customer based brand equity measurement: a case

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMHRM/index.asp 27 [email protected]

International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM) Volume 7, Issue 3, Sep–Dec (2016), pp. 27–40, Article ID: IJMHRM_07_03_004

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijmhrm/issues.asp?JType=IJMHRM&VType=7&IType=3

ISSN Print: ISSN 0976 – 6421andISSN Online: 0976 – 643X

Journal Impact Factor (2016): 5.5510 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

© IAEME Publication

CUSTOMER BASED BRAND EQUITY

MEASUREMENT: A CASE STUDY OF

GRAMEENPHONE LTD

Sabiha Matin

Lecturer, Daffodil International University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

ABSTRACT

The paper aims to measure the Brand Equity of Grameenphone Ltd. (GP) in terms of

Customers based Brand Equity. To measure this, Millward Brown’s Brand Dynamics Pyramid &

Keller’s CBBE (Customer Based Brand Equity) Model have been used. The reason for using more

than one theory to measure the brand equity is to get an authentic result. To measure the Customer

based brand equity, a survey had been constructed in 208 respondents who are users or non-users

of GrameenPhone. In developing the Brand Pyramid of Grameenphone the value given in each

element represents its extent of consumer brand awareness to recall and recognition.

Key words: Brand, Brand Equity, CBBE (Customer Based Brand Equity)

Cite this Article: Sabiha Matin, Customer Based Brand Equity Measurement: A Case Study of

Grameenphone Ltd. International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management, 7(3),

2016, pp. 27–40. http://www.iaeme.com/ijmhrm/issues.asp?JType=IJMHRM&VType=7&IType=3

1. INTRODUCTION

A brand is a name or symbol used to identify the source of a product. When developing a new product,

branding is an important decision. The brand can add significant value when it well recognized and has

positive associations in the mind of the consumers. This concept is referred to as Brand Equity. Brand

Equity is an intangible asset that depends on associations made by the consumers. Strong Brand Equity

provides some benefits to the company. It facilitates a more predictable income stream; it helps to

increases cash flow by increasing market share, reducing promotional costs, and allowing premium

pricing. Moreover, Brand Equity is an asset that can be sold or leased. These benefits by measuring Brand

Equity initiate many companies to follow Branding Strategy. In this study Telecom Industry in Bangladesh

are focused. Many service companies specially, Telecom Industry are now put its concentration in

Branding and Brand Equity. Brand Equity also helps a company to add extra value to its product. In this

study, Brand Equity has been measured for Grameenphone Ltd. (GP) in terms of Customers based Brand

Equity. To measure this, two different recognized theory and models have been used namely, Millward

Brown’s Brand Dynamics Pyramid and Keller’s CBBE (Customer Based Brand Equity) Model. To

measure the Customer based brand equity, a survey had been constructed in 208 respondents who are users

or non-users of GP. From this survey, the dimensions of CBBE have been identified. Moreover some other

related things of customers based brand equity is also find out from this survey. The results are statistically

analyzed with the help of SPSS 16 software. From CBBE model, GP lead a satisfactory score in each

Sabiha Matin


dimension, whereas, if we go through very specifically, GP got low scores in Brand Performance 5.5

(Competitive Price, 3.78). When it comes to the point of network coverage, GP got very high score in that

particular dimension. I.e. 7 out of 7. The Brand VoltageTM is also have been measured by using a

dichotomous set of questions. The presence of GP is very high that is the result of its marketing

promotions.

2. OVERVIEW OF THE CASE STUDY COMPANY: GRAMEENPHONE LTD.

Grameenphone Ltd. (GP) was the first company to introduce GSM technology in Bangladesh when it

launched its services on 26 March 1997. GP is market leader in the cellular telecommunication industry of

Bangladesh with a market share of 43.66% (Dec 2010) obtained cellular license on November 28, 1996 in

Bangladesh from the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications. GP is a joint venture enterprise between

Telenor Mobile Communication AS (55.8%), a telecommunications service provider in Norway, and

Grameen Telecom Corporation (34.2%), a non-profit sister concern of the internationally acclaimed micro-

credit pioneer Grameen Bank. The other 10% shares belong to general retail and institutional investors.

