’s cus-tomers who will continue to buy goods under thatbrand in the following year.[12]

BrandAsset Valuator (Young & Rubicam)

Young & Rubicam, a marketing communications agency,has developed the BrandAsset Valuator, BAV, a tool todiagnose the power and value of a brand. In using it,the agency surveys consumers’ perspectives along four di-mensions:

• Differentiation: The defining characteristics of thebrand and its distinctiveness relative to competitors.

• Relevance: The appropriateness and connection ofthe brand to a given consumer.

• Esteem: Consumers’ respect for and attraction to thebrand.

• Knowledge: Consumers’ awareness of the brand andunderstanding of what it represents.[12]

Brand Valuation Model (Interbrand and Brand Finance)

• Interbrand, a brand strategy agency, draws upon fi-nancial results and projections in its own model forbrand valuation. It reviews a company’s financialstatements, analyzes its market dynamics and therole of brand in income generation, and separatesthose earnings attributable to tangible assets (capi-tal, product, packaging, and so on) from the resid-ual that can be ascribed to a brand. It then forecastsfuture earnings and discounts these on the basis ofbrand strength and risk. The agency estimates brandvalue on this basis and tabulates a yearly list of the100 most valuable global brands.[12]

• The Royalty Relief approach of Brand Finance, anindependent brand valuation consultancy, is basedon the assumption that if a company did not own thetrademarks that it exploits, it would need to licensethem from a third party brand owner instead. Own-ership therefore ‘relieves’ the company from payinga license fee (the royalty) for the use of the thirdparty trademarks. The royalty relief method in-volves estimating likely future sales, applying an ap-propriate royalty rate to them and then discountingestimated future, post-tax royalties, to arrive at a NetPresent Value (NPV). This is held to represent thebrand value.[17] The independent consultancy pub-lishes yearly lists by industry sector and geographicregion as well as a top 500 global list.

Brand Contribution to Market Cap Method (CoreBrand)

CoreBrand—a research, brand strategy, communication,and design firm—utilizes the Brand Contribution to Mar-ket Cap method using the Corporate Branding Index®database composed of Familiarity and Favorability dataas the quantitative basis of its system.Familiarity and Favorability scores are analyzed in thecontext of a company’s size in market cap and revenueto determine a base expected level of Familiarity and Fa-vorability for the brand’s value to be zero. Utilizing a sta-tistical regression analysis of the factors driving the cashflow multiple and thus share price, the variance in Famil-iarity and Favorability above or below the base expectedlevel is analyzed.As a point in time analysis, this method is used for brand

4 4 MANAGING BRAND EQUITY

equity valuation of a company based on its current Famil-iarity and Favorability, Revenue and Market Cap. Theoutput of the analysis provides the end user with twopieces of data:

1. The percentage of market cap that is attributable di-rectly to its corporate brand (i.e., how hard the brandis working to create value for the company);

2. The dollar value of the brand at a point in time, thisis the asset value of the brand as a component of thecompany’s market valuation.

According to this analysis, the corporate brand is respon-sible for 5-7% of stock performance on average.[18]

Conjoint Analysis

Marketers use conjoint analysis to measure consumers’preference for various attributes of a product, service, orprovider, such as features, design, price, or location. Byincluding brand and price as two of the attributes underconsideration, they can gain insight into consumers’ val-uation of a brand—that is, their willingness to pay a pre-mium for it.[12]

Note: These customer satisfaction methodologies havenot been independently validated by the MarketingAccountability Standards Board (MASB) according toMMAP (Marketing Metric Audit Protocol).

