MALAYSIAN FAST FOOD BRAND EQUITY - …cld.persiangig.com/preview/vuz4MCjuhD/12.Malaysian Fast Food Bran… · LITERATURE REVIEW Gil, Andrés and ... of quality perception, brand awareness,

Proceedings of the Australian Academy of Business and Social Sciences Conference 2014

(in partnership with The Journal of Developing Areas)

ISBN 978-0-9925622-0-5

MALAYSIAN FAST FOOD BRAND EQUITY

Teck Ming Tan*

Taylor’s University, Malaysia

Ismail Hishamuddin

Multimedia University, Malaysia

Rasiah Devinaga

Multimedia University, Malaysia

ABSTRACT

Most Malaysian research defines the brand equity dimensions. This paper addresses this gap by developing an empirical research

model with better understanding of sequential relationships between the dimensions of brand equity within the Malaysian fast

food context. A total of 585 self-administrated questionnaires were distributed via non-probability sampling across five fast food

restaurants. The results indicate perceived quality (PQ) and brand awareness (BA) are the initial stage of brand building. Brand

familiarity, brand image, and brand trust serve as important role in enlightening the relationships between PQ, BA, and attitudinal

brand loyalty (ABL). ABL plays as a key variable for explicating the relationships between other dimensions and overall brand

equity. Future research could explore the possibility of a longitudinal study through repeated observations, and invariance test

across different samples could be conducted to make certain the components of measurement model and structural model are

remained equivalent.

JEL Classifications: JEL M13, M31 Keywords: Brand equity, Brand familiarity, Brand trust, Fast food, Sequential order, Malaysia

Corresponding Author’s Email Address: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION

In 2009, global fast food had reached a market value of $201.1 billion, with growth rate of 3.1%, the volume reached

208.1 billion of transactions, counted as 3.9% growth rate (Datamonitor, 2010), and it was considered as an

important industry due to its global trend (Van Zyl et al., 2010). However, the fast food market share in Malaysia

was subjugated by foreign brands (Aseambankers, 2007), reason being lack of expertise in branding and marketing

among local brands (Marshall Cavendish, 2009).

Up-to-date, the existing literature on brand equity model within the fast food industry was still sparse (Tan

et al., 2011). Besides, the identification of relationship among brand equity dimensions was not clearly extended by

the implication of marketing theory (Gil et al., 2007; Konecnik and Gartner, 2007). Such limitations have caused

ambiguity in managing and predicting the tangible and intangible characteristics of fast food brand. For instance:

“Are there any pre-determinate constructs among the fast food brand equity dimensions?” “Are there any direct

contribution of a) each dimensions b) certain dimensions to fast food brand equity?

In Malaysia, several research were conducted on brand equity framework in the consumer-goods industry

(Norjaya et al., 2007), banking industry (Norzalita and Norjaya, 2010), entrepreneur perspective (Zainuddin et al.,

2009), small to medium-sized enterprises (Maznah and Mohd Noor, 2010), but there was lack of research that had

been done relating to Malaysian fast food industries. Thus, the main objective of this research is to develop a

theoretical model which identified the relationships among brand equity dimensions within Malaysian fast food

context. The present study had applied Gil et al.’s (2007) brand equity model into fast food context and proposed a

modified model that was meaningful, both conceptually and statistically. Consequently, this research extended the

understanding of fast food brand equity phenomena and its measurement, by exploring the sequential relationships

between the brand equity dimensions.



ISBN 978-0-9925622-0-5

LITERATURE REVIEW

Gil, Andrés and Salinas’s Theory of Brand Equity (2007)

Gil et al.’s (2007) theory was adopted to generate a meaningful research in examining the attitudes of Malaysian fast

food consumers. The model was adequately extended and integrated i.e. the theory of both brand equity (Aaker,

1991) and hierarchy of effects (Lavidge and Steiner, 1961). Gil et al. (2007) clearly identified the relationships

among the dimension of consumer-based brand equity based on the explanation of cognitive-affective-conative,

which served as a justification for the establishment of structural parameter estimate that provided better explanation

than some of the recent studies (e.g. Hess et al., 2011; Patwardhan and Balasubramanian, 2011; Pike et al., 2010;

Sanyal and Datta, 2011). Secondly, Gil et al. (2007) categorized the dimensions of brand equity with theoretical

justification. For instance, perceived quality and brand awareness/association were considered as cognitive

constructs, while brand loyalty was considered conative construct. The main advantage of this approach was this

could lead to the better development of measurement items, which to ensure there were clear operational definition

of the constructs and no overlapping of measurement items (Gil et al., 2007). Thirdly, Gil et al.’s (2007) study used a

sample of actual consumers (non-student). Consequently the results were more open to generalization (Pappu and

Quester, 2008). Besides, the selection of products/brands was based on the level of involvement that derived from

the perception of consumer rather than the inherent characteristic of the product itself (Malär et al., 2011). For

instance, they conducted a pre-test to indicate the degree of brand familiarity and level of usage. This was because

Yoo et al. (2000) stated that if respondents had known and experienced the brand well, they would have been able to

provide reliable and valid responses to the questionnaire.