GP‟s cellular network in the country covers 98% of country's population through 13,000 base stations in

more than 7,200 locations. The entire GP network is EDGE/GPRS enabled that provides its subscribers

access to Internet and data services from anywhere within the coverage area.

3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

3.1. Broad Objectives

To measure the Customer Based Brand Equity of Grameenphone Ltd.

3.2. Specific Objectives

• To measure the brand awareness of the Grameenphone Ltd. and that of its competitors.

• To evaluate the performance of the company and its major competitors.

• To evaluate the brand knowledge of the customers.

• To investigate the brand image of the company and competitors.

• To examine the extent that Brand Feelings, Brand Judgments, Brand Performance, and Brand Salience

account for the variance in Brand Resonance in terms of Grameenphone Ltd.

4. LITERATURE REVIEW

A brand is a name that is allocated to a product. According to American Marketing Association, a Brand is

a name, term, sign, symbol or design to create differentiation amongst the products (Kevin Lane Keller;

2nd edition). Brand equity is widely accepted as a multidimensional concept that consists of brand loyalty,

brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations, and other proprietary assets (Aaker, 1996). The

concept of brand equity emerged in the 1980’s. The trend is famous amongst the marketer’s gentry of large

multinational brands. These businesses are greatly dependent upon the perception, strength and other major

elements of a brand. The concept of brand equity is even more flourished when the manufacturers start to

notice the positive retort from the customers. Customers mean everything to a firm from a marketer’s

perspective. Several firms opt for customer-based branding and hence focus on forming a customer based

brand equity.

How to measure brand equity is very important in assessing the value of brands. Rather than taking the

more traditional approach of measuring brand equity for accounting or strategic reasons, the approach

employed in this article focuses on optimizing brand equity through parsimonious manipulation of the

marketing mix. In a broad sense, most experts consider brand equity to be the set of assets—and

liabilities—associated with brand names and symbols. More specifically, many experts define brand equity

utilizing one of two complementary approaches: Customer-driven approach and Data-driven approach.

Customer Based Brand Equity Measurement: A Case Study of Grameenphone Ltd


Researchers following the consumer-driven approach to define brand equity remain primarily

concerned with brand building and seek to directly affect brand image and customer loyalty. Conversely,

those following the data-driven approach gauge return on investment and the profitability of marketing

initiatives to determine a brand’s financial value.

Mahajan, Rao, and Srivastava (1991) claimed that a customer-based brand equity could be measured

by the level of customer’s perception. Also operationalized by Lassar et al. (1995) as an enhancement of

the perceived utility and desirability that a brand name confers on a product. According to them, costumer-

based brand equity indicates only perceptual dimensions, not including behavioral or attitudinal such as

loyalty or usage intention, which differs from Aaker’s (1991) who suggested to measure brand equity

including behavioral and attitudinal dimensions. Farquhar (1990) maintained that brand equity is reflected

by the change of consumer attitude while purchasing a product. Aaker (1991) incorporated definitions, the

four dimensions of brand equity namely brand awareness, brand association perceived quality, and brand

loyalty. On the other hand, some researcher related the customer based brand equity with other construct,

e.g. Farquhar and Ijiri (1991) proposed a model by judging the corporation’s marketing efforts on its brand

directly. While Lassar et al (1995) focused on relationship between customer based and financial/ market

based brand equity measurement. Customer-based brand equity in this respect is the driving force for

incremental financial gains to the firm.

Table 1 Definitions of CBBE

Main contributor Concept

Mahajan Rao (1991) Measure customer based brand equity by the level of customer’s perception

Farquhar (1990) Brand equity is reflected by the change of consumer attitude while purchasing a

product.

Aaker ( 1991) Measuring the four dimensions of brand equity: brand awareness, brand

association perceived quality, and brand loyalty.

Keller (1993) Adopted two basic approaches (direct and indirect) to measure customer- based

brand equity emphasizing two constructs: brand awareness and brand image.