Brand Equity with Time-Series Data (Event Study)

While event study offer evidence that brand equity pos-itively affects financial performance, many studies fo-cus on customer mindset metrics to offer this relation-ship (Berger, Eechambadi, George, Lehmann, Rizley& Venkatesan, 2006; Buil, Martinez & de Chernatony,2013).Event method is applied to determine the stakeholder in-terest or value assessed in a brand before, during or af-ter an event. As exemplified by Agrawal & Kamakura’s(1995) piece, The economic worth of celebrity endorsers,the authors demonstrate how an announcement of brandassociation of a product and celebrity creates a movementin stock value; whereby, shareholder interest is influencedby the endorsement as evidenced from the time-seriesdata.A similar time-series data analysis offered by Lane & Ja-cobson (1995) also measured stock market reactions toannouncements associated with a particular brand, whichfactored customer attitudes and the familiarity of thebrand to determine financial outcomes. The result wasthat the stock market response was favorable to brandannouncements when consumers were familiar with thebrand and held the brand in high esteem. The same ap-plied to low familiarity and low esteem brands, which as

Keller (2002) explains, was “because there was little torisk and much to gain…"(p. 157).The findings of Agrawal & Kamakura (1995) and Lane& Jacobson (1995) was succeeded by another event studyapproach to brand equity analysis that focused on eventsponsorships (Roy & Bettina Cornwell, 2003). This ap-proach determined that lesser known brands may benefitfrom event sponsorships as a brand-building exercise butcustomers may have associations with the event sponsorsor brand associations that could determine affective at-titudes. Ultimately, high equity counterparts will yieldstronger results due to their market familiarity.Simon & Sullivan (1993) suggested long-term analysis ofevents, as determined by financial returns andmarket per-formance, better captures the effect of customer mindsetbrand equity. In the restaurant sector, for example, re-turns of branding are contemporaneous. The high-techsector showed no contemporaneous effects and brand eq-uity is realized in the future with significant delay. Thedistribution/retail sector included both contemporaneousand positive future profitability. Berger et al., (2006) ac-knowledge the long-term approach for considering cus-tomer lifetime value relevant to the shareholder value orfinancial performance of a brand. This perspective con-tributed to concepts like “brand awareness”, whichHuang& Sarigöllü (2012) apply to the commonly used market-ing matrix to determine stock market performance.

4 Managing Brand Equity

One of the challenges in managing brands is the manychanges that occur in the marketing environment. Themarketing environment evolves and changes, often invery significant ways. Shifts in consumer behavior, com-petitive strategies, government regulations, and other as-pects of the marketing environment can profoundly affectthe fortunes of a brand. Besides these external forces,the firm itself may engage in a variety of activities andchanges in strategic focus or direction that may neces-sitate adjustments in the way that its brands are beingmarketed. Consequently, effective brand managementrequires proactive strategies designed to at least maintain- if not actually enhance - brand equity in the face of thesedifferent forces.

4.1 Brand Reinforcement

As a company’s major enduring asset, a brand needs to becarefully managed so its value does not depreciate. Mar-keters can reinforce brand equity by consistently convey-ing the brand’s meaning in terms of(1) what product it represents, what core benefits it sup-plies, and what needs it satisfies(2) how the brand makes product superior and which

5

strong, favorable, and unique brand associations shouldexist in consumers’ minds.Both of these issues - brandmeaning in terms of products,benefits, and needs as well as brand meaning in terms ofproduct differentiation - depend on the firm’s general ap-proach to product development, branding strategies, andother strategic concerns.[19]

4.2 Brand Revitalization

Any new development in the marketing environment canaffect a brand’s fortune. Nevertheless, a number of brandshave managed to make impressive comebacks in recentyears. Often, the first thing to do in revitalizing a brandis to understand what the sources of brand equity were tobegin with. Are positive associations losing their strengthor uniqueness? Have negative associations become linkedto the brand? Then decide whether to retain the samepositioning or create a new one, and if so, which new one.

4.3 Maintaining Brand Consistency

Without question, the most important consideration in re-inforcing brands is the consistency of the marketing sup-port that the brand receives - both in terms of the amountand nature of marketing support. Brand consistency iscritical to maintaining the strength and favorability ofbrand associations. Brands that receive inadequate sup-port, in terms of such things as shrinking research anddevelopment or marketing communication budgets, runthe risk of becoming technologically disadvantaged oreven obsolete.Consistency does not mean, however, thatmarketers should avoid making any changes in the mar-keting program. On the contrary, the opposite can bequite true - being consistent in managing brand equitymay require numerous tactical shifts and changes in or-der to maintain the proper strategic thrust and directionof the brand. There are many ways that brand awarenessand brand image can be created, maintained, or improvedthrough carefully designed marketing programs. The tac-tics that may be most effective for a particular brand atany one time can certainly vary from those that may bemost effective for the brand at another time. As a con-sequence, prices may move up or down, product featuresmay be added or dropped, ad campaigns may employ dif-ferent creative strategies and slogans, and different brandextensions may be introduced or withdrawn over time inorder to create the same desired knowledge structures inconsumers’ minds[20]