FIGURE 1. THE THEORY OF BRAND EQUITY BY GIL, ANDRÉS AND SALINAS (2007)

Different Dimensions of Brand Equity across Industries

Different industries contributed dissimilarity of brand equity dimensions. According to Yoo et al.’s (2000), perceived

quality, brand awareness/association, and brand loyalty dimensions were based on athletic shoes, camera film, and

television sets. Angel and Manuel (2005) replaced brand association as brand image in durable goods study. Besides,

Norjaya et al. (2007) classified the brand equity dimensions of household electrical appliances as brand loyalty,

brand distinctiveness and brand association/awareness. Wang et al. (2008) suggested that global brand equity

consisted of quality perception, brand awareness, brand resonance, and corporation ability association. Xu and

Andrew (2009) defined the conceptual framework of hotel brand equity as brand loyalty, brand association, brand

awareness and quality of experience. Thus, researchers have to monitor the dimensions of brand equity within the

specific industry (Christodoulides and de Chernatony, 2010). As for fast food industry, brand familiarity (Schlosser,

2002) and brand trust (Delgado-Ballester & Munuera-Aleman, 2005) were proposed as additional dimensions as they

indicated as important dimensions in the context of fast food (Tan et al., 2011).



ISBN 978-0-9925622-0-5

Conceptual Framework

Muller and Woods (1994) pointed out the importance of restaurant brand management instead of product

management. They proposed the concept for the development of brand image depended on the brand name, which

was vital in maintaining restaurant business. Muller (1998) highlighted that restaurant firms should focus on three

key areas, which were the execution of service delivery, quality products and services, and the establishment of

symbolic and evocative image. He further argued that these strong combinations had been attributed to opportunity

for accusing price premium and developing customer loyalty.

Although the brand equity concepts for Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) were conceptualized differently,

however, both theories defined brand equity from a customer perspective and emphasized that consumer-based brand

equity provided value to the firms and consumers. As a result, brand image was reasonably proposed to replace

brand association because fast food industry was grouped under the hospitality industry. Furthermore, brand

association had been substituted with brand image in most of the hospitality research (see Henry et al., 2010;

Kayaman and Arasli 2007; Kim and Kim, 2004, 2005).

Referring to consumers’ brand knowledge, the assessment of brand personality was expected to be affected

by consumers’ knowledge and familiarity (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987). Furthermore, Aaker (1996) argued that

brand recognition reflected familiarity and linking as acquired from past exposure. As a result, it was safe to include

brand familiarity. With respect to brand trust, it was considered as a vital dimension to be evaluated in the fast food

industry (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman, 2005), the reason being to evaluate the affective response on the

consistency of business operation and performance.

According to Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001), two perspectives of brand loyalty are behavioral brand

loyalty and attitudinal brand loyalty. Attitudinal brand loyalty was selected because it was based on consumers’

commitment rather than consumers’ actual purchase behavior (Bloemer and Kasper, 1995), which served as an

important and relevant outcome of other brand equity dimensions, and also was indicated as the closest element to

the concept of brand equity (Zinnbauer and Bakay, 2004). On the other hand, behavioral brand loyalty was referred

as spurious loyalty, such as simple repeated purchase behavior without emotional or psychological bonding (Bloemer

and Kasper, 1995). Consequently, the dimensions of consumer-based brand equity for this study were perceived

quality, brand awareness, brand familiarity, brand trust, brand image and attitudinal brand loyalty.

Hypotheses Development

FIGURE 2. PROPOSED RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

Note: BA=Brand awareness, PQ=Perceived quality, BF=Band familiarity, BI=Brand image, BT=Brand trust, ABL=Attitudinal

brand loyalty, BE=Brand equity.



ISBN 978-0-9925622-0-5

H1: The Higher the Awareness of a Brand, the Greater the Brand Familiarity

Gursoy and McCleary (2004) argued brand familiarity was formed by the acquired information through external

sources, for instance word-of-mouth, advertising, and internal sources (such as the use of product). Researchers

stressed out that the higher the brand awareness, the greater the brand familiarity and reputation (Cobb-Walgren et

al., 1995; D’Souza and Rao, 1995). Researchers also proved that brand awareness was the dominant selection

process among consumers (Reynolds and Olson, 1995). This could be supported by Alba and Hutchinson’s (1987)

argument, where a consumer’s recognition and recall of a certain brand name would build a sense to familiarity.

According to Keller (2003), brand awareness is related to the strength of the brand elements such as logo, symbol,

character, packaging, slogan and so on, that store in consumers’ memory. For this reason, fast food brand elements

instantly processed once the brand was retrieved from consumers’ mind, consequently, the repeated frequency of fast

food brand information processing was stored as the cognitive representations of knowledge.

H2: The Higher the Awareness of a Brand, the Greater the Brand Image

Studies indicated that a low level of brand awareness could significantly result in purchase decisions, particularly

when consumers had to make simple rule of decision (Hoyer and Brown, 1990; Petty and Cacioppo, 1986), for

instance fast food. Besides, brand awareness insisted that consumers had to have greater association with its brand

image; it served as a vital element in formatting and presenting a strong brand in consumers’ memory (Keller, 1993).

This could be further supported by brand awareness generated differences in information processing, and these

differences, which were created by brand associations in the consumer’s memory, directly affected brand image

(Hoyer and Brown, 1990). Studies had supported these statements with the evidence that brand awareness positively

affected brand image in consumer goods product (Angel and Manuel, 2005; Esch et al., 2006). Therefore, brand

awareness serves as a vital variable to explain the formation of brand image in the Malaysian context of fast food

industry.