The indirect approach to identify potential sources of costumer- based brand

equities. The direct approach focuses on consumer response to different

elements of firm’s marketing program.

Farquhar & Ijiri

(1991)

Judging the corporation’s marketing efforts on its brand directly.

Lassar et al, 1995

Relationship between customer based and financial/ market based brand equity

measurement. Customer-based brand equity in this respect, is the driving force

for incremental financial gains to the firm.

4.1. CBBE

Customer Based Brand Equity (CBBE) model by Kevin Lane Keller, incorporate recent theoretical

advances and managerial practices in understanding and influencing consumer behavior. It helps to answer

the most frequently asked questions:

• What makes a strong Brand?

• How do you build a strong Brand?

CBBE model provides a unique point of view as to what brand equity is and how it should best be

built, measured, and managed. After reviewing the most important four dimensions of Brand Performance,

Brand Imagery, Brand Judgments, and Brand Feelings the ultimate Brand Resonance will come out. Upon

which the part of the theoretical model is stood out, where it is shown that the higher the value of these

four dimensions are, the more the resonance is with the brand. This analysis also shown by a regression

analysis based on Grameenphone’s data.

Sabiha Matin


4.2. Brand Keys

Emphasizes a clinical psychological approach that combines emotional values and rational ratings of

attributes to evaluate the brand’s engagement with consumers. Researchers begin with a record of existing

and potential customers, structured into segments by the client. Working with a sample of 75 to 100

customers for each segment, Brand Keys conducts interviews online, by e-mail, cellular phone, or other

methods to ensure a private and comfortable interview environment for the brand’s customers.

4.3. IPSOS-ASI

Measures brand equity by assessing three brand drivers—attitudinal equity, consumer involvement, and

price and value perceptions. The vendor begins with a list of existing customers, structured into segments

by the client. Working with a sample of 300 to 1,000 respondents, Ipsos-ASI conducts one-on-one

interviews online, by telephone, mail, or in person. The company’s proprietary Equity*Builder model

allows the company to analyze the equity components found in Figure III below. Although the company

can measure these factors with a pre-determined questionnaire, clients may also add customized questions

to gauge specific areas of interest.

Figure 1 The Equity Builder Components of Brand Equity

4.5. Brand Dynamics™

Millward Brown’s proprietary tool called Brand Dynamics™ measures a brand’s consumer equity, i.e.,

consumers’ predisposition to purchase a brand, as distinct from other factors such as patents, production

efficiencies, distribution strengths, etc., which contribute to a brand’s financial equity. The Brand

Dynamics™ Pyramid (Exhibit 5) depicts the strength of relationship consumers have with the brand. The

Pyramid is constructed for the brand, based on consumer interviews. Each interviewee is assigned to one of

the levels in the pyramid depending on his/her responses to a set of questions. The Pyramid indicates as to

how many consumers have a relationship with the brand at five key stages.



Bonding

Advantage

Performance

Relevance

PresenceWeak relationship;

Low share of category expenditure

Strong relationship;High share

of category expenditure

I know something about it

It caters for me

It is satisfactory

Is it better in some way

Nothing else beats it

Source: “BrandDynamics™, http://www.markenlexicon.com/d_texte/verfahren_brand_dynamics.pdf

Figure 2 Brand Dynammics of Millward Brown

5. METHODOLOGY

The report is descriptive in nature as the purpose of this research is to measure the brand equity of

Grameenphone Ltd based on Consumer Perception. Next Cross Sectional Survey Designs was used as it

involves the collection of information from the targeted population elements only once. Moreover from the

two designs under Cross Sectional Design, Single and Multiple, here Single Cross-Sectional design was

used as only one sample of respondents is drawn from the target population. To conduct the research the

size of the target population (customers) is not known, as presently there are six major Mobile Operators in

Bangladesh and they all have different segments of customers. Total of 208 samples have been surveyed. 7

point Likert Scale has been used to measure the variables of constructs of the Customer Based Brand

Equity models. Moreover, to identify the percentage of the elements of Brand Dynamics Pyramid,

Dichotomous Question containing Yes or No also have been used.

6. DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

6.1. Demographic Status of the Respondent

In the second phase of the study, 208 respondents were interviewed. All the respondents have been

interviewed randomly on the basis of Grameenphone Users and Non-Users. The information collected

from the customers has revealed the following facts after the analysis:

6.1.1. Current Mobile Operator of the Respondents

From the 208 sample 50% of the total respondents are the user of GP. Whereas 33% are from Airtel, 20%

are from Banglalink, 12% from Robi, and 3% are from City cell. In this Graph, It has been shown the

Frequency and Percentage of the respondents who use these 5 telecom operators as their Prime Operator.

Many of the respondents are using more than one mobile operator at a time, where there are one prime

operator and another is for alternative use. The graph shown below focuses on the respondent’s prime

operator.

Sabiha Matin


Table 2 Current mobile operator of the respondents

Figure 3 Current Mobile Operators of the respondents

6.1.2. Current Alternative Mobile Operator of the Respondents

From the Graph given above we can get a picture of the respondents who uses the Mobile Operator Brands

for their Prime use. But the graph given below shows the percentage of the respondents who use those

same Mobile Operator Brands but as an alternative. In this study the number is about 50 of the total

respondents. Only 12% of the respondents from those 50 are using GP as an alternative whereas the

percentage is very high in terms of Banglalink, Airtel and Robi, 36%, 28%, and 24% respectively. It can be

concluded that the users of GP are much more loyal followed by Bangalink, Robi and Airtel as they choose

GP as their first concern. 36% of the respondents who are the users of Banglalink are using Banglalink

Operator as an alternative. That is, those users can be switched to other mobile operator if they will get

better option.

Mobile Operator Frequency Percent

Grameenphone 103 50

Banglalink 42 20

Robi 24 12

Citycell 6 3

Airtel 33 16

Total 208 100



Table 3 Current mobile operator of the respondents (Alternative mobile operator)

Figure 4 Current alternative mobile operator of the respondents

6.1.3. Ranking of the Mobile Operators on the basis of Respondents Preference

The respondents were asked to rank the Mobile Operators from first to Sixth Position based on their

perception to the particular brand. The figure given below represents the results, where 70% of the total

respondents ranked GP in the first position, where 15% of the respondents ranked Airtel in the first

position. So from the data given in this figure we can generate another figure which is showing the rank

order at a glance. The figure is given below. We get a surprising result from this figure. If we consider

frequency of the respondents, 146 respondents prefer GP as ranking it as First in order whereas there were

only 103 GP users in the respondents. That means, although some of the respondents are not using GP, but

they prefer it as their first preference. On the other hand, only 20 respondents ranked Banglalink in the first

position, whereas there were total 42 Banglalink users as. That means, although they are using Bangalink

as their prime operator brand, but they prefer GP or the brands when it comes to a questions of ranking on

the basis of preference. Moreover, this portion of the consumers of Banglalink may switch to another

operator, if they will get better offer.

Mobile Operator Frequency Percent

Grameenphone 6 12

Banglalink 18 36

Robi 12 24

Airtel 14 28

Total 50 100

Sabiha Matin


Table 4 Preference for the Mobile Operators (Ranking)

Table 5 Ranking of the Mobile Operators in Bangladesh by the respondents

Serial

no.

Mobile Operator Brand Rank Order

1. Grameenphone First

2. Airtel Second

3. Banglalink Third

4. Robi Fourth

5. Teletalk Fifth

6. Citycell Sixth

6.2. Measuring Brand Equity Builder Model

The company’s (IPSOS-ASI) proprietary Equity*Builder model allows the company to analyze the equity

components found in Table 15 below. In this study, under three dimensions, Attitudinal Equity,

Involvement and Price and Value, there are nine sub elements based on which questionnaires had been

developed. In this table the Mean value of each element are given with the construct mean. Utilizing the

company’s proprietary weighting analysis model, Ipsos-ASI compares the client’s brand to competitors’

and creates index scores at the component- and aggregate-levels to highlight specific areas for recognition

or improvement. These valuations identify drivers that demonstrate potential to serve as a strategic

foundation for improved brand positioning.

