Final Report1 Branding

8/4/2019 Final Report1 Branding

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/final-report1-branding 1/70

CHAPTER: 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH STUDY

1.1 Background of the Research Topic:

1.1a: Branding:

A brand is a name, term, design symbol or any other feature that identifies aseller’s product from a competitor’s product.

Branding came about as a consequence of mass production to distinguish

one "producer" from another - before branding, most consumer products were

made in a customized fashion for the user - shoes by a cobbler, clothing by a

dress maker, barrels by a carpenter - there was no need for logos or brands

because it had no impact on the ability to sell - there was virtually no

competitive market.

A brand signals to the customer the source of the product and protects both

the customer and producer from competitors who would attempt to provide

products that appear to be identical. By developing strong & consistent

images, well-regarded brands generate hidden assets or brand equity that

gives them distinct advantages.

1.1b: Brand equity:

Brand equity is the set of brand assets and liabilities linked to the brand, its

name, and symbol, that adds or subtracts value to a product or service for a

firm/ or its customers.



Brand equity can be positive or negative. Positive brand equity is created by a

history of effective promotion and consistently meeting or exceeding customer

expectations. Negative brand equity is usually the result of bad management.

Consumers see a particular brand name as a contract. A brand's name may

reduce consumers' sense of uncertainty, allowing them to purchase

uncertainty reduction, or trust, thus improving their sense of value. Promotion

of a brand can address either price/costs, tangible brand attributes or intrinsic

brand attributes (equities). Brand equity is communicated using consistent

visual cues and consistent messages, allowing the consumer to quickly and

efficiently distinguish between brands and their intrinsic product attributes. As

a purchaser considers the tangible product features in concert with brand

equity (and price), they arrive at a set of products in a category which they will

consider for purchase (i.e. their consideration set). Thus, a brand's equity is

dependent on effective communications to the target market(s) and brand

equity can be improved to some extent with improved effectiveness of

communications.

A brand's equity therefore becomes part of the tradeoff a consumer considers

as they first select their consideration set, and then decide which product or

service to purchase. That is, purchasers actively trade off both the perceived

tangible benefits and the perceived intrinsic benefits delivered by products in

their consideration set, against price, to arrive at their value hierarchy, and

ultimately their purchase decision.

Brand equity is initially built by laying a foundation of brand awareness

eventually forming positive brand images and is ultimately maximized by high

levels of brand loyalty which is the strength of the Brand;

1. Brand Awareness:

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Promotion

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Promotion



Consumers’ ability to identify the brand or the strength of a brand’s presence

in the consumer’s mind. There are two aspects of brand awareness;

a) Brand recognition; b) Brand recall

a) Brand recognition relates to the consumer’s ability to confirm prior

exposure to the brand when given as a cue. Brand recognition requires that

consumers can correctly discriminate the as having been previously seen or

heard.

b) Brand recall relates to the consumers’ ability to retrieve the brand from

memory when given the product category, the needs fulfilled by the category,

or purchase or usage situation as a cue.

2: Brand image:

All brands are defined by a set of visual and non visual attributes which

effectively describe the identity of the brand, and the way in which consumers

relate to it. The values which make up a brand exist because they are basedon the perceptions of customers, potential customers and other influencers

(e.g. analysts and journalists) in the market. These collective evaluations

make up the brand’s image.

Brand image in itself does not provide an absolute measure of brand equity,

but it does highlight what drives it. Information which assists in developing

and influencing the image of a brand is, therefore, crucial to successful brand

management. Elements of the Brand Image are; brand associations, brand

values, brand position.



Brand image will reflect the consumers’ perceptions of a brand’s

characteristics. Consumers make associations, based on their knowledge of

brands, whether they are factual, rooted to their experience of the product, or emotional which are shaped by wider image perceptions. It is these

descriptive features which characterize the brand.

Consumers frequently select brands because the perceived characteristics of

the brand are aligned with their own values. Identifying the values which

matter to the consumer, and communicating appropriate messages to the

market which influence the purchase decision is at the centre of successful

branding activities.

Some values are core to the purchase decision; others have a marginal or

peripheral role. Knowing which values are core, and which are marginal, is

therefore, fundamental to developing unique or distinct ‘products’ and

subsequently successfully promoting them.

The perceived quality of a brand is an important measure insofar as it allows

us to compare the brand with competitors. Consumer perceptions of thestrengths and weaknesses of brands are frequently made on the basis of

knowledge of competitor brands. Understanding the way in which consumers

perceive competitor brands is an important piece of information in determining

brand image and shaping brand positioning strategies.

3: Brand Strength:

The understanding of brand image is an important dimension to brand

equity, but it does not in itself provide a definitive measure of the strength of

the brand. Understanding the strength of brands is an essential conjoint to

that of brand image. Different dimensions of brand strength are brand profile,

usage, performance, loyalty and brand premium.



Brand profile is determined through a series of measurements which evaluate

brand awareness. There are different types and levels of awareness that

consumers have for brands, ranging from being unaware to prompted recallof a brand name through to usage of a brand, and detailed knowledge of the

brand, the company and its products. Brands can be said to have a high

profile when they achieve high awareness levels on these measures.

Brands which have high levels of customer loyalty will, by definition, enjoy

favorable purchasing patterns. For example, customers may be more

disposed to purchasing and repeat purchasing certain successful brands, or

may purchase proportionately more of certain brands. Brand usage data is,

therefore, an important indicator of the success of a brand.

The ability to determine the relative importance of brand values in the

purchase decision is critical to successful marketing of products. Core brand

values are essential to the purchase decision and a brand must perform on

these to justify contending as a qualified vendor. Knowing which values are

core and which have a real influence on brand selection and then measuring

performance on these values is one of the most important research tools we

can deploy.

An often quoted benefit of strong brands is the ability to charge premium

prices and to secure higher price increases than the competition. Pricing and

market share data will provide a reliable and simple indicator of premium

pricing, but additionally researchers can collect survey data to show elasticity

of demand or consumer attitudes towards pricing movements.

The extent to which customers are loyal to a brand can be determined by a

number of different attitudinal and behavioral measures, all of which provide

either an indicator of how “attached” consumers are to a brand or their

likelihood of wanting the brand in the future.



1.1c Brand equity research:

The importance of brands is undisputed and is reflected in the abundance

of branding studies. In recent years marketers have attached increasing

importance to the value of brands, both in terms of developing image and

positioning strategies, but also in their quest for creating customer loyalty.

Market research can be employed in a number of ways to assist in the

development of brands and for tracking their value. Market researchers

and marketers alike often refer to “Brand equity”.

There are many aspects of brands which can be usefully measured byresearchers, but in very broad terms, brand equity research provides a

series of powerful measurements for assessing the health of brands.

Understanding why consumers choose a particular brand and the extent

to which consumers are loyal to a brand is crucial to successful branding

strategies. Strong brands command higher levels of customer loyalty and

because brand strength can be used to drive premium pricing, strong

brands frequently enjoy higher levels of profit. Benefits of measuring or evaluating brand equity are;

1. Understanding what consumers believe, think, know and infer about a

brand is critical to building and managing brand equity.

2. Measuring brand equity requires uncovering the associations

consumers have for a brand, determining the strength, favorability and

uniqueness of those associations, and assessing the impact of brandknowledge on consumer response to marketing programs.

3. The purpose of a brand equity measurement system is to provide

timely, accurate and actionable information that marketers can use in

their tactical and strategic decision-making.



4. Brand valuation techniques can be used to model alternative new-

business strategies. Which is the best market, brand extension,

consumer segment or new product development strategy to maximizelong-term brand value?

5. By connecting future business performance with current marketing

thinking, brand valuation provides a bridge between marketing and

finance people, allowing them to talk rationally about budget

allocations and predict where the greatest returns are likely to be.

6. It can also be useful in managing portfolios of brands, and in allocating

advertising budgets between brands, new launches, setting discount

policies or overseas extensions.

7. Brand equity management systems involve the creation of a Brand

Equity charter and Brand Equity Report, plus the development of

senior management to oversee the implementation of these tools.

1.1d Brand “Ariel”

The focus of this research is on the brand “Ariel” which is a product of

Procter and Gamble. Ariel was introduced in Pakistan in 1997. Ariel is a

detergent that delivers against one of the key Pakistani consumer needs.

It’s advanced and break through formula gives spotless cleaning to both

colored and white clothes.

1.2 Purpose of the study:

The Research’s main purpose is to know;



1) What are the perceptions and attitudes of the consumers in Peshawar

regarding brand and brand equity?

2) What role a brand name plays when consumers buying in this specific

product category i.e. washing powder? And the importance of the brand

“Ariel” in consumer product selection.

3) The level of brand awareness consumers have about “Ariel” and whether

it leads to any favorable consumer response.

4) Brand image of the “Ariel” in Peshawar i.e. how the customers perceive

the brand Ariel and what are the associations in their mind and to what

extent it affects the value of the brand Ariel.

5) How effective the marketing programs of Ariel are in creating positive

image in the mind of customers/ consumers which leads to positive brand

equity and what Ariel needs to do to improve its position (image) in the

market.