H3: The Higher the Familiarity of a Brand, the Greater the Brand Image

Researchers suggested that consumers evaluated the brand more positively when they were familiar with the brand

and therefore created favorable images for familiar brand (Janiszewski, 1993; Holden and Vanhuele, 1999). Ho and

Chong (2003) suggested that the level of brand familiarity and consumption experiences influenced consumers

towards brand attributes; a component of brand image (Keller, 1993). For this reason, consumers individually

assessed each descriptive feature of characterized products or services based on familiarity and experience that they

had with the brand (Ha and Perks, 2005). Consequently, the higher level of brand familiarity led to the better

evaluation of brand attributes, which ultimately contributed to higher level of brand image (Keller, 2003). The above

statement could be supported by Zajonc and Markus’ (1982) study; they proposed that brand familiarity led

consumers to have favorable evaluations on a brand. When a consumer was confronted with a familiar brand, he or

she had felt emotional closeness and confidence and increased the level of consumer experience, thus drove to

greater formation process of brand image (Zajonc and Markus, 1982). Therefore, when a consumer was confronted

with a familiar fast food brand, he or she felt emotional closeness and confidence. Subsequently, enhance in the

association of the brand in consumers’ mind, and positively affected consumers’ image towards the fast food brand.

H4: The Higher the Familiarity of a Brand, the Greater the Brand Trust

Campbell and Keller (2003) advocated that increasing brand familiarity through accumulated customer experiences

not only created a knowledge structure for the consumer, but also built up consumer confidence about the brand (i.e.

positive evaluation), which led to brand trust (Zajonc and Markus, 1982; Sen and Johnson, 1997). These could be

further supported by the development of familiarity which leads to higher level of brand trust (Keller, 1998).

According to Alba and Hutchinson (1987), brand familiarity could be derived from customers’ experience. In other

words, brand experience can be served or used as criteria for brand familiarity. As a result, brand familiarity had

significant influenced on brand trust because of positive customer experience (Fullerton, 2005; Papadopoulou et al.,

2001; Smith and Wheeler, 2002). Consequently, the increases in fast food brand familiarity through accumulated

customer experiences and greater amount of time spent in processing brand information were not only created better

knowledge structure, but also build up confidence and trust for the fast food brand.



ISBN 978-0-9925622-0-5

H5: The Higher the Perceived Quality of a Brand, the Greater the Brand Image

According to brand knowledge (Keller, 1993), good evaluation of perceived quality had increased brand association.

This was because when there is a good perception of quality, a positive brand image had been created as there were

strong, favorable, and unique associations linked to the brand due to greater brand attributes, benefits, and attitudes

as perceived by consumers. This could be supported by Kayaman and Arasli (2007), where tangibility, reliability and

empathy (perceived quality in service industry) showed positive effect on brand image in a hotel study. Therefore,

the perception of quality served as an important antecedent of brand image creation in the Malaysian context of fast

food industry.

H6: The Higher the Perceived Quality of a Brand, the Greater the Attitudinal Brand loyalty

Gil et al. (2007) stated brand loyalty preceded brand awareness, brand associations and perceived quality. They

argued cognitive construct (perceived quality) had influenced affection, and affective response would drive to

conative (attitudinal brand loyalty) and led to purchase decision. Consequently, causal effect could be identified

(Chiou et al., 2002). On the other hand, Roberts et al. (2004) had also applied the concept of purchase decision stages

to rationalize the relationships between perceived quality and loyalty. In this case, they had identified perceived

quality as information evaluation stage, which proceeded to purchase decision stage, referring to loyalty. Thus,

attitudinal brand loyalty could serve as precede construct of perceived quality in the context of Malaysian fast food

industry.

H7: The Higher the Image of a Brand, the Greater the Brand Trust

A positive corporate image such as high competence and reliability would lead to higher level of consumer trust

(Sichtmann, 2007). In the retail setting, Esch et al. (2006) confirmed that there was a direct impact of brand image on

a consumer’s brand trust, and both direct and indirect influences of brand image on current and future purchases. For

these reasons, this study had proposed that brand image had lead to higher level of trust as perceived by consumers.

The hypothesis was in conjunction with online study (Esch et al., 2006; Yoon, 2002), hotel study (Back, 2005;

Kandampully and Hu, 2007), financial study (Flavián et al., 2006), and restaurant study (Lee et al., 2005). Therefore,

the existence of fast food brand image was considered as vital criteria for the development of brand trust.

H8: The Higher the Image of a Brand, the Greater the Attitudinal Brand Loyalty

In a financial study, Flavián et al. (2006) had stressed that brand image was one of the fundamental in building a

sincere relationship of trust between customer satisfaction and loyalty. If customers had favorable images towards a

certain brand, this process would exercise a positive influence on the customer’s trust (Esch et al., 2006; Flavián et

al., 2006) and eventually reinforced their loyalty (Back, 2005; Kandampully and Hu, 2007). As a result, the image of

fast food brand could be classified an essential predictor for the formation of attitudinal brand loyalty in the context

of Malaysian fast food industry.