6.2.1. Attitudinal Equity

From the following table, it can be concluded that, GP got the highest value in attitudinal equity, where the

close competitor of GP is Banglalink. Moreover, under this attitudinal equity dimension GP is very much

good in Familiarity, Popularity, Unique service or promotions, or even quality of the services. But the fact

is that, GP got low value (5.75) in Relevance component. That means respondents are very much agree

with its popularity, familiarity and all other things, but they are not or somewhat agree with the

components of relevance. The services provided by GP are not much more relevant to its customers.

Whereas, Robi and Airtel got the higher value than GP (6.29 and 6.21 respectively) for this component,

though, its low scores in quality, uniqueness, and familiarity.

Mobile

Operator

1st Preferred 2nd Preferred 3rd Preferred 4th Preferred

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Grameenphone 146 70 59 28 3 1 0 0

Banglalink 20 10 55 26 66 32 67 32

Robi 10 5 34 16 42 20 69 33

Citycell 0 0 0 0 15 7 24 12

Airtel 32 15 48 23 62 30 33 16

Teletalk 0 0 12 6 20 10 14 7

Total 208 100 208 100 208 100 207 100



Table 6 Brand Equity Index

6.2.2. Involvement

In the Involvement dimension, there are two components, Brand Sensitivity and Brand substitutability,

where Brand sensitivity means, how much the customers care about the brand in the category and Brand

Substitutability means the extent of switching to other brand from the current brand. In this study, again

GP got the highest value (6.98) in the former component that means, when purchasing a mobile service

operator; GP got the consideration in compare to other brands. Here Robi, got lowest value (5.89) it means,

the consumers of Robi, are not much brand sensitive. They could switch to another brand if they would get

better service or options. So the construct mean for Brand Substitutability and Brand Sensitivity, GP is

leading followed by the other brands.

6.2.3. Price and Value

In the last dimension of Brand Equity* Builder Model the components are, Price comparison and Price

evaluation. From the SPSS output, we can see that, the result is now fully reversed. Although the

consumers of GP are not very much price concern but when it comes to the question of price comparison,

they were not agreed to the price strategy followed by GP. On the same dimension Banglalink got very

high marks (6.915), where it means, the consumers of Banglalink are very happy with the pricing strategy

of Banglalink

6.2.4. Performance of GP on CBBE Model

Kevin Lane Keller developed a Customer based brand equity model widely known as brand pyramid. The

CBBE model postulates that customers go through a process which starts from knowing the brand to

building a strong bond with the brand. Following table represents the scores of the four mobile phone

operators on the different constructs of the brand pyramid. Each of the brand equity constructs has been

measured with at least two variables on a seven point likert scale The measured variables for each

constructs, their corresponding mean values and the mean values of the constructs (calculated by averaging

the scores of the corresponding measured variables) are presented in the following table.

Brand

Equity

Constructs

Variables GP Robi BL Airtel

Mea

n

Const

Mean

Mean Const

Mean

Mean Const

Mean

Mean Const

Mean

Attitudinal

Equity

Familiarity 6.75 6.405

107

5.88 5.6082

67

4.79 5.8428

58

5.39 5.5696

88 Popularity 6.62 5.25 6.74 5.91

Quality 6.21 5.21 5.74 5.42

Relevance 5.75 6.29 5.48 6.21

Uniqueness 6.70 5.42 6.48 4.91

Involvement Brand

sensitivity

6.98 6.955 5.89 6.005 6.78 6.83 6.14 6.01

Brand

substitutabilit

y

6.93 6.12 6.88 5.88

Price and

Value

Price

Comparison

3.62 5.198

35

6.70 6.5166

67

6.83 6.915 6.12 6.56

Price

Evaluation

3.78 6.33 7.00 7.00

Sabiha Matin


Table 9 CBBE Constructs of GP

The table shows that GP has good scores on all the constructs with scores of minimum 5.5 to maximum

6.7 on seven point scale. The value of 6.7 in Salience construct reflects the output of the extensive

promotional programs of the brand and its long presence in the market. Interestingly the scores on Brand