6) To find out where Ariel is now relative to the competition which means

that where Ariel ranks in the consumer's mind.

7) The extent to which consumers are loyal to the brand Ariel and whether

they will switch to other brands due to any change (price, quality, size, etc)

in the product Ariel.

1.3 Methodology of the research

Data and other information needed for the research will be gathered from

both primary and secondary sources.

Secondary data will be collected through internet, magazines, newspapers,

journals. Primary data will be collected mostly by questionnaire so that to



cover maximum number of customers and more information can be

collected in the limited time and resources. Questions will be mostly close

ended and designed in away which do not bias the respondent’s answers.

Both Quantitative and Qualitative techniques will be used to collect data for

the research. These techniques will test brand awareness, brand image, low

and high level brand associations, brand recall, and brand recognition. All of

these tests reveal motivation as to why consumers purchase and remain

loyal to the brand Ariel.

1.4 Scope & Limitation:

1) Limited Time limits the scope of the study and that’s why this

research focuses on the brand equity evaluation of Ariel only in

Peshawar.

2) The research couldn’t cover other aspects of the brand equity that

are the market share and value and thus is only a customer based

evaluation of the brand Ariel.

3) Because of the nature of the research the sampling control is critical.

It is difficult to monitor the responses of each and every respondent of

the sample.

4) The data or information collected from this sample can not be

generalized to the whole population and can be an element of biasness

in the research.

5) Sufficient information relating the topic is not available (secondary

data).



Chapter: 2

Literature Review

This literature review is divided into two parts. Firstly, the conceptual

framework for understanding the concept of brand equity from consumer

perspective and then a brief review of the extant literature in the area of

measurement of brand equity has been provided.

The available methods of measuring brand equity can also be classified into

two separate groups, consumer and financial related ones. Crimmins (1992)

and Farquhar (1989) argue in favor of the financial perspective, where as

Srivastava & Shocker (1991) argue in favour of the consumer perspective.

The financial school of thought argues that reliance on objective, market-

based data that allows comparisons over time will be more useful.

According to Lipman (1989) there is not even an agreement on the relative

strengths and weaknesses of each.

By far, the largest group of researchers is those who hold the consumer as

the focal point for the meaning of brand equity. They, more than the others,

recognize the fact that if a brand has no meaning (value) to the consumer, it

offers no meaning (equity) to investors, manufacturers or retailers (Cobb-

Walgren, Ruble, Donthu 1995).

The consumer school of thought argues that it is the consumer who

determines the brand equity and hence this type of measurement is more

appropriate (Ashish Sinha; Peter T. L. Popkowski Leszczyc) and this research

focuses on brand equity only from consumer perspective.



Brand equity cannot be measured in dollars and cents but rather it is a

direct result of how consumers value a brand based on their experiencesand perceptions (Spaeth, 1993).

Researchers in this division (consumer perspective) deal with the

psychological and behavioral tenets that go into the causality of consumer

purchases. These researchers feel that, with the knowledge of what goes into

purchase decisions, they or corporate marketing managers can then

determine what value (equity) the consumers place on a particular brand.

Researchers who work in this segment look at such things as brand loyalty,

brand dominance, and brand image as components of brand equity

(Farquhar, 1990; Chaudhuri, 1995

To measure Brand equity it must be broken down into its sub-components.

The key components of these patterns are brand loyalty, awareness, image,

and memory. The task researcher take on is the blending of one or more of

the individual characteristics into a composite of how the consumer perceivesoverall brand equity. (Dr. Douglas Waldo, from the article; Can there be a

Common Definition for Brand Equity)

We conceptualize brand equity as a set of assets, namely brand associations,

brand awareness, brand image, brand loyalty, perceived quality and

organizational associations, that add or subtract value from a product or

service (brand) Aaker 1991.

According to Kevin Lane Keller (1993), high brand equity is the result of high

brand knowledge. He defines customer-based brand equity as customers’

differential responses to marketing activities due to difference in brand

knowledge.



The importance of (brand) knowledge in the memory to consumer decision

making has well been documented. Understanding the content and structure

of brand knowledge is important because they influence what comes to mindwhen consumer thinks about a brand (Alba, Hutchinson and Lynch 1991).

According to Keller (1993) brand knowledge which is key to build brand

equity, consists of two components: brand awareness and brand image.

Brand awareness is the intensity of node or trace in consumer’s memory

related to the brand (brand associations), which reflects the capability of a

consumer to recognize the brand in various conditions whereas brand image

relates to the perceptions about a brand reflected by these associations.

Brand awareness consists of brand recognition and brand recall, according to

Bettman 1979; brand recognition requires that consumer correctly

discriminate the brand as having been seen or heard previously whereas

brand recall requires that consumer correctly generate the brand from

memory.

The relative importance of brand recall and recognition depends upon on the

extent to which consumers make decisions in the store (where they are

potentially exposed to the brand) versus outside the store among other

factors. Brand recognition may be more important to the extent that product

decisions are made in the store (Percy and Rossiter (1987)).

The brand name (or brand mark or logo) plays an important role in the

cognitive structure underlying brand equity because it serves as the central

node around which these brand associations form an associative memory

network



The graphic expression of brand can strengthen recognition and the value

consumers place on products. The presentation of color, image, symbol, and

typography sets the expectations through expression. ( John Recker andJerry Kathman.)

Design elements, in essence, are a collection of sensory input. The simple

fact is that people are influenced by the stimuli around them. What is seen,

heard, felt, and experienced encodes precepts that influence impressions,

expectations, and ultimately, behavior.(Lutz, !991)

Brand awareness plays an important role in consumer decision making for

three major reasons. First, it is important that consumer think of the brand

when they think about the product category. Second, brand awareness can

affect decisions about brands in the consideration set, even if there are

essentially no other brand associations. Finally, brand awareness affects

consumer decision making by influencing the formation and strength of brand

associations in the brand image. (Kevin Lane Keller)

The key to attaining the goal that is positive brand equity appears to be the

building of a lasting positive image in the consumer’s mind (Pokorny, 1995;

Krishman, 1996; & Keller, 1993).

All brands are defined by a set of visual and non visual attributes which

effectively describe the identity of the brand, and the way in which consumers

relate to it. The values which make up a brand exist because they are based

on the perceptions of customers, potential customers and other influencers in

the market. These collective evaluations make up the brand’s image.

(Benchmark’s approach)



A necessary condition for the creation of a brand image is that a brand node

is been established in the memory, and the nature of that brand node should

affect how easily different kind of information can become attached to thebrand in memory. (Herzog and Newman)

According to Krishnan (1996), consumer’s knowledge of a brand is the result

of the memory of various associations he or she has with a particular brand.

By linking the various brand associations the consumer has, a complex

memory structure for that brand results. The more associations, the richer the

memory becomes and it would lead to high brand knowledge so one should

consider different kind of associations that a customer can have in his mind

(relating the brand) while evaluating consumers’ perceptions towards brand

equity.

The favorability, strength, and the uniqueness of brand associations are the

dimensions distinguishing brand knowledge that plays an important role in

determining the differential response that makes up the brand equity,

especially in high involvement decision setting. (Dobni, 1990)

Keller (1998), brand associations are informational nodes linked to the brand

node in memory that contains the meaning of the brand for consumers. These

associations include perceptions of brand quality and attitudes towards the

brand.

According to Aaker, there are at least nine brand associations that a

consumer can have in his mind. The associations convey either the concept,

or the meaning of the product in terms of how it fulfills a customers need and

provide them a value. He identifies the following as the possible ways in

which associations create value to the customer: helping to process / retrieve



information about a brand; generating a reason to buy, and creating positive

attitudes / feelings which lead to positive brand equity

Brand associations take different forms. One way to distinguish among brand

associations is by their level of abstractions that is by how much information

is summarized or subsumed in the association. Along this dimension, brand

association can be classified into three major categories of increasing scope;

attributes, benefits and attitude. (Johnson1984, Alba and Hutchinson 1987,

Chattopadhyay 1988)

Attributes can be categorized in a variety of ways. Here attributes are

distinguished according to how directly they relate to product or services

performance. Products related are related to the product physical composition

or service requirements and non product related which are the external

aspects of the product or service that relates to its purchase or consumption

(Myers and Shocker 1981).

Benefits are the personal value consumers attach to the product or serviceattributes, that is what consumers think the product or service can do for

them. Benefits can be further distinguished into three categories according to

underlying motivations to which they relate (Park, Jaworski, and Maclinnis

1986): 1) Functional benefits 2) experiential benefits 3) Symbolic benefits.

Functional benefits are the more intrinsic advantages of product or service

consumption and usually correspond to the product-related attributes. These

benefits often are linked to fairly basic motivations, such as physiological and

safety needs (maslow1970), and involves a desire for problem removal or

avoidance (Fennel 1978).