H9: The Higher the Trust of a Brand, the Greater the Attitudinal Brand Loyalty

Rauyruen and Miller (2007) argued that in order to gain loyalty of customers, one must first gain their trust. For this

reason, brand trust had been recognized as a prominent variable leading to long-term relationship with customers,

which in turn affected brand loyalty in a positive way (Sichtmann, 2007; Matzler et al., 2008). This could be further

supported by many studies which proved that there was positive consumers trust on customer loyalty (Harris and

Goode, 2004). Therefore, fast food brand trust was the key variable to maintain a loyal relationship with customers,

and served as an important criterion in forming consumers’ positive behavioral intention, such as the intention to

repurchase and to make recommendations to the other party (Lau and Lee, 1999).



ISBN 978-0-9925622-0-5

H10: The Higher the Attitudinal Loyalty of a Brand, the Greater the Brand Equity

Scholars argued that loyalty was the foundation of brand equity (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000; Clarke, 2001),

because loyal consumer would treat a focal brand as primary choice, prolong to buy a product or service of focal

brand even the alternative choices were better than the focal brand (Oliver, 1997). Many studies indicated attitudinal

brand loyalty had significant effect on brand equity (Gil et al., 2007; Kim and Kim, 2004; Norjaya et al., 2007; Tong

and Hawley, 2009; Yoo et al., 2000). This showed the essential role of attitudinal brand loyalty in brand equity

creation. Thus, this study proposed the importance of managing loyalty as part of the brand equity management

(Christodoulides and de Chernatony, 2004; O’loughlin, 2006), and it have to be extended to the Malaysian fast food

sector.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A preliminary study was conducted to select fast-food restaurant chains and to develop the measurement items of

brand image. According to Low and Lamb Jr. (2000), the development of brand image scale was designed to be

product-specific. Chowdhury, Reardon and Srivastava (1998) also stated that a free response technique needed to be

applied in brand image studies. Therefore, two open-ended questions were addressed to 50 fast food consumers

because it allowed for gathering consumers’ point of view, feelings and any perspective that related to the brand

image (Lindlof and Taylor, 2002). The first question was “Please list three fast food restaurant chains in which you

had most frequently dined”; while the second question adopted Keller’s (2003) “You can freely describe any

characteristics that come to mind when you think about … (above brand(s) name)… using any words/phrases your

choice”. The result showed that the most popular fast food brands were McDonald’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken

(KFC), Pizza Hut, Marrybrown, and 1901 Hot Dogs. 8 measurement items of brand image were developed from

preliminary study. A pilot study was conducted to assess the clarity of the questions, as well as the reliability and

validity of the measurement items (Hishamuddin, 2007). The validity of the questionnaire was determined by

academicians, who are experts in the area of branding research studies. The reliability of the measurement items was

tested by 50 pilot surveys of fast food consumers. The range for Cronbach’s Alpha was from 0.75 to 0.91, which

satisfied the cut-off value as suggested, indicated internal consistency for the constructs (Nunnally, 1978). The final

version of measurement items were presented in Table 1.

According to Norzalita and Norjaya (2010), Klang Valley was considered as the most populated region in

Malaysia, which populated with economically and socially most advances people from diverse ethnic compositions

and demographic groups, such as people from different states of Malaysia. Non-probability convenience sampling

method was adopted as it was efficient and appropriate (Cavana et al., 2000). A total number of 600 self-

administrated questionnaires were distributed because this study was in line with nonprobability sampling of

previous studies (Perez et al., 2011; Yoo et al., 2000). Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), a statistical

methodology with a confirmatory approach was selected to analyze multivariate data. This was because SEM was

frequently and widely used technique in psychology and social sciences research (Bentler, 1983; Browne, 1984; Hair

et al., 2010; Schumacker and Lomax, 2004). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was not recommended to be

performed as this study had identified the numbers of composite dimensions (Hair, et al., 2010). That is, it required

the confirmation process of pre-specified observed variables in representing a particular construct instead of data

summarization. Thus, confirmatory factor analysis was recommended rather than EFA (Hair, et al., 2010).



ISBN 978-0-9925622-0-5

TABLE 1. MEASUREMENT ITEMS

Instrument Items Authors

Perceived quality

The staff of X gives customers individual attention. Kim and Kim

The staff of X provides its prompt services at promised times. (2005, p.559)

The staff of X handles complaints of customers effectively.

The staff of X are always willing to help customers.

The staff of X are knowledgeable.

Brand Awareness

I am aware of X. Park (2009, p. 56)

X is highly recognized.

I have heard a lot about X.

Brand Familiarity

I am familiar with X. Park (2009, p. 57)

I am knowledgeable of X.

I can easily recognize X.

Brand Image

Easy Preliminary study

Prompt service

Good dining environment

Pleasant

A place for social gathering

Variety of choices

Good value for money

Convenient

Brand Trust

X is safe to me. Matzler et al.

I trust X. (2008, p.156)

X is reliable to me. Park (2009, p. 57)

Attitudinal Brand Loyalty

I try to visit X because it is the best choice for me. Chiou and Droge

I consider myself to be a loyal customer of X. (2006, p.625)

X is special to me.

I would love to recommend X to my friends.

Brand Equity

Even if there is another [fast food category] brand as delicious as X, I still

prefer X.

Gil et al. (2007, p.193)

X is definitely my choice in [fast food category].

Even if another [fast food category] brand has the same price as X, I would

still buy X.