Performance is 5.5 which is relatively lower. If we dig deep in the construct and examine the variables

used for measuring the Performance of the brand, we can see that the brand cut very high scores on

network coverage (6.7) and quality of customer care centers (6.52). However, the scores on the variable

competitive call rate and excellence of value added services are 3.78 and 4.84 which are comparatively

lower than the scores on the other two variables. The scores of the constructs Brand Image, Brand

Judgment, Brand Feelings, and Brand Resonance are 6.2, 6.3, 5.5 and 5.8 respectively. The scores of the

other three brands are also presented in the above table.

Brand Equity

Constructs

Variables GP Robi BL Airtel

Mean Const

Mean Mean

Const

Mean Mean

Const

Mean Mean

Const.

Mean

Salience Top of the mind brand

6.62 6.7 5.25 5.6 6.74 5.8 5.91 5.7

Extent of familiarity of the brand GP to the

respondents

6.75 5.88 4.79 5.39

Brand

Performan

ce

Quality of network coverage of the brand GP to the

respondents

7.00 5.5 5.67 6.0 4.05 5.8 4.18 5.7

Extent of excellence of features and value added

services offered by the brand GP

4.84 6.08 6.26 5.82

Competitive call rates offered by the brand GP 3.78 6.33 7.00 7.00

Quality of the services provided by the customer

care centre of the brand GP

6.52 5.79 5.95 5.91

Brand

Image

extent of the reliability of the brand GP to the

respondents

6.83 6.2 6.67 5.9 6.52 6.1 6.00 5.1

extent of the responsiveness of the User Brand to

the need of the respondents

5.89 6.17 6.21 4.73

extent of keeping customers interests in heart of the

User's brand

5.37 5.42 5.48 4.36

Feeling of specialty GP 6.66 5.42 6.00 5.24

Brand

Judgment Favorable attitude toward the User's Brand 6.64 6.3 6.17 5.7 5.52 5.9 6.18 6.1

Extent of satisfying customer need User's Brand 5.75 6.29 5.48 6.21

Probability of recommending the User's Brand to

others

6.41 5.63 5.48 7.00

Advantages of the User's Brand over other brands 6.25 4.79 6.48 6.27

Uniqueness of the User's Brand 6.70 5.42 6.48 4.91

Brand

Feelings Feeling of warmth about the User's Brand 5.14 5.5 5.88 5.4 6.48 6.1 6.79 6.5

Feelings of fun about the User's Brand 4.34 5.88 6.48 6.15

Feelings of excitement about the User's Brand 4.65 5.13 6.48 6.39

Sense of confidence about the User's Brand 6.44 4.71 5.74 6.79

Feelings of Social approval User's Brand 6.70 5.17 5.43 6.42

Brand

Resonance

extent of feeling deep connections with others who

uses the User's Brand

6.74 5.8 6.42 5.9 5.69 4.2 6.52 5.2

extent of talking about the User's Brand (word of

mouth) to others

6.30 5.96 4.69 5.61

extent of visiting websites of the User's Brand 4.06 4.33 1.52 2.70

extent of following news about the User's Brand 6.05 6.75 4.90 5.88



6.2.5. Consumer Based Brand Equity (CBBE) Model of Grameenphone

From the data give above the table here this Brand Pyramid is generated. In this Brand Pyramid of

Grameenphone the value given in each element represents its extent of consumer brand awareness to recall

and recognition. In this CBBE model, GP has remarkable score in judgmental factor. It got highest value in

Brand Salience that means consumers, both the user and non-user of GP are very much aware of the brand.

GP can take action based on this CBBE model. It could improve its performance and feelings of consumers

toward the brand that will lead to rise up the ultimate Brand Resonance.

Figure 5 CBBE Model of Grameenphone Ltd

6.3. Regression Analysis

Using the constructs of the Keller’s CBBE model, a regression analysis has been conducted on the

responses of the users of GP. Here, the Brand Resonance has been used as the dependent variable and the

other constructs (salience, performance, image, judgment and feeling) have been assumed to be the

independent variables. The purpose of the regression analysis is to measure the importance of the

independent variables on the dependent variable.