5 See also

• Brand management

• Brand

• Brand language

• Customer engagement

• Equity (disambiguation)

• Marketing

• Product management

• Brand Architecture

• Brand extension

• Threaded marketing

• Visual brand language

6 References

[1] Aaker, David A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity. NewYork: The Free Press

[2] Keller, Kevin Lane (2003). “Brand Synthesis: The Mul-tidimensionality of Brand Knowledge,” Journal of Con-sumer Research, 29 (4), 595-600

[3] Leuthesser, L., C.S. Kohli and K.R. Harich (1995).“Brand Equity: The Halo Effect Measure,” EuropeanJournal of Marketing, 29 (4), 57-66.

[4] Ailawadi, Kusum L., Donald R. Lehmann, and Scott ANeslin (2003). “Revenue Premium as an Outcome Mea-sure of Brand Equity,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (Octo-ber), 1-17

[5] Baltas, G. & Saridakis, C. (2010). Measuring brand eq-uity in the car market: a hedonic price analysis. Journalof the Operational Research Society, 61 (2): 284-293

[6] Neumeier, Marty (2006). The Brand Gap: How toBridge the Distance Between Business Strategy and De-sign, Berkeley, CA: New Riders Publishing.

[7] Grannell, Chris (2009). “Untangling Brand Equity, Valueand Health”, Brandchannel, Fall 2008

[8] Keller, Kevin Lane (1993). “Conceptualizing, Measuring,andManaging Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal ofMarketing, 57 (January) 1-22

[9] Lassar, W., B. Mittal and A. Sharma (1995). “Measur-ing Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of ConsumerMarketing, 12 (4), 11-19

[10] Metti, Michael Sebastian (2011-06-01). “Jerusalem - themost powerful brand in history” (PDF). Stockholm Uni-versity School of Business. Retrieved 1 July 2011.

[11] Baltas, G. & Freeman, J. (2001). Hedonic Price Methodsand the Structure of High-Technology Industrial Markets:an empirical analysis. Industrial Marketing Management,30: 599-607

6 7 FURTHER READING

[12] Farris, Paul W.; Neil T. Bendle; Phillip E. Pfeifer; DavidJ. Reibstein (2010). Marketing Metrics: The DefinitiveGuide to Measuring Marketing Performance. Upper Sad-dle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN0137058292. The Marketing Accountability StandardsBoard (MASB) endorses the definitions, purposes, andconstructs of classes of measures that appear in Market-ing Metrics as part of its ongoing Common Language inMarketing Project.

[13] Knapp, Duane (2000). The Brand Mindset. New York:McGraw Hill. pp. 139–140. ISBN 0-07-134795-X.

[14] Chu, Singfat and Hean Tat Keh (2006). “Brand ValueCreation: Analysis of the Interbrand-Business WeekBrand Value Rankings,” Marketing Letters, 17, 323-331

[15] Aaker, David A. (1996), “Measuring Brand Equity AcrossProducts and Markets,” California Management Review,38 (Spring), 102-120.

[16] http://web.archive.org/web/20120323123326/http://www.symbologo.org/2011/05/brand-association-what-we-mean.html

[17] The International Organization for Standardization is aninternational standard-setting body composed of repre-sentatives from various national standards organizations.ISO 10668:2010 specifies requirements for proceduresand methods of monetary brand value measurement.

[18] . HBR http://hbr.org/2007/03/hidden-wealth-in-b2b-brands/ar/1. Missing or empty|title= (help)

[19] Kotler, Philip (2012). Marketing Managemet. New Delhi:Pearson Education. pp. 276–279. ISBN 978-81-317-6716-0.