ISBN 978-0-9925622-0-5

RESULT

The study was collected from 1st April, 2011 to 1

st May, 2011 across fast food restaurants that located in Klang

Valley, a sampling design was planned to reduce the potential bias and increase the precision of estimates for non-

probability sampling (Chang and Chieng, 2006). Subsequent to the data screening process, 15 surveys were excluded

due to incomplete responses. Thus, 585 or 97.50% of respondents were proceeding for further analysis. Out of the

pool of completed survey forms, 50.43% were male and 49.57% were female. With respect to ethnic groups, 63.09%

were Malays, followed by Chinese 26.15%, Indian 4.96%, and others 5.80%.

One item of perceived quality “The staffs of X are knowledgeable.” and three items of brand image “Easy”,

“A place for social gathering”, “Convenient” were deleted because the standardized residuals values for pair of items

were above 4.0, which deserved for deletion (Hair et al., 2010). After the purification process, the final measurement

models satisfied all the fix statistic values as recommended by Hair et al. (2010); demonstrated perfect results for the

degree of uni-dimensionality (χ² = 859.593, χ²/df = 3.384, RMSEA =.064, SRMR = .037, CFI = .950, PCLOSE =

.06), and the p-value associated with chi-square was .0001. In term of convergent validity, the values of construct

reliability ranged from 0.86 to 0.94, enormously above the cutoff value of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978). Standardized factor

loadings and average variance extracted were above the cutoff value of 0.50 (Hair et al., 2010).

Table 2 presented the average variance estimated of each constructs was above the squared correlation with

other constructs. The results provided evidence that the seven constructs were unique and had captured some

phenomena that other measures had not. It was evident that these results had contributed adequate evidence for

discriminant validity of the final measurement model (Hair et al., 2010). The goodness-of-fit statistics, indicating the

overall acceptability of the structural model analyzed, were satisfied (χ² = 917.953, χ²/df = 3.490, RMSEA =.065,

SRMR = .050, CFI = .946). Out of twelve hypotheses, nine statements were supported and three hypotheses were

rejected (see Table 3). The squared multiple correlation (R²) for brand equity was 0.74, attitudinal brand loyalty

(0.62), brand trust (0.67), brand image (0.55), and brand familiarity (0.54). However, R² was not applicable for

exogenous constructs such as perceived quality and brand awareness. It was estimated that the predictors of brand

equity explained 74 percent of its variance. In the same vein, the error variance of brand equity was approximately

26 percent of the variance of brand equity itself.

TABLE 2. RESULT OF THE DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY ANALYSIS

Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(AVE) 0.67 0.67 0.69 0.58 0.83 0.77 0.84

1. BA 1

2. BF 0.55(0.74**) 1

3. PQ 0.09(0.29**) 0.08(0.27**) 1

4. BI 0.14(0.38**) 0.23(0.48**) 0.44(0.67**) 1

5. BT 0.22(0.47**) 0.47(0.69**) 0.26(0.51**) 0.53(0.73**) 1

6. ABL 0.23(0.48**) 0.40(0.63**) 0.29(0.54**) 0.52(0.72**) 0.55(0.74**) 1

7. BL 0.17(0.42**) 0.32(0.57**) 0.21(0.46**) 0.35(0.59**) 0.36(0.60**) 0.75(0.87**) 1

a. **. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

b. Average Variance Extracted (AVE) are greater than the squared correlation estimates, showing discriminant validity.

Note: BA=Brand awareness, PQ=Perceived quality, BF=Band familiarity, BI=Brand image, BT=Brand trust, ABL=Attitudinal

brand loyalty, BE=Brand equity.



ISBN 978-0-9925622-0-5

TABLE 3. RESULT OF THE DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY ANALYSIS

b ( 95% CI ) β se t value α Conclusion

Structural parameter estimates

H1 BA → BF 0.83 (0.71-0.95) 0.73 0.06 14.08 ** Supported

H2 BA → BI -0.07 (-0.17-0.03) -0.09 0.05 -1.38 0.17 Not Supported

H3 BF → BI 0.31 (0.21-0.41) 0.40 0.05 6.37 ** Supported

H4 BF → BT 0.48 (0.40-0.55) 0.43 0.04 10.96 ** Supported

H5 PQ → BI 0.48 (0.41-0.56) 0.59 0.04 12.65 ** Supported

H6 PQ → ABL 0.09 (-0.01-0.19) 0.08 0.05 1.84 0.07 Not Supported

H7 BI → BT 0.67 (0.51-0.83) 0.46 0.08 8.49 ** Supported

H8 BI → ABL 0.44 (0.26-0.62) 0.31 0.09 5.00 ** Supported

H9 BT → ABL 0.46 (0.36-0.56) 0.48 0.05 9.43 ** Supported

H10 ABL → BE 0.98 (0.90-1.06) 0.86 0.04 24.95 ** Supported

Squared multiple correlation R²

BA -

PQ -

BF 0.54

BI 0.55

BT 0.67

ABL 0.62

BE 0.74

Notes: b=Unstandardized parameter estimates, CI=Confidence interval, β=Standardized parameter estimates,

se=Standard error, α=Statistical significance level , ** Path analysis is significant at the .001 level

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

This model states that both perceived quality and brand awareness are the initial stage of brand building in

consumer-based context (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987; Hoyer and Brown, 1990). The awareness of fast food brand

served as an important role in enlightening the relationships with brand familiarity (H1: β = 0.73, se = 0.06, t value =

14.08, α < 0.001), however, brand awareness alone was not sufficient in providing the brand image hold in the

consumer’s memory (H2: β = -0.09, se = 0.05, t value = -1.38, α = 0.17). This was because fast food brand image

involved greater association of consumers’ memory than just recalling or recognizing (Keller, 2003).