Experiential benefits relate to what it feels like to use the product or service

and also usually correspond to the product-related attributes. These benefits

satisfy experiential needs such as sensory pleasure, variety, and cognitivestimulation. (Rossiter and Percy1987)

Symbolic benefits are the more extrinsic advantage of product or service

composition. They usually correspond to non product-related attributes and

relate to underlying needs for social approval or personal expression and

outer-directed self-esteem. Hence, consumers may value the prestige,

exclusivity or fashionability of a brand because of how it relates to the self

concept. Symbolic benefits should be especially relevant for socially visible

“badge” products. (Solomon 1983).

Sheth et al (1991) have argued that brand equity is influenced by factors

other than functional attributes, such as social, conditional, emotional and

epistemic values. Social value is the utility derived by a consumer through the

brand being associated with a certain social group; conditional value is the

utility derived from brand usage in a specific situation; epistemic value is theutility derived from trying a new brand out of curiosity; and emotional value is

the utility derived from the ability of brand usage to arouse particular feelings.

Brands are essentially intangible and built on perceptions, understanding

attitudes and imagery is critical to evaluating brand equity. ( LRW)

Brand attitudes can be related to beliefs about product- related attributes and

the functional and experiential benefits, consistent with work on perceived

quality (Ziethaml 1988)

Keller (1993) believes that by building favorable brand associations, the

consumer will develop a positive attitude toward the brand. The more needs



the brand satisfies, the more positive the attitude, the more positive the brand

knowledge imprint. As the strength of the memory imprint increases, the

greater likelihood the information (knowledge) will become accessible to theconsumer when he or she actively thinks about a product.

Ajzen and Fishbein (1975 &1980) proposed a model based on multiattributes

formulation in which brand attitudes are a function of the associated attributes

and benefits that are salient for the brand. This expectancy-value model

views attitudes as multiplicative function of (1) the salient beliefs a consumer

has about the product or service(i.e. the extent to which consumer think the

brand has some attributes or benefits) and 2) the evaluative judgment of

those beliefs( i.e. how good or bad it is that the brand has those attributes or

benefits).

Brand attributes can also be relate to beliefs about non-product related

attributes and symbolic benefits consistent with functional theory of

attitudes(Katz 1960,Lutz 1991), which maintains that attitudes can serve a”

value expressive” function allowing individuals to express their self concepts.(Rossister and Percy 1987), Because it is difficult to specify correctly all of

the relevant attributes and benefits, researchers building multiattributes

models of consumer preference have included general component of attitude

toward the brand that is not captured by attributes or benefit values of the

brand ( park 1991;Srinivasan 1979).

Brand associations can be divided into product-related type (such as product

attribute) and non-product related type (such as price, package, image of

users, and usage association). It can also be divided by the types of interests

the brand brings to the consumers: functional, experiential, and symbol. The

favorableness, strength, and uniqueness of various brand associations



together form the brand image, which constitutes the foundation of

competitive advantage for the brand.

Brand image is perceptions for brand, reflecting the brand associations stored

in consumer’s memory (Keller 1993). Making up brand image is; type of,

favorability of, strength of, and uniqueness of brand associations. There are

other attitudinal and behavioral characteristics that contribute to the make up

of all subcategories of the model.

Associations differ according to how favorably they are evaluated. The

success of a marketing program is reflected in the creation of favorable brand

associations-- that is, consumer believe that the brand has attributes and

benefits that satisfy their needs and wants such that a positive overall brand

attitude is formed.(Ajzen 1980).

Consumers are unlikely to view an attribute or benefit as very good or bad if

they do not also consider it to be very important. Hence it is very difficult to

create a favorable association for an unimportant attribute. (Fishbien 1980)

Not all associations for a brand, however, will be relevant and valued in a

purchase or consumption decisions, consumers often have an association in

the memory from the brand to product or package color. Though this

association may facilitate brand recognition or awareness or lead to

inferences about product quality but it may not be always considered a

meaningful factor in purchase decision (Day, Shocker, and Srivastava)

Different customers will perceive a brand differently. Although two individuals

may be subject to the same stimuli under apparently the same conditions, the

way they recognize them, select them, organize them, and interpret them is a



highly individual process based on each person’s own needs, values, and

expectations.( Schiffrnan & Kanuk et al in1996, p.161)

Association can characterize also by the strength of connection to the brand

node. According to Craik and Lockhart 1972, the strength of association

depends on how the information enters consumer memory (encoding) and

how it is maintained as part of the brand image (storage). Strength is a

function of both the amount or quantity of processing the information receives

at encoding (i.e., how much a person thinks about the information) and the

nature or quality of processing the information receives at encoding (i.e., the

manner in which the person thinks about the information)

According to the levels- or depth-of-processing approach (Craik and Lockhart

1972; Craik and Tulving 1975; Lockhart, Craik, and Jacoby 1976), more the

meaning of information is attended to during encoding, the stronger the

resulting association in the memory will be. Thus when a consumer actively

thinks about and elaborates on the significance of product or service

information, stronger associations are created in memory. This strength, inturn, increases both the likelihood that information will be accessible and the

ease with which it can be recalled by “spreading activation”.

Cognitive psychologists believe memory is extremely durable, so that once

information becomes stored in memory its strength of association decays very

slowly (Loftus and Loftus 1980).Though available and potentially retrievable in

memory, information may not be “accessible” and retrieved without strongly

associated reminders or retrieval cues(Tuvling and Psolka 1971).

A particular association for a brand that salient and “come to mind” depend on

the context in which the brand is considered. The larger the number of cues



linked to a piece of information, however, greater the likelihood that the

information can be recalled (Isen 1992).

Brand associations may or may not be shared with other competing brands.

The essence of brand positioning is that the brand has a substantial

competitive advantage or “unique selling proposition” that gives consumer a

compelling reason for buying that particular brand These differences may be

communicated explicitly by making direct comparisons competitors or may be

based on highlighted implicitly without stating a competitive point of reference.

Furthermore, they may be based on product-related or non-product-related

attributes or functional, experiential, or image benefits (Aaker 1982; Ries and

Trout 1979; Wind 1982).

The presence of strongly held, favorably valuated associations that are

unique to the brand and imply superiority over other brands is critical to

brand’s success. Yet, unless the brand has no competitors, the brand will

most likely share some associations with other brands. Shared association

can help to establish category membership (Maclnnis and Nakamoto 1991)and define the scope of competition with other products and services (Sujan

and Bettman 1989).

Johnson 1984, Park and smith 1989) suggested that even if a brand does not

face direct competition in its product category, and thus does not share

product-related attributes with other brands, it can still share more abstract

associations and face indirect competition in a more broadly defined product

category. Thus, though a railroad may not compete directly with another

railroad, it still competes indirectly with other forms of transportation, such as

airlines, cars, and buses.



Certain attributes or benefits may be considered “prototypical” and essential

to all brands in the category, and a specific brand may be considered an

“exemplar” that is most representative of the product or service category(Coher, and Basu 1987; Nedungadi and Hutchinson 1985; Rosch and Mervis

1975) For example, the consumers might expect a running shoe to provide

support and comfort, be built enough to last through repeated warnings, and

so on, and they may believe that Nike or some other leading brand best

represents a running shoe. Similarly, consumer might expect a bank to offer a

variety of checking and saving accounts, provide branch and electronic

delivery services, and so on, and they may consider Bank of America or some

other market leader to be the best example of a bank. (Ward and Loken

1986).

Because the brand is linked to the product category, some product category

associations may become linked to brand, either in terms of specific beliefs or

overall attitudes. Product category attitudes can be particularly important

determinants of consumer response. In most cases, some product category

associations that are linked to the brand are shared with other brands in the

category. (Rosch and Mervis 1975). Strength of the brand associations with

the product category is an important determinant of brand awareness

(Hutchinson 1985, Ward and Loken 1986).

Although brand associations play an important role in the development of

brand equity, consumers need to be aware of a product before they can form

any brand associations. A brand needs to be in the awareness set before it

can be included in the consideration set. Hence, a consumer needs to be

aware of a brand before it can be considered. Brand awareness can be

viewed to be an important component of brand equity that can be measured

on a continuum provided by Aaker (1991).



According to Houston, Childers, and Heckler (1987), the favorability and

strength of a brand association can be affected by other brand associations in

memory like congruence that is the extent to which a brand associationshares content and meaning with other brand association.

In general, information that is consistent in meaning with existing brand

associations should be more easily learned and remembered than unrelated

information through the unexpectedness of information inconsistently in

meaning with the brand sometimes can lead to more elaborate processing

and stronger associations than even consistent information (Houston,

Childers, and Heckler 1987; Myers-Levy 1989; Wyer and Srull 1989)

The congruence among brand associations determines the “cohesiveness” of

the brand image i.e. the extent to which the brand image is characterized by

associations or subsets of associations that share meaning. The

cohesiveness of the brand image may determine consumer’ more holistic or

gestalt reactions to the brand. (Rosch 1975)

A “diffuse” brand image, where there is little congruence among brand

associations for consumers, can present several potential problems for

marketers. First, consumers may be confused as to the meaning of the brand

and, because they don’t have as much information to which new information

can easily related, new associations may be weaker and possibly less

favorable. Moreover, any one association shares little meaning with other

associations, brand association may be more easily changed by competitive

actions. Finally, another problem with a diffuse brand image is greater

likelihood that consumers will discount or overlook some potentially relevant

brand associations in making brand decisions. (Heckler, Keller and Houston

1992)



According to Keller (1987) and Burke and Srull (1988), competitive overlap

with other brands associated with the product category does not have a down

side, however, in terms of possible consumer confusion. Number of competing brands advertising in a product category can affect consumer’s

ability to recall communication effects for a brand by creating “interference” in

memory.