6.3.1. Coefficient of Determination R2

Coefficient of determination R2, measure or show how much of the variance in one variable can be

explained or predicted by the variance in another .The objective of R2 is to test the integrity of the data in

order to fit the outcome of the calculated variance.

It is used to determine how well the regression line fit the data. It measure what percent of a change in

the dependent variable (Brand Resonance) can be explained by the change in the independent variables

(Salience, Performance, Judgment, Feelings, and Imagery). The value of R2 will be in the range of 0 and 1.

If R2 equals to 0, it represents that there is no relationship between dependent to independent variables

while, if R2 equals to 1, it represents a perfect relationship between variables. Therefore, the line is best

fitted.

Sabiha Matin


The formula for coefficient of multiple determination is

Sum of squares due to regression

R2 =

Sum of square total

The result of multiple regression analysis among five (5) independent variables and the dependent

variable (Brand Resonance) can be shown in Table 17. The R value is .692, which is the correlation of five

(5) independent variables with dependent variables was taken in to account. It is shown that the coefficient

of multiple determination is R2 = .479 . This means that 47.9 % variation in the dependent variable (Brand

Resonance) is explained by independent variables that are Salience, Performance, Judgment, Feelings, and

Imagery. Note that the adjusted R2 is lower than the unadjusted R2. In this part it related to the number of

variable in the equation.

Table 8 Model Summary of Regression Analysis of GP

a. Predictors: (Constant), Feelings, Salience, Performance, Image, Judgment

6.3.2. Regression Analysis of Coefficient

Coefficient test is shown in Table 18. It helps us to identify which is the most important variable among

five (5) independent variables. The column under the standardized coefficients is shown that the highest

number in beta (ββββ) is .459 for judgment which is significant at o.ooo level. It indicates that Judgment is the

most important independent variable among five (5) independent variables. The result of the coefficient is

shown that Salience and Image are also important independent variables that have the ability to explain

brand resonance because the standardized coefficients are .314 and .261 respectively.

Table 9 Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

Collinearity

Statistics

B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) -2.775 .964 -2.879 .005

Salience -.385 .152 -.314 -2.537 .013 .350 2.854

Performance .295 .119 .227 2.478 .015 .640 1.562

Image .485 .205 .261 2.372 .020 .442 2.261

Judgment .769 .201 .459 3.819 .000 .372 2.691

Feelings .297 .122 .196 2.425 .017 .824 1.213

a. dependent variable: resonance

Mod

el R

R

Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error

of the

Estimate

Change Statistics

R Square

Change

F

Change df1 df2

Sig. F

Change

1 .692a .479 .452 .69326 .479 17.813 5 97 .000



7. CONCLUSION

On basis of the previous discussion and the findings in this study, it can be concluded that

telecommunication providers should conduct Brand Equity Measurement professionally. Grameenphone

is operating in a market that has recently opened up for more competitors to enter, resulting in a substantial

drop in profitability because of price erosion. This has resulted in a market where price itself can no longer

be used as a mean to differentiate one company from the others. Furthermore, the market of Bangladesh

shows a tremendous potential, and the mobile penetration is expected to rise from today’s 20-25% to 80%

within 2015 – resulting in 123 million subscribers. In this competitive era, Brand itself can be an option for

competitive advantage. In this study, it also have been found that the consumers in the service category are

very much Brand Sensitive, that means, they vary much care about the brand choice. If Grameenphone will

measure its brand it would get an authentic picture of its brand position. Moreover, this brand equity also

helps this company to add up a remarkable portion in its revenue. So, if Grameenphone is able to build

brand equity, this will lead to a sustainable competitive advantage. This is found by this study that

judgment of the consumer bases on rational perspectives of the brand performance has enormous influence

in building Brand Equity. It can focus its Marketing and Branding strategy based on the judgmental

approaches of its customers.

REFERENCE

[1] Aaker DA, 1991.Managing Brand Equity,The Free Press, New York.