Consumers had felt comfortable on trusted brand because the brand had long-term relationships with them

(Chiou and Droge, 2006; Flavián et al., 2006; Sichtmann, 2007; Matzler et al., 2008). Therefore, the familiarity of

fast food brand was essential (H4: β = 0.43, se = 0.04, t value = 10.96, α < 0.001), as it enhanced consumers’

formation process of brand image (H3: β = 0.40, se = 0.05, t value = 6.37, α < 0.001) and feelings of greater trust

between the restaurant brand and the consumers (Lee et al, 2005). These were because brand familiarity had driven

to a sense of reduced anxiety, faith in the provider, reduced perceptions of risk, and consumers knew what to expect

directly.

Perceived quality required greater information processing as it focused on explaining how consumers

cognitively had established an overall brand impression, before reaching a fast food consumption choice. Perceived

quality was involved in the perception of brand’s quality and superiority. The perception could be based on past

experience (Dabholkar, 1995; Donovan et al. 1994) and affective quality signals in marketing efforts (Grönroos,

1984). Thus perceived quality was sufficient for the creation of brand image (H5: β = 0.59, se = 0.04, t value =

12.65, α < 0.001), because it involved consumers in developing, maintaining, and giving meaning to the influence of

personal experience of the stimulated brands. The finding indicated that perceived quality did not statistically cause

attitudinal brand loyalty in the context of fast food industry (H6: β = 0.08, se = 0.05, t value = 1.84, α = 0.07).

Nevertheless, this result was in line with some of the previous studies (Gil et al., 2007; Tong and Hawley, 2009).

This could be further explained that attitudinal brand loyalty had been considered as a conative construct, while

perceived quality was considered as a cognitive construct, based on arguments of cognitive-affective-conative

hierarchical model (Chiou et al., 2002).

Brand image exercised a strong direct influence on brand trust (H7: β = 0.46, se = 0.08, t value = 8.49, α <

0.001) and attitudinal brand loyalty (H8: β = 0.31, se = 0.09, t value = 5.00, α < 0.001). Therefore, the image of fast

food brand was considered important because it served as image drivers, such as the association between the fast

food brand and intangible symbolic benefits as perceived by consumers, which satisfied consumers in term on social



ISBN 978-0-9925622-0-5

class, self-emotional, and any other perception of needs (Keller, 1993). In addition, the image drivers were also

extended to lifestyle, trustworthiness, and self-concept (Neal and Bathe, 1997).

Brand trust contributed significantly on attitudinal brand loyalty (H9: β = 0.48, se = 0.05, t value = 9.43, α <

0.001). It presented an emotion-driven aspect (affective character) of long-term relational exchanged between fast

food brands and consumers, rather than the utilitarian value (cognitive character) of the brands.

Attitudinal brand loyalty played as a key variable for explicating the relationships between other dimensions

and brand equity (H10: β = 0.86, se = 0.04, t value = 24.95, α < 0.001). In other words, fast food brand equity would

not exist when there was no attitudinal brand loyalty. Nevertheless, when there was absence of brands’ affective

reactions, attractiveness, aesthetics, or signals of benevolence (affective sense of brand trust), consumers would less

likely in repeat purchase intention, recommendation to others, or willingness to pay a price premium. Thus, the

trustworthiness of fast food brand served as a vital antecedent for the development of attitudinal brand loyalty, which

ultimately drove to overall brand loyalty.

In term of limitation, cross-sectional data might have had limited the detection of causal inferences (Hair et

al, 2010). Therefore, a longitudinal study should be designed, which was often used in psychology, involved a series

of observations made over long period of time. Future research could explore the possibility of a longitudinal study

through repeated observations, and invariance test across different samples should be conducted to make certain the

components of measurement model and structural model are remained equivalent. Consequently, it would yield more

insightful results than a cross-sectional observation study.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATION

Malaysian fast food managers have to establish the most relevant brand input in consumers’ mind; which clearly

identify the product or service categories that is offered, as compared to other competitors. Therefore, the

identification of the brand position and category served as a necessity and crucial marketing plan in creating fast

food brand equity. Besides, managers have to provide constructive inputs and maintaining the consistency of brand

exposure from time to time. In term of perceived quality, managers have to be cautious on the appraisal of service

performance because consumers have different expectation on the nature operation, for instance prompt services,

handling complaints, individual attention, willingness to help, quick service, and minimum waiting time. For the

purpose of creating positive brand image, managers should emphasize on variety of choices, good value for money,

and good dining environment. In term of emotional brand image, managers could have planned for a long-term

theme campaign, along with the campaign title; sub-topic could be launched to proactively encourage affective

response of consumers. Besides, managers have to ensure that there is high consistency of brand reliability,

credibility, operational, and serviceability across different outlets as these will contribute to the creation of strong

brand image and brand trust. In term of maintaining long term brand relationship with customers, customer loyalty

programs such as frequency programs, club marketing programs or gift card programs could be designed.