Keller (1991) also showed that though these interference effects can produce

lower brand evaluations, they can be overcome through the use of ad

retrieval cues i.e. distinctive ad execution information that is present when a

consume actually makes brand evaluation(e.g. at the point of purchase).

The effect of positive brand evaluations on brand equity is moderated by their

accessibility in memory. Highly accessible evaluations influence perception

and subsequent equity development in the direction of existing evaluations

(e.g., Fazio, 1986). These brand associations underlie the consumer’s

differential preference for a brand and subsequent behavior toward the brand.

According to Chattopadhyay and Alba 1988), the level of abstraction and

qualitative nature of brand associations should affect their favorability,

strength, and uniqueness. For example, image-related associations (benefits

and especially attitudes), in contrast, tend to be inherently more evaluative

because of the embedded meaning they contain. Because of this evaluative

nature, abstract associations tend to be more durable and accessible in

memory then underlying attribute information.

In fact, brand attitudes may be stored and retrieved in memory separately

from the underlying attribute information (Lynch, Mamorstein, and Weigold

1988).



One important reason for considering brand attitudes to be a brand

association is that they can vary in strength (Farquhar 1989). Attitude strength

has been measured by the reaction time needed to evaluative queries aboutthe attitude object. Individuals, who can evaluate an attitude object quickly are

assumed to have highly accessible attitude. Research has shown that attitude

formed from direct behavior or experience is more accessible then attitude

based on information or indirect forms of behavior (Fazio and Zanna 1981).

Highly accessible brand attitudes are more likely to be activated

spontaneously upon exposure to the brand and guide subsequent brand

choices (Berger and Mitchell 1989, Fazio)

Pokorny (1995) feels that brand image is the result of the personality of both

the brand itself and the company producing the brand. He is able to measure

how positive or negative these measures are by “objective descriptors,

attributes or characteristics consumers apply to the company.” (p. 59) His

measures, are the adjectives the consumer uses to describe of the brand and

company.

It doesn’t matter where these images come from. They can arise from your

product design, your technology, your packaging, your sales reps, your ads,

your spokesmen, your target audience, your product applications. But they’re

as real and as liberating or delimiting as your own personalities. Susan

Schwartz McDonald.

In essence, favorable brand associations, including product-related, non-

product-related, cognitive, and affective associations lead to positive brand

attitude which in turn leads to positive brand evaluations or perceptions that

can include affective dimensions. (Powell, and Williams 1989)



Once the positive image is imprinted into the consumer’s attitude toward the

brand, the next step is to build loyalty to that particular brand (Blackston, 1995

and Dyson, Farr, and Hollis, 1996). The extent to which customers are loyalto a brand can be determined by a number of different attitudinal and

behavioral measures, all of which provide either an indicator of how

“attached” consumers are to a brand or their likelihood of wanting the brand in

the future.

Keller (1993) and Krishnan (1996) go a couple steps further in their models of

brand image. Both feel the backbone to building brand loyalty is by first

establishing a strong brand knowledge base. It can be used as a springboard

for long-term brand loyalty marketing strategies.

Keller classified different dimensions of brand image in to a pyramid, in which

each lower level element provides higher level element, which means brand

attachment (loyalty) stems from rational and emotional brand evaluations

which derive from functional and emotional brand associations and for

customer needs brand awareness.

Blackston; (1995) views loyal customers as the best a company can have and

can be an asset (brand equity) for it. He theorizes loyal customers are, willing

to pay more for the brand, less likely to brand switch as prices are raised, and

also less likely to brand abandon when competitors utilize price promotions.

These attributes are in addition to their willingness to purchase more of the

company’s brand than anyone else is.

According to Peter T. L. Popkowski Brand loyalty is the idiosyncratic or

unique component of brand equity controlling for the effects of other common

sub-components. He contends that though brands can alter their position on

common attributes, such as brand personality and organizational



associations, the idiosyncratic component of brand equity is unique to a

particular brand. As this source of brand equity cannot be mimicked by other

brands it is a source of competitive advantage or core competence. Thelarger the extent of idiosyncratic component of brand equity the greater the

core competence of a particular brand.

Dyson, Farr and Hollis (1996) use their Brand Dynamics ™ Pyramid to know

and measure the consumer loyalty. The five stages of the pyramid are

presence relevance, performance, advantage and bonding. As the consumer

moves from one stage to another, he or she becomes more involved and

familiar with the brand. To begin with, a brand must have a presence in the

market place. It must posses and unaided brand name awareness. Next, the

brand has to have relevance to the needs and wants of the consumer. It must

be able to fulfill some of the consumer’s core needs. The brand’s

performance must live up to the claims of its producers as well as beat any

standards set by competition. In the fourth stage, the brand must exhibit a

quantifiable advantage over its competitors. It must be unique enough to

differentiate from others in its class. If the brand reaches the final stage, there

will be a bonding between it and its end user base. The bonding is the result

of a continuation of attributes that promote loyalty to that particular brand now

and into the future as well. Accessing where a brand is on the pyramid, the

brand manager can then develop an appropriate marketing strategy that

maintains or increases consumer loyalty.

According to Pokorny’s (1995) theory consumers are always seeking value in

the products and services they buy. Furthermore, they are loyal to those

products they perceive as providing superior added value. Therefore,

companies must be constantly developing strategies that continue to create

value in the minds of its customers. A second component to his theory of

brand image is the attitude of consumers towards the brand. He uses



subjective verb expressions of the consumer’s impression of the brand to

measure attitude.

When customers engage in brand loyalty, they tend to reduce information

acquisition efforts which, in turn, simplify the decision process. R. Kenneth

Teas and Terry H. Grape tine,”Demystifying Brand Equity”.

Blackston’s (1995) device for increasing brand loyalty is advertising. He

suggests moving from “persuasion” measures to those that promote “feel

better about using/ buying/owning” (p. RC4) attributes. Nurturing these

attributes helps to develop brand loyalty which “determines brand choice and

creates repetitive brand purchasing behavior.” (p. RC2).

The Consumer perceptions of brand values come from many sources, but

essentially it is based on ideas-- rational or emotional—that the brand apart

from competitive brands. What kind of marketing activities implant these ideas

about a brand’s uniqueness in the mind? Advertising is the most common.

(Cobb-Walgren, Cathy J)

Brand Recall is also affected by advertising which can make positive brand

evaluations and attitudes readily accessible in memory. This is crucial to the

development of brand equity because favorable brand attitudes will guide

consumer perceptions and behavior if those attitudes can be instantly evoked.

(Farquhar, 1989).

All aspects of brand image are relevant in determining consumer response to

advertising and promotion. Advertising response and decay patterns are a

function of consumers’ attitude and behavior toward the brand .They maintain

that consumers who are positively predisposed toward a brand may require

fewer ad exposures to meet communication objectives. Similarly, one could



argue that strong attributes or benefit associations for brand require less

reinforcement through marketing communications. (Ray 1982, Rossiter and

Percy 1987).

Fundamentally, high levels of brand awareness and a positive brand image

should increase the probability of brand choice, as well as produce greater

consumer (and retailer) loyalty and decrease vulnerability to competitive

marketing actions. Thus, the view of brand loyalty adopted is that it occurs

when favorable beliefs and attitude for the brand are manifested in repeat

buying behavior. Some of these beliefs may reflect the objective reality of the

product, in which case no underlying customer-based brand equity may be

present, but in other cases they may reject favorable, strong and unique

associations that go beyond the objective reality of the product (Park 1991).

A familiar brand with a positive brand image can also yield licensing

opportunities (i.e. the brand name is used by another firm on one of its

products) and support brand extension (i.e. a firm uses an existing brand

name to introduce a new product or service) two more important growthstrategies for firms in recent years (Miller and Ginter)

High level of brand awareness and a positive image also have specific

implications for the pricing, distribution and promotion activities related to the

brand. First, a positive image should enable the brand to command larger

margins and have more inelastic responses to price increases. The most

important aspect of the brand image that affects consumer responses to price

is probably overall brand attitude. Consumers with a strong, favorable brand

attitude should be more willing to pay premium prices for the brand (Starr and

Rubinson 1978). Similarly, a positive image should result in increased

consumer search (Simonson, Huber, and Payne 1988) and a willingness to

seek out distribution channels for the product or service. Finally, high levels of



brand awareness and a positive brand image can increase marketing

communication effectiveness.