[20] “Managing brands for the long run: effective brand rein-forcement and revitalization strategies. | HighBeam Busi-ness: Arrive Prepared”. business.highbeam.com. Re-trieved 2015-10-12.

7 Further reading• Agrawal, J., & Kamakura, W. A. (1995). The eco-nomic worth of celebrity endorsers: An event

study analysis. The Journal of Marketing, 56-62.

• Berger, P. D., Eechambadi, N., George, M.,Lehmann, D. R., Rizley, R., & Venkatesan, R.

(2006). From customer lifetime value to shareholdervalue theory, empirical evidence, and issues for future re-search. Journal of Service Research, 9(2), 156-167.

• Buil, I., Martínez, E., & de Chernatony, L. (2013).The influence of brand equity on consumer

responses. Journal of consumer marketing, 30(1), 62-74.

• Farris, Paul W.; Bendle, Neil T.; Pfeifer, PhillipE.; Reibstein, David J. (2010). Marketing Metrics:The Definitive Guide to Measuring Marketing Perfor-mance.

• Huang, R., & Sarigöllü, E. (2012). How brandawareness relates to market outcome, brand

equity, and the marketing mix. Journal of Business Re-search,65(1), 92-99.

• Keller, K. L. (2002). Branding and brand equity.Handbook of marketing, 151-178.

• Lane, V., & Jacobson, R. (1995). Stock market re-actions to brand extension announcements: The

effects of brand attitude and familiarity. The Journal ofMarketing, 63-77.

• Simon, C. J., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The mea-surement and determinants of brand equity: a

financial approach. Marketing science, 12(1), 28-52.

• Roy, D. P., & Bettina Cornwell, T. (2003). Brandequity’s influence on responses to event

sponsorships. Journal of Product & Brand Management,12(6), 377-393.

7

8 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

8.1 Text• Brand equity Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_equity?oldid=689579628 Contributors: Deb, Edward, Gabbe, Ahoerstemeier,Ronz, Mydogategodshat, Pamri, Rich Farmbrough, Rajev, El C, Surachit, Maurreen, Giraffedata, Nicola79, Velella, Vcelloho, Velvetsmog,JeremyA, Liface, BD2412, FlaBot, Alphachimp, Bgwhite, YurikBot, RussBot, Bhny, Phgao, GraemeL, Djr xi, Thomas Blomberg, ThatGuy, From That Show!, SmackBot, Betacommand, Chlewbot, Onorem, Radagast83, LeoNomis, Arnoutf, Guroadrunner, Gobonobo, Jof-feloff, Dl2000, Iridescent, Danlev, Harej bot, ShelfSkewed, Jrbauer01, Fordmadoxfraud, Cydebot, Steel, Gogo Dodo, Futureobservatory,Bpangti, DumbBOT, Iss246, Fayenatic london, Magioladitis, Dekimasu, Tbonejoo, S3000, Sawblade5, R'n'B, J.delanoy, HornColumbia,Dezignr, Whatfg, Fnurke, Ncmoulee, Moonriddengirl, Theopapada, Plinkit, Avataar, Schwabac, ClueBot, The Thing That Should NotBe, Achiodo, Zvrkljati, AssetInfo, Bobthebrander, DumZiBoT, Addbot, MrOllie, AndersBot, Mjquinn id, Yobot, Hairhorn, Xqbot, Grou-choBot, D'ohBot, Maher27777, LittleWink, Burakb, TobeBot, Alph Bot, IngridDF, Rdbhaigh, Redhanker, Furries, TimGoodyer, Karen-mharvey, ClueBot NG, Vivguy, Arkuse, ScottSteiner, Karthick.88, Lowercase sigmabot, BG19bot, Kratugoel1108, PrometheusBound, Au-reliusmagnus, KhabarNegar, Wedeserveniether1, Rahul.menon14, Simc.abhinandan, BeachComber1972, PortfolioExp, Schivinski, Nick-Woodward, WPGA2345, TheMojo13, FCWordNinja, WesdomSeeker, Preethikrishnasamy and Anonymous: 114

8.2 Images

8.3 Content license• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0