ISBN 978-0-9925622-0-5

REFERENCES

Aaker, D.A., Managing brand equity, 1991, New York: Free Press.

Aaker, D.A., Measuring brand equity across products and markets, 1996, New York: Free Press.

Aaker, D.A. and Joachimsthaler, E., Brand leadership, 2000, New York: Free Press.

Agarwal, M.K., and Rao, V., “An empirical comparison of consumer based measures of brand equity”,

Marketing Letters, 1996, Vol. 7, pp.237-247.

Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W., “Dimensions of consumer expertise”, Journal of Consumer Research,

1987, Vol. 13, pp.411-454.

Angel, F.V.-R. and Manuel, J.S.-F., “The impact of marketing communication and price promotion on

brand equity”, The Journal of Brand Management, 2005, Vol. 12, pp.431-444.

Aseambankers, Equity Focus-KFC Holdings (M) Berhad, 2007, Available:

http://www.maybank2e.net/economic_library/equity_focus_11Jan07%28KFC%20Initiating%29.pdf

Back, K.J., “The effects of image congruence on customers’ brand loyalty in the upper middle-class hotel

industry”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 2005, Vol. 29, pp.448-467.

Bentler, P.M., “Some contributions to efficient statistics in structural models: Specification and estimation

of moment structures”, Psychometrika, 1983, Vol. 48, pp.493-517.

Bloemer, J.M.M., and Kasper, H.D.P., “The complex relationship between consumer satisfaction and brand

loyalty”, Journal of Economic Psychology, 1995, Vol. 16, pp.311-329.

Browne, M.W., “Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures”, British

Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1984, Vol. 37, pp.62-83.

Campbell, M.C. and Keller, K.L., “Brand familiarity and advertising repetition effects”, Journal of

Consumer Research, 2003, Vol. 30, pp.292-304.

Cavana, R., Delahaye, B. and Sekaran, U., Applied business research: Qualitative and quantitative

methods, 2000, Queensland: John Wiley & Sons Australia.

Chang, P.-L. and Chieng, M.-H., “Building consumer–brand relationship: A cross-cultural experiential

view”, Psychology and Marketing, 2006, Vol. 23, pp.927-956.

Chaudhuri, A., and Holbrook, M.B., “The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand

performance: The role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, 2001, Vol. 65, pp.81-93.

Chiou, J.S. and Droge, C., “Service quality, trust, specific asset investment, and expertise: Direct and

indirect effects in a satisfaction-loyalty framework”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2006, Vol. 34,

pp.613-627.

Chiou, J.S., Droge, C. and Hanvanich, S., “Does customer knowledge affect how loyalty is formed”,

Journal of Services Research, 2002, Vol. 5, pp.113-125.

Chowdhury, J., Reardon, J. and Srivastava, R., “Alternative modes of measuring store image: An empirical

assessment of structured versus unstructured measures”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 1998, Vol. 6,

pp.72-86.

Christodoulides, G. and de Chernatony, L., “Dimensionalising on-and offline brands’ composite equity”,

Journal of Product and Brand Management, 2004, Vol. 13, pp.168-179.

Christodoulides, G., and de Chernatony, L., “Consumer-based brand equity conceptualization and

measurement”, International Journal of Market Research, 2010, Vol. 52, pp.43-66.

Clarke, K., “What price on loyalty when a brand switch is just a click away”, Qualitative Market Research:

An International Journal, 2001, Vol. 4, pp.160-168.

, C.J., Beal, C. and Donthu, N., “Brand equity, brand preferences, and purchase intent”, Journal of

Advertising, 1995, Vol. 24, pp.25-40.

D’Souza, G. and Rao, R.C., “Can repeating an advertisement more frequently than the competition affect

brand preference in a mature market”, Journal of Marketing, 1995, Vol. 59, pp.32-47.

Dabholkar, P., “A contingency framework for predicting causality between customer satisfaction and

service quality”, Advances in Consumer Research, 1995, Vol. 22, pp.101-106.

Datamonitor, Industry profile: Global fast food, 2010, Available:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55793662/Data-Monitor-Fast-Food.

Delgado-Ballester, E., and Munuera-Aleman, J.L., “Does brand trust matter to brand equity”, Journal of

Product and Brand Management, 2005, Vol. 14, pp.187-196.

Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., Marcoolyn, G. and Nesdale, A., “Store atmosphere and purchasing behavior”,

Journal of Retailing, 1994, Vol. 70, pp.283-294.



ISBN 978-0-9925622-0-5

Esch, F.-R., Langner, T., Schmitt, B.H. and Geus, P., “Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and

relationships affect current and future purchases”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 2006, Vol. 15, pp.98-

105.

Flavián, C., Guinalíu, M. and Gurrea, R., “The role played by perceived usability, satisfaction and consumer

trust on website loyalty”, Information and Management, 2006, Vol. 43, pp.1-14.

Fullerton, G., “The impact of brand commitment on loyalty to retail service brands’, Canadian Journal of

Administrative Sciences, 2005, Vol. 22, pp.97-110.

Gil, R.B., Andrés, E.F. and Salinas E.M., “Family as a source of consumer-based brand equity”, Journal of


Grönroos, C., “A service quality model and its marketing implications”, European Journal of Marketing,

1984, Vol. 18, pp.36-45.