According to Keller there are two basic approaches to measure brand equity;

(brand equity from consumer’s perceptive) indirect and direct approaches,

indirect approaches could asses potential sources of customer based brand

equity (brand knowledge) that requires measuring brand awareness and the

characteristics and the relationships among brand associations, how these

are associated with each other. Whereas direct approaches could assess the

actual impact of brand knowledge on the on consumers’ response to different

elements of the firm’s marketing program which is useful in determining the

nature of the differential response.

The techniques used to achieve this objective can be grouped into two

categories structured (quantitative) and unstructured (qualitative) techniques

(Keller). According to Aaker (1991), structured approaches involve scaling

brands upon a set of dimensions. He argues that scaling approaches

(quantitative) are more objective and reliable than qualitative approachessince they are less vulnerable to subjective interpretation. Many of the

methods used such as the projective techniques (qualitative) tend to be more

subjective and employ small samples (Aaker, 1991). Even those that are

regarded as being objective and reliable than qualitative approaches i.e.,

scaling methods face tile problem of validity.

Brand awareness can be assessed effectively through a variety of aided and

unaided memory measures that can be applied to test brand recall and

recognition. For example, brand recognition measures may use the actual

brand name or some perceptually degraded version of the brand name (Alba

and Hutchinson 1987).



Brand recall measures may use different sets of cues such as progressively

narrowly defined product category labels. Besides correctness, the ease of

recall and recognition performance can be assessed with more subtlemeasures such as response latencies to provide a fuller picture of memory

performance with respect to the brand. Brand recall can also be coded in

terms of the order of recall to capture the extent to which the name is “top of

mind” and thus strongly associated with product category in memory. Fazio

1987).

The simplest way to profile associations involve” free association tasks”

whereby consumers are asked what comes to their mind when they think of a

brand without any more specific probe or cue than perhaps the associated

product category. The primary purpose is to identify the range of possible

brand associations in the consumers’ minds, but they may also provide some

rough indication of the relative strength, favorability, and the uniqueness of

the brand associations (Keller, Kevin Lane).

According to Levy, there are three types of projective techniques; associationtechnique, where a consumer is given a stimulus or cue relating a brand and

asked with the first thing that comes in his mind; construction technique,

where respondent is require to construct a response in the from of a story,

dialogue, picture or description in a less structure form than completion

techniques; expressive techniques where respondents see a verbal or visual

and asked to relate their feelings and attitude to different people.

Ajzen and Fishbien (1980); give a detailed description of how beliefs and

evaluation of attributes and benefits can be scaled and how attributes can be

measured through structured format, providing an illustrative example in a

consumer setting, response time measures of attitude have been used as a

proxy for attitude strength.



Jennifer Aaker, Projective techniques employed in the measurement of brand

associations are meant to address problems aforementioned since they allow

the respondent to project oneself into a context, which bypasses theinhibitions, or limitations of more direct questioning. Here Customers are

given an incomplete stimulus and then asked to complete it or make a sense

of it.

There are three types of projective techniques; association technique, where

a consumer is given a stimulus or cue relating a brand and asked with the first

thing that comes in his mind; construction technique, where respondent is

require to construct a response in the from of a story, dialogue, picture or

description in a less structure form than completion techniques; expressive

techniques where respondents see a verbal or visual and asked to relate

their feelings and attitude to different people (Keller,1998)

Reilly and Schweihs 1999; identified the attributes that affect the brand equity.

There are five main aspects that need to be considered when calculating a

brand equity, what additional price premium the product can command over ageneric; how much additional market share can be gained; what cost savings

can result from an ability to exercise increased control over the channel; what

additional revenue can be gained through licensing and brand extensions;

and the additional marketing costs that need to be incurred in providing the

point of differentiation as a competitive strategy.

Blind test is also used to asses a brand’s value. Two groups of customer rate

the target brand and its competitor. One group sees only branded products

and other see unbranded products. Alternatively, targeted product is than

branded with actual brand or with competitive brand and results are then

compared to find out the value that brand. (Allison and Ulh 1964)



Blind tests could be used to examine consumer response to other elements of

the marketing mix such as proposed pricing, promotion and channels of

distribution changes (Jacoby, Olson, and Haddock).

Mind Tree is a method for extracting cognitive structure trees and selection

structure trees that indicate how consumers discriminate among brands and

products in the marketplace and what criteria consumers use in brand and

product selection. This analysis method supports the formulation of

communication strategies and category management from the point of view of

the consumer.

Conjoint analysis is a measurement technique used to know how people

make choices between products or services or a combination of product and

service. Researcher describes different brands in a product category

consistently in terms of their attributes and levels in order to see which brand

is more important for the customer. By providing different choices, researcher

can work out numerically how valuable each of the levels is relative to the

others around it – this value is known as the utility of the level. There aretechnical issues that need to be considered. In particular, the design of

attributes is a crucial step in a conjoint project as choices between poorly

defined levels can render the exercise meaningless. (Green and Srinivasan

(1978; 1990)

These four measures form the basis of two equations:

1. Differentiation x Relevance = Brand Strength (or vitality)

2. Esteem x Familiarity = Brand Stature

Rangaswamy, Burke and Olivia (1990) use conjoint analysis to explore how

brand names interact with physical attributes or features to affect the

extendibility of brand names new categories.



A variant of the conjoint methodology was developed by Srinivasan (1979)

who estimates brand equity by comparing actual consumer choice behavior

with that implied by utilities obtained through conjoint analysis.

Kamakura and Russell (1989; 1992) estimate segment level brand equity

using scanner data that employs the consumers’ purchase histories from the

supermarket scanner data to estimate the brand equity through residual

approach. This method uses real consumer choice against survey based

subjective methods.

Cobb-Walgren, Ruble and Donthu (1995) measure brand equity employing

the perceptual components of Aaker's (1991) definition of brand equity. They

operationalize brand equity as a set of perceptual components such as brand

awareness, brand associations and perceived quality.

Prominent among brand valuation models, which are based on consumer

perceptions, is the Young & Rubicam Brand Asset valuator (Y&R model). The

Y&R model determines the value of a brand based on two major dimensions,viz. Brand strength and brand stature. Research Data is collected to measure

the distinctiveness of the brand in the market (strength) and meaningfulness

and appropriateness of the brand to the consumer (stature). The analysis of

data demonstrates that brands are built on a very specific progression along

four consumer dimensions which are differentiation, relevance, esteem and

familiarity, and documents the evolving relationship a brand has with

consumers.

Aaker’s “Brand Equity Ten” utilizes five categories of measures to assess

brand equity .These categories are Loyalty Measures, Perceived Quality or

Leadership Measures, Customer-oriented associations or differentiation

measures, Awareness measures and Market behavior measures. All these



measures represent the customer loyalty dimension of brand equity. They

can be utilized to develop a brand equity measurement instrument, depending

on the type of product or market, and the purpose of the instrument.

Jennifer Aaker’s brand personality list gives a set of adjective that can be

used to describe the personality of a brand much like the personality of an

individual. She distinguishes five facets of brand personality; sincerity,

excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. Two or more

adjectives measure each facet. Respondents are asked to what extend each

adjective describes the brand.

Comparison Task is another technique used to uncover brand associations

and perceptions. Consumers are asked to convey their impression by

comparing brands to people, countries, animals, activities, occupations,

nationalities and even other brands. Respondents are then asked follow-up

questions as why they made that comparison. These techniques uncover

those inferences or associations which reflect these choices and can be

useful to know the user or usage imagery for the brand and other non-product-related associations.

A Brand-Price-Trade-Off is another simplest method for assessing the relative

impact of the brand. Several brands are shown at once and the customer

chooses the preferred option. Prices are adjusted and the customer chooses

again. Its aim is to assess the relative value of the brand. BPTO is of most

use in consumer type markets where there is little to choose functionally

between the products, essentially the products are substitutes for one

another. (Green and Wind 1975)



Dollermetric method gives an idea of the potential not the actual premium

price for each consumer that is how much extra the consumer would be

willing to pay for the brand.

Hedonic Regression are the extension of the Dollermetric approach, to run

the regression the researcher need to know the actual prices of the products

in a given product categories and their attribute. This method helps to

estimate the impact of each attribute and compute a predictable price. The

difference between the predicted and actual price is the price premium of the

brand and measure of the brand’s equity and the predicated price (Ulrich and

Taylor)

Burke; has created a brand equity index comprised of three components to

measure brand equity, best described as a molecule. In the brand equity

"molecule," three smaller components - like atoms - are so tightly interrelated

that they form the larger substance. In this case, the three "atoms" interacting

with and affecting each other are customer loyalty, image and value. The

brand equity molecule is the overarching device of retaining and attractingcustomers. Image and value perceptions pull in new customers while loyalty

and value retain current customers.

Laddering methods by Reynold and Gutman are a useful measure to elicit the

higher order benefits and values offered by a brand beyond its product-,

user-, usage-related attributes. It works by asking consumers to explain why

the first elicited associations (a brand’s attribute) are important for them (thus

eliciting its benefits) and then why these benefits are important (thus eliciting

the terminal values).