[2] Aaker DA and Keller, 1992. The Effect of sequential introduction and brand extensions, Journal of

Marketing Research.

[3] Aaker, A, David, 1992. The value of Brand Equity, Journal of Business Strategy. Vol 13

[4] Aaker, A. David, 1996. Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets, California Management

Review, Spring

[5] Bentler, PM, 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models, Psychological Buletin

[6] Caldwell , Niall and Joao R. Freire, 2004.The differences between branding a country, a region and a

city: Applying the Brand Box model. Journal of Brand Management.

[7] Datta, PR, 2003. The Determinant of Brand Loyalty, Journal of American Academy of Business, 3, pp-

138-144

[8] Doyle, Peter,2001. Building Value-based branding strategist, Journal of strategic Marketing.

[9] Esch, Franz-Rudolf et al, 2006. Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and relationships affect

current and future purchases, Journal of Product & Brand Management ,13/2.

[10] Gounares, S and Vlasis Stathakopoulos, 2004. Antecedent and consequences of brand equity

management. Journal of Brand Management, April.

[11] Johansson, Johny and Ilenka A. Reihanen, 2005. The esteem of Global Brands, Journal of Brand

management, June.

[12] Jones, Peter and David Hilker, 2002. Customer Perception of Service Brand: A case study of J.D.

Wetherspeons, British Food Journal vol 104 no 10.

[13] Keller Lane, Kevin, 1993. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-based Brand equity,

Journal of Marketing, Jan: 57

[14] Keller Lane, Kevin, 2001. Building Customer-Based Brand Equity. Marketing Management.

[15] Kim Gon Woo and Hong Bumm Kim, 2004. Measuring Customer based restaurant Brand Equity.

Cornell Hotel and restaurant administration quarterly, May.

[16] Kim Bumm Hong and Woo Gon Kim,2004. The relationship between brand equity and

firm’sperformance in luxury hotels and chain restaurants, Tourism management.

Sabiha Matin


[17] Lassar, et al, 1995. Measuring customer Based Brand Equity. Journal of Consumer Marketing. Vol 12.

[18] Martin M, Ingrid and David W Stewart, 2001. The Differential impact of Goal Congruency on attitudes,

intentions, and transfer of brand equity, Nov,38.

[19] Mattiesen, Insa, Ian Phau, 2005. The Hugo Boss connection : Achieving Global Brand Consistency

across country. Journal of Brand Management

[20] Deepti Verma and Chetna Verma, A Study on Attractiveness Dimensions of Employer Branding in

Technical Educational Institutions. International Journal of Marketing & Human Resource Management

(IJMHRM), 6(1), 2015, pp.36–43.

[21] Mattila, A. S. and Enz, C.A, 2002. The role of emotions in service encounters, Journal of Services

Research, 4(4), 268-277.

[22] Nelson, Susan, 2005. Beyond Branding, Journal of Brand Management. October.

[23] Netmeyer et al, 2004. Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity,

Journal of Business Research.

[24] Odin, Yorick et al, 2001. Conceptual and operational aspects of brand loyalty, An Empirical

investigation, Journal of Business Research,53.

[25] Pappu, Ravi,2005. Consumer-based Brand equity: improving the measurement, Journal of Product and

Brand management.

[26] V.Anandavel, Dr.A.Selvarasu, Economic Value added Performance of BSE--SENSEX Companies

Against its Equity Capital. International Journal of Management (IJM), 3(2),2012, pp.108-123.

[27] Park Su Chan, and V, Srinivasan, 1994.A survey- based method for measuring and understanding Brand

Equity and its extendibility, Journal of Marketing Research.

[28] Van Riel et al, 2005. Marketing antecedents of industrial brand equity: An empirical investigation in

specialty chemical. Industrial Marketing Management, 24.

[29] Washburn, JH. And Plank, RE, 2002. Measuring brand Equity: an evaluation of a consumer-based

brand equity scale. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol.10 no 1. pp,46-61.

[30] Yoo,B. and Donthu,N, 2001. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer- based

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

customer based brand equity measurement: a case

Documents