AGB Taylor Nelson; Brand Vision, a predictive measure of brand equity is

based on the Conversion Model, originally a religious model which profiled



consumers’ associations with a particular faith, from totally committed to

totally uncommitted. The model is used to consider consumers psychological

attitudes to brands and to assess where the brand sits in terms of ‘commitment profile’, with consumers shifting from less to more committed

groups. This helps to indicate which consumers are most likely to switch

brand loyalty. It is a useful tool to help predict future demand. The ultimate

purpose of Brand Vision is to predict future buying behavior by tracking

consumer perceptions, before buying behavior actually changes.

Brand Power Index (BPI) This particular model comprehensively analyzes

brand power according to the four indices of (1) brand image Power, (2)

Product Performance, (3) Ability to Trigger Repeaters and (4) Possibility of

Potential Trial. It allows us to ascertain current issues related to the brand in

question as well as future potential customers.

Bran Dynamics operates on a similar principle to Brand Vision, both

measures seeking to assist brand owners by tracking brand perceptions as a

means of predicting and anticipating brand building and brand maintenanceactivity. These are all single proprietary measures of brand potential or

strength. Like brand valuation they give an interesting perspective but not the

whole picture. The model divides customers into five levels of attachment –

Presence, Relevance, Performance, Advantage and Bonding. “Presence”

customers have only a basic awareness of the brand while “Bonded”

customers are intensely loyal, allocating a high proportion of their category

expenditure to the brand and often acting as advocates of the brand. It shows

loyalty distribution of a brand’s customer base and the dimensions on which

to focus in order to be able to migrate customers to higher levels of loyalty

(Millward Brown).



(UNCL)Unconscious clustering is an innovative method of scientifically

eliciting brand images unconsciously accumulated by consumers. Fuzzy

algorithms are used to process vague, elusive brand images. UNCL is appliedto support the formulation of brand image strategy by analyzing the true

strengths and weaknesses of brands. (David Hague & Jonathan Knowles)

LRW has developed a list of techniques used to measure brand equity, it

includes measuring penetration (brand awareness, advertising awareness,

trial and usage); profiling the customers by demographics, psychographics,

lifestyles, and usage patterns; and determining brand loyalty in terms of

usage, purchase intent and overall satisfaction. Consumers are faced with a

series of stimulated purchase choices between different combinations of

brands and Prices. The purpose is to evaluate the importance of those

attributes in the overall brand image, and determine how effectively the brand

delivers on them. More over what is the value of the brand as measured by its

impact on margins? What brand/price trade-offs are consumers willing to

make? How much of a premium price does the brand command?

Zaltman and Higie (1993) proposed a technique called ZMET (The Zaltman

Metaphor Elicitation Technique). According to them, more than eighty percent

of all the human communication is non-verbal. This technique use qualitative

methods to elicit the metaphors, constructions and mental models hat drive

the customer’s thinking and his behavior.

Sensitive Differentiation Method (SDM) is a method for eliciting from the deep

psyche of consumers minute differences in perceptions about competing

brands, similar advertising copy, images, or settings and of analyzing those

differences from a psychological perspective.



The Copernican Brand Equity Measurement and Management System™

utilizes a seven-factor model to calculate a single brand equity number for

each brand in each category. The first step is to measure each of the sevenfactors (brand permeation, quality, distinctiveness, value, personality,

potential and competitive inoculation) by using 3 to 5 questions where

respondents can see and rate brand logos, then weight each item by its

contribution to overall brand behavior and performance to produce one

inclusive assessment of brand equity for every brand studied. Finally, take

the brand equity and standardized it from 0 to 100 within a category to

express “share of equity”. Brand equity of a product across product categories

is measured by weighting equity scores in each category a brand competes in

by the dollar size of the category (Copernicus Marketing Consulting and

Research).

Equitrend is another measure of brand equity based directly on consumer

perceptions. It focuses on salience, the number of respondents with an

opinion about the brand, perceived quality , the average quality rating

among those who have an opinion about the brand, and user satisfaction,

the average quality rating among those consumers who use the brand

most often. The three measures are combined to give an absolute brand

equity score. Premium pricing, low price elasticity and higher usage can

apparently all be correlated to high Equitrend scores. Total Research also

claims to have identified a relationship between its brand equity scores

and the stock market returns of the brand owning companies concerned.

(David Haigh)



CHAPTER: 3

PRIMARY DATA

Primary data collection is necessary when a researcher cannot find the

data needed in secondary sources. There are several methods for

collecting primary data e.g. observation, focus group, personal or

telephone interviews or surveys and self administered questionnaire.

Questionnaire is a systemic gathering of information from the respondents

for the understanding and predicting some aspect of perceptions and

behaviors of the population of interest. A set of 20 questions relevant to

the topic is designed for this research.

Method of sample survey is used in the collection of primary data. The

sample size is of 150 respondents. Cluster sampling procedure was used

in which the population (Peshawar) is divided in to subgroups or clusters

on the basic of different areas of the city. Areas selected are; City, Saddar,

Town and Hayatabad. The main focus of the research is on the

housewives because this product (washing detergents) is usually used by

the female households.



The questionnaire will provide primary data on brand awareness,

attitudes, image, beliefs, post and intended behaviors, knowledge and

other descriptive items. Details of the questionnaire are as follows;

In the first question respondents were asked to recall any three brands of

washing detergents. This question is meant to know that, which brands

are there in consumers’ consideration set and whether Ariel brand is

included in it or not. Results given in table3.1

WashingDetergents

1st Recall 2nd Recall 3rd Recall

Ariel 51% 27% 15%

Surf Excel 22% 28% 19%

Wheel 11% 12% 21%

Bonus 9% 8% 14%

Express 4% 9% 14%

Brite Total 0% 5% 12%

Tide 0% 5% 2%

Others 4% 0% 3%



Table: 3.1

Almost 50% of the respondents recalled Ariel at the first place. Other

Brands which are recalled are Surf excel bonus, wheel, express, etc.

shown in fig 3.1.

BRAND RECALL

Wheel

11%

Bonus

9%

Ariel51%

Surf excel

22%

Other

3%

Express

4%

Ariel Surf excel Wheel Bonus Express Other

Figure 3.1

In the second question respondents were asked that how much they prefer

a branded washing detergents over unbranded ones. They were asked to

rate their attitude on a six point scale. Most of the respondent was on the

most preference side of the given scale. Respondents’ ratings are given in

table 3.2.

Branded VersusUnbrandedProducts

Ratings % age

1 5



2 8

3 13

4 16

5 19

6 38

Table: 3.2

The third question from the respondents was that whether they have

heard of Ariel brand and from which source did they hear it first from? This

is meant to check which is the major source of information (brand

awareness or knowledge) for the consumers. In this case 73%

respondents said that they heard about the brand from advertisement and

rest of them mentioned other sources like relatives and friends, shown in

fig 3.2

Figure 3.2

Source of Brand Awareness

73%

12%

9%

6%

Ads

Relatives

Friends

Other source



To reduce the chances of biasness in the questionnaire question 4 is

added, in order to give an impression (in the beginning) to the

respondents that the questionnaire is not about the brand Ariel only.

Otherwise the answers of following questions would have been obvious.

The question was about Surf Excel which is another brand in the same

product category. Respondents were asked whether they have used the

brand or not. 79% of the respondents said “Yes” and the remaining 21%

said “No”. (See figure 3.3)

Surf Excel

Yes

79%

No

21%

Yes

No

Figure: 3.3

Question 5 and 6 was about two different marketing programs of the

Brand Ariel. One is “Maa” TV Program which is currently not on-air and

another is “Help the needy Campaign which runs every year in the month

of Ramazan. These questions are meant to check brand awareness,



whether respondents know which brand is sponsoring these programs,

shown in table 3.4.

MarketingPrograms

“Maa” TVProgram

Help the NeedyCampaign

Ariel 82% 61%

Surf Excel 12% 12%

Safeguard 4% 6%

Sufi Soap 2% 3%

Don’t know 6% 18%

Table: 3.3

82% of the responded knew that “Maa” TV program was sponsored byAriel, similarly 61% of the respondents selected Ariel for “Help the needy

campaign”.

Question number seven is meant to check that how effective these

marketing programs are creating positive image in the mind of customers

and what brand perception in their mind. (Figure 3.4)

Purpose%age

Marketing 48%

Benefit of needy

31%

Other reason 6%

Don’t know 15%

Purpose Of the Campaign

0.48

0.31

0.06

0.15

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Marketing Benefits of

the needy

Other

reason

Don’t know



Table: 3.5

Table 3.4

Fig: 3.4

In the eighth question respondents were asked what is it that Ariel

focusing in its advertisements, the options are whiteness, cleanliness,

tidiness and softness. Majority of the respondents selected cleanlinessand whiteness, shown in figure 3.5

Ariel's Focus in Advertisement

Softness

5%

Cleanlines

s

49%

Don’t

Know

4%Whiteness

32%

Tidiness

10%

Whiteness

Cleanliness

Softness

Tidiness

Don’t Know

Fig: 3.5

In the ninth question respondents were asked that why blue and green

speckles are added in the product. This question is meant to check



whether consumers are aware of the Brand’s attributes; results shown in

figure 3.6 and table 3.6.

Fig: 3.6

Brand Attributes

11%

12%

41%

8%

9% 19%

A B C D E F

A 11% To make the powder attractive

B 12% As a fabric softener andsmoother

C 41%To remove tough stains andgive whiteness to your clothes

D 8%To match product’s color with itspackage

E 9% To protect colors of the cloth

F 19% Don’t know



Table: 3.6

In question ten, respondents are asked what you would do if Ariel is

not available in the shop, buy another brand or go to another shop to

buy it. This question is meant to test favorability and brand loyalty. 29%

said that they will go to another shop to buy it and 71% said that they

will go for another brand. Out of these 71 percent, 45% mentioned Surf

excel as a substitute brand for Ariel, 20% wheel, 19% bonus, 12%

Brite and remaining respondents mentioned other brands e.g. Tide,

Express, shown in figure 3.7.

Figure 3.7

Brands %

Surf 45

Wheel 20

Bonus 19

Brite 12

others 4

Substitute Brands

Surf

Excel,

45%

Brite,

12%

Wheel,

20%

Bonus,

19%

Other,

4%

Surf Excel Bonus Brite Wheel Other



In the 11th question respondents were given some feature of the brand

Ariel and then asked to select those features which they think are most

and least unique in it. This question is meant to test uniqueness of brand

associations. The most unique feature which most of the respondents

selected is Ariel’s ability to remove tough stains that is 35%, the least

unique feature is ease of availability which is 31%. Other most and least

unique features are given in the figure 3.8.



10%

22%

35%

20%

13%

20%

31%

27%

17%

5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Features

Unique Features of Ariel

Reasonable price 10% 20%

Ease of availability 22% 31%

Remove tough stains 35% 27%

Successful marketing

campaign

20% 17%

Other 13% 5%

Most Unique Least Unique

Fig: 3.8

In question twelve, respondents were asked that which of following feature

do they believe are really present in Ariel. The options are; removes

stains, remove tough stains better than other powders or soaps, makes



cloths softer, protects color or other. This question is meant to test

strength of brand associations in their mind.35% of the respondents

selected that it removes stain better than other detergents as the featurethat is most found in Ariel. The feature that is least found according to the

sample is its ability to remove stains. Results are shown in the figure 3.9.

33%

17%

13%

19%

14%

4%

20%

35%

12%

19%

8%

6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Least Most

Features

Features Present in Ariel

Stains removing

Removes Stains

better than others

Makes cloth softer

Whiter cloths

Protects colors

Other

Figure: 3.9



In the 13 question, respondents were asked that what the parent company

of Ariel is. This question is to know the brand associations (relating the

parent company). 59% of respondents knew that Procter and Gamble isthe parent company. 18% of them didn’t know about it. Some of them

selected other companies, shown in figure: 3.10

Parent Company of Ariel

18%

4%

19%

59%

0%

P&GUnilever

Nestle'

Reckitt Benckiser

Don’t know

Figure: 3.10

In the question 14 respondents are asked that would they still buy

purchase Ariel if price per unit goes up. This question is to check the

brand loyalty and preference. More than 50% respondents said that they

will continue to by Ariel even the price goes up by 5 to 10 Rupees and 18

percent of the respondents said that they will continue to buy if its price

increases at all. (Fig: 3.11)



Consumers' Switching Tendency

3%

15%

53%

11%

18%

5 to 10 Rs

10 to 15 Rs

15 to 20 Rs

Stop buying

Continue

Buying

Figure 3.11

Question 15 and 16 are linked with each other. In question 15

respondents are asked if they have watched Ariel’s advertisement where

Tariq Aziz claims that Ariel gives better cleaning to your clothes than

ordinary soap or other (expensive) washing powders. 79% of the

respondents said “Yes” that they did watch the advertisement and the

remaining 21% of the respondents said “No”, shown in figure 3.12

Tariq Aziz Advertisement

79%

21%

Yes

No

Figure 3.12



In question 16 respondents are asked do they really believe in what Ariel

claims in its advertisement. This question is used to check the brand

performance of Ariel. 77% of the respondents said “yes” that it does give abetter cleaning than other detergent and 33% said “No” that it is not so;

shown in figure 3.13

Ariel's claim in advertisment

70%

30%

Yes

No

Figure 3.13

In question 17 respondents were given some options and then asked

which kind of packaging you would like for Ariel; the options given to them

are; Plastic Bag, paper bag, plastic container with lid, paper box. 76

percent of the respondents liked plastic container with lid. 25 % want to

have Ariel in plastic bag. Some of the respondents also selected the

remaining two options; results are shown in figure 3.14.



Ariel Packaging

25%

67%

2%6%

Plastic Bag

Paper Bag

Paper Box

Plastic

container

Figure 3.14

Question 18 is; does Ariel damage your hands? 69% of the respondents

said “No” and 31% said that yes it does damage hands (figure 3.15).

No

37%

Yes

63%

Yes

No

Figure 3.15

In the 19th question respondents are asked what the purpose of

introducing different packages of Ariel is. The options given in the

questionnaire are;



A = To provide variety in price range

B = To provide variety in the product

C = To cater different needs of different consumers

D = To attract customers

E = Don’t know

37% of the respondent said that the purpose of doing so is to provide

variety in price range, 29% of the respondent said to cater different

needs of different consumers,21% said to attract customers, 7% said to

provide variety in the product. The remaining 6% didn’t know the

purpose, shown in the figure 3.16.

Different Size Packages

37%

7%29%

21%

6% A

B

C

D

E

Figure 3.16

In the last question respondents are asked to rate Ariel in terms of Quality

and Price on the given scale of six points. (1 being low and 6 being high in

case of quality and in case of the price starting from 1, being reasonable

up to 7 being highly expensive).



This question is meant to check the brand perceptions or brand value;

results shown in table 3.8

Ratings Quality Price

1 0% 8%

2 0% 8%

3 4% 15%

4 16% 26%

5 49% 20%

6 31% 23%

Table: 3.8

CHAPTER: 4



ANALYSIS

Measuring brand equity requires, uncovering the associations consumers

have for a brand, determining the strength, favorability and uniqueness of

those associations, and assessing the impact of brand knowledge on

consumer response to marketing programs. No single approach can give all

the answers to a correct valuation because of the qualitative nature of the

research. The starting point is to understand the purpose of the valuation

and then compare it with the results that we got form the customers through

questionnaire.

In this section all the responses of the customers (already summarized in

the previous chapter) are analyzed to assess different components of brand

equity (i.e. brand associations, brand awareness, brand image, brand

loyalty, perceived quality and organizational associations) and have tried to

evaluate the differential effect that these components have on the

consumers’ overall response (i.e. favorability) towards the brand Ariel.

Moreover the effectiveness of the Ariel’s marketing programs been

assessed and also the gaps between the indented (company) and actual

(customer) perceptions regarding the brand (Ariel) have been identified.

The first dimension (or the component of the brand equity) in the research is

the brand awareness. Research has shown that most of the respondents

recalled Ariel, which means that the brand is in their consideration set,

which is the outcome of high brand awareness. However, we can not

conclude here that if respondents recalled the brand it would necessarily

lead them to buy it but we can say that Ariel can be a choice among the

brands that are considered for purchase. (Results summarized in table 4.1).

Detergent 1st Recall 2nd Recall 3rd Recall

Ariel 51% 27% 15%

Others 49% 73% 85%



Table 4.1

Brand associations play an important role in the development of brand

equity. Assessing brand association gives an insightful picture of how a

brand is perceived by consumers. In the research different brandassociations were assessed which are related to product’s attributes,

benefits and attitude.

Respondents were asked to give the most unique feature and the feature

that is actually there in the Ariel. Research has shown that people consider

Ariel as a detergent which removes tough stains and better than other

detergents which are available in market (Peshawar). These attributes or

feature affect the customer’s overall attitude towards the brand which is

important in the evaluation of the brand equity. According to their ratings

(shown in table 4.2) on the scale, Ariel is a high quality product but also an

expensive one (not affordable for all consumer categories) so it can lead to

an unfavorable attitude, especially if the customer is price conscious.

Ratings Quality Price



1 0% 8%

2 0% 8%

3 4% 15%

4 16% 26%

5 49% 20%

6 31% 23%

Table: 4.2

The Consumer perceptions of brand values come from many sources, but

essentially it is based on ideas, which may be rational or emotional and are

implanted in their mind by a company’s different marketing programs. These

marketing programs can make positive brand evaluations and attitudes.

Initially, Ariel had two marketing programs which did help the brand in

creating positive association and image in the mind of the customers.

Despite of the fact that Ariel’s “Maa” program is not on air currently, 82%

people still know about it and have positive associations with it. Research

has also shown that Ariel’s “Help the Needy” campaign was also a

successful marketing program but still respondent think that the program

was only meant for the marketing purpose and not for helping the needy

ones, some way it did have created some negative perceptions in the mind

of customer, which is negatively affecting the overall evaluation of the brand

equity.

By putting Ariel in direct competition with other brands, Ariel‘s “Maa” and

“Help the Needy” campaign was also a key tactic in the brand’s positioning

and one of the reasons that Ariel has been so successful is that it

concentrated on building a powerful brand by associating emotional values

to the product.



Respondents also have a positive response towards Ariel recent

advertisement in which Tariq Aziz is focusing on the product attributes and

claims that it gives better cleaning than other products, 79% of therespondents is satisfied with claim of the Advertisement. Research has also

shown that more than 50% respondents associate Ariel with “tidiness” and

“cleanliness” which is not the brand association that the company intends to

focus on, which is “whiteness.” Moreover, some respondents (31%) have a

negative perception that Ariel damages ones hands after washing so it can

be a threat to Ariel’s positive brand equity.

Another important component of the brand equity is brand loyalty, to assess

this component’ respondents were asked two questions. In a question they

were asked what if Ariel brand is not available in the shop and if the price

increases by given units. Research has shown that 29% of the respondent

would go to another shop for the brand and 50% of the respondent said that

they will continue to buy Ariel even the price goes up by 5 to 10 Rupees

thus giving a premium price range for the company. On overall the

respondents had favorable attitude towards the brand and have high brand

loyalty.

Research also revealed that only 41% of the respondents knew that the

purpose of adding blue and green speckles in the product is to remove

tough stains and give whiteness to your clothes and the rest of the

respondents did not about the benefits that this feature.

One interesting observation in the research was related to the

organizational associations. One question was to check whether

respondents know about the parent company of the brand Ariel or not. It

was noted that respondents who knew about the parent company have

rated (or evaluated) positively or favorably the brand Ariel and discounted

the negative information relating the brand. So we can say here that



consumers observe the performance or brand equity of the parent

company (P&G) and then relate the performance or brand equity of the

product (Ariel) with it, thus resulting in overall positive brand equity.

Research has also shown that consumer consider Ariel a bit expensive

but still a high quality product. The high quality perception may be

because of presence of the unique features present in it or consumers

may infer the (high) quality of product on the basis of (high) price.

One important fact is that a consumer repeatedly exposed to

advertisements and favorable word-of-mouth for a brand may develop a

strong preference for the brand but may not be a prospective user for

other reasons (e.g. high price and other functional attributes or usage

imagery).

RECOMMENDATIONS



Ariel marketing programs have been very successful in the past so it should

also continue to sponsor such programs in future which will definitely help it

to create and retain positive image in the mind of customers.

Research has shown that Ariel is perceived to have (a bit) high price but

also of high quality so Ariel should continue to with this strategy because

consumers usually associate high price with good quality. Beside, it should

highlight those unique aspects in its advertisements that create value in the

minds of customers and could justify its high price.

Ariel can also use the name of its parent’s company in its advertisement in

order to maximize its brand equity, as from the research it is clear that

consumers associate a brand positively with the company’s good image

thus increasing its overall (positive) brand equity.

There should be a separate “hand wash” product that contains ingredients

which go smooth on hands and also give the same results that we get from

machine wash.

Changes in the formulation of products is required (to remove or replace

dangerous chemicals e.g. high level of bleach) which is too strong for the

clothes and damages the hands after wash. After doing so it l should

communicate to the consumers (to overcome their negative perceptions)

about its new product through its ads by comparing its old product with the

new one which is milder on both their clothes and hands, thus giving them a

relative advantage.

Ariel should focus on “whiteness” and “brightness” in its advertisements

(e.g. change its slogan which communicate the objective quality) and show



that how it is different from the other competitive detergents available in the

market in terms of quality and other features.

Ariel can also change its packaging, e.g. it can introduce its product in

plastic container with a lid which will be convenient to use (also avoids the

wastage of powder) and can easily be refilled by plastic bags already

available in the market.

Ariel should focus in its advertisement on its product related features i.e. it

should effectively highlight to its consumers the purpose of adding green

and blue speckles in the product and how it removes tough stains and give

whiteness to the clothes.

Questionnaire

Respondent’s Name………………………………………………..

Gender….………………………… Age……………........………



Occupation …………………… Income level ……………………

Q: 1) Name any three brands of washing detergent that comes in your

mind?

1) ……………………. 2)……………………. 3)……………………

Q: 2) While buying in this product category (washing powder), how much

do you prefer a branded detergent over an ordinary unbranded detergent?

LeastMostPreferredPreferred

Q: 3) Have you ever heard of Brand Ariel?

1) No 2) Yes, then from where?

a) From a friend b) An advertisement.

c) A relative d) Any other source

Q: 4) Have u ever used Surf Excel?

1) Yes 2) No

Q: 5) “ Maa” T.V program hosted by Saniya Saeed , reminds you of abrand name.

1: Safe Guard 2: Ariel 3: Sufi Soap 4: Surf Excel

1 2 3 4 5 6



Q: 6) “Help the needy campaign” was sponsored by which brand?

1: Surf Excel 2: Safe Guard 3: Sufi Soap 4: Ariel

Q: 7) Do you really think that it was for the benefit of the needy people or

was just for the marketing purpose (sales) of the product?

1) Marketing purpose 2) Benefit of needy people

3) Any other reason 4) don’t know

Q: 8) What is it that Ariel focusing in its advertisements?

1) Whiteness 2) Softness 3) Cleanliness 4) Tidiness

Q: 9) What is the purpose of adding Blue and Green speckles in Arielwashing powder?

1) To make the powder attractive

2) As a fabric softener and smoother

3) To remove tough stains and give whiteness to your clothes

4) To match product’s color with its package.

5) To protect colors of the cloth

6) Don’t have any idea

Q: 10) Which of the following features/attributes do you believe are unique

in Ariel as compared to competitors’ brands? (Write 1 in front of the

feature that is most unique and 5 for the feature that is least unique)

1) Reasonable price



2) Ease of availability

3) Ability to remove tough stains

4) Aggressive and successful marketing campaign5) Other

Q: 11) Which of the following features do you believe are present in Ariel?

(Write 1 in front of the feature that is found the most in Ariel and 5 for the

feature found the least)

1) Removes Stains

2) Removes tough stains better than other powders and soaps

3) Makes clothes softer

4) Makes white clothes whiter

5) Protects colors

6) Other

Q: 12) If Ariel is not available in the shop what would you do?

1) Purchase another brand (Yes / No)

(If yes, identify brand)…………………

2) Go to another shop to purchase Ariel

Q: 13) Would you still purchase Ariel if price per unit goes up by;

1) Rs. 5 – 10

2) Rs. 10 – 15

3) Rs. 15 – 204) Will stop purchasing Ariel if price increased at all

5) Will continue to use Ariel regardless of price increase

Q: 14) What is the parent company (manufacturer) of the brand Ariel?

1) Procter and Gamble 2) Lever Brothers 3) Nestle



4) Reckitt Benckiser 5) Don’t know

Q: 14) Have you watched Ariel’s advertisement where Tariq Aziz claims

that Ariel gives better cleaning to your clothes than ordinary soap or other

(expensive) washing powders?

1) Yes 2) No

Q: 15 Do you really believe in what Ariel claims in that ad?

1) Yes 2) No

Q: 17) Does Ariel damage your hands? (Causes allergies or skin irritation)

1) Yes 2) No

Q: 18) You would like to have Ariel in………

1) Plastic Bag

2) Paper bag

3) Paper box

4) Plastic container with lid

5) Anything you suggest

Q: 19) What is the purpose of introducing packages of different sizes?

1) To provide variety in the product

2) To provide variety in price range3) To cater different needs of different consumers

4) To attract customers

Q: 20) How do you rate Ariel in terms of;



a) Quality

Low

High

b) Price

ReasonableExpensive

…………………………..Thank You……………………………

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6



REFERENCES

Books

Kevin Lane Keller (1998) “Strategic Brand Management: Building, measuring

and managing brand equity” (Prentice Hall Inc, New Jersey)

Schiffman, L.G and Kanuk, L. L. (1996) “Consumer Behavior” (New Delhi:

Prentice-Hall of India)

Cateora, P and Graham, J (1999) “International Marketing” (New York:

McGraw Hill)

Aaker, D.A (1991), “Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the value of aBrand Name (New York: the Free Press)

Philip Kotler (1994) “Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning,

Implementation, and Controlling” (Prentice Hall Inc, New Jersey)

Websites

www.benchmarkresearch.com, “Introduction of brand equity research”

http://www.benchmarkresearch.com/

http://www.benchmarkresearch.com/



Kevin Lane Keller (1998) “Strategic Brand Management: Building,

measuring and managing brand equity” (Prentice Hall Inc, New Jersey)

Kotler, P and Armstrong, G (1996), “Principles of Marketing” (New Delhi:

Prentice-Hall of India)

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

Cateora, P (1996) “International Marketing” (New York: McGraw Hill)

Schiffman, L.G and Kanuk, L. L. (1996) “Consumer Behavior” (New Delhi:Prentice-Hall of India)

Stanton, W. J. Etzel, \l.J and Walker. BJ (1994) “Fundamentals of Marketing”

(New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.)

Documents

Final Report1 Branding