Gursoy, D. and McCleary, K.W., “Travelers’ prior knowledge and its impact on their information search

behavior”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 2004, Vol. 28, pp.66-94.

Ha, H.Y. and Perks, H., “Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on the Web: Brand

familiarity, satisfaction and brand trust”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2005, Vol. 4, pp.438-452.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B. J. and Anderson, R.E., Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective

(7th Ed.), 2010, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Harris, F. and de Chernatony, L., “Corporate branding and corporate brand performance”, European

Journal of Marketing, 2001, Vol. 35, pp.441-456.

Harris, L. and Goode, M., “The four level of loyalty and the pivotal role of trust: a study of online services

dynamic”, Journal of Retailing, 2004, Vol. 80, pp.139-58.

Hee, C.C., Profiling consumers based on their shopping behavior, 2009, Unpublished Degree of Master

thesis, University of Malaya, Malaysia.

Henry, T., Catherine, C. and Ada, L., “An exploratory study of the relationship between customer-based

casino brand equity and firm performance”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 2010, Vol. 29,

pp.754-757.

Hess, J., Story, J. and Danes, J., “A three-stage model of consumer relationship investment”, Journal of


Hishamuddin Ismail, “Empirical analysis on factors influencing customer loyalty in Malaysian

telecommunication industry, 2007, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Multimedia University, Melaka, Malaysia.

Ho, T. and Chong, J., “A parsimonious model of stockkeeping-unit choice”, Journal of Marketing

Research, 2003, Vol. 40, pp.351-365.

Holden, S.J.S. and Vanhuele, M., “Know the name, forget the exposure: brand familiarity versus memory of

exposure context”, Psychology and Marketing, 1999, Vol. 16, pp.479-496.

Hoyer, W.D. and Brown, S.P., “Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common, repeat-purchase

product”, Journal of Consumer Research, 1990, Vol. 17, pp.141-148.

Janiszewski, C., “Preattentive more exposure effects”, Journal of Consumer Research, 1993, Vol. 20,

pp.376-392.

Kandampully, J. and Hu, H., “Do hoteliers need to manage image to retain loyal customer”, International

Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 2007, Vol. 19, pp.435-443.

Kayaman, R. and Arasli H., “Customer based brand equity: Evidence from the hotel industry”, Managing

Service Quality, 2007, Vol. 17, pp.92-109.

Keller, K.L., “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal of

Marketing, 1993, Vol. 57, pp.1-22.

Keller, K.L., Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity, 1998, New

Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Keller, K.L., Building, measuring and managing brand equity (2nd ed.), 2003, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kim, W.G. and Kim, H.B., “Measuring customer-based restaurant brand equity: Investigating the

relationship between brand equity and firms’ performance”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,

2004, Vol. 45, pp.115-131.

Konecnik, M. and Gartner, W.C., “Customer-based brand equity for a destination”, Annals of Tourism

Research, 2007, Vol. 34, pp.400–421.

Lau, G.T. and Lee, S.H., “Consumers’ trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty”, Journal of Market-

Focused Management, 1999, Vol. 4, pp.341-370.



ISBN 978-0-9925622-0-5

Lavidge, R.J. and Steiner, G.A., “A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness”,


Lee, Y.K., Park, K.H., Park, D.H., Lee, K.A. and Kwon, Y.J., “The relative impact of service quality on

service value, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty in Korean family restaurant context”, International Journal

of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 2005, Vol. 6, pp.27-51.

Lindlof, T.R. and Taylor, B.C., Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.), 2002, Sage.

Low, G.S., and Lamb Jr., C.W., “The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations”, Journal of


Malär, M., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W.D. and Nyffenegger, B., “Emotional brand attachment and brand

personality: The relative importance of the actual and the ideal self”, Journal of Marketing, 2011, Vol. 75, pp.35-52.

Marshall Cavendish, Food industry in Malaysia: An overview Malaysia Food Business Directory, 2009,

Available: www.foodbizmalaysia.com/IndProf%5CMFBD%5CMFBD_2009_IP01.pdf

Matzler, K., Grabner-Krauter, S. and Bidmon, S., “Risk aversion and brand loyalty: the mediating role of

brand trust and brand affect”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 2008, Vol. 17, pp.154-162.

Maznah Wan Omar and Mohd Noor Mohd Ali, “Managing brand equity among Langkawi’s (SMEs):

Independent hoteliers”, International Journal of Marketing Studies, 2010, Vol. 2, pp.64-80.

Muller, C.C., “Endorsed branding: The next step in restaurant-brand management”, Cornell Hotel and

Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 1998, Vol. 39, pp.90-97.

Muller, C.C., and Woods, R.H., “An expected restaurant typology”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant

Administration Quarterly, 1994, Vol. 35, pp.27-37.

Neal, W.D. and Bathe, S., “Using the value equation to evaluate campaign effectiveness”, Journal of

Advertising Research, 1997, Vol. 37, pp.80-85.

Norjaya Mohd Yasin, Mohd Nasser Noor and Osman Mohamad, “Does image of country-of-origin matter

to brand equity”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 2007, Vol. 16, pp.38-48.

Norzalita Abd Aziz and Norjaya Mohd Yasin, “Analyzing the brand equity and resonance of banking

services: Malaysian consumer perspective”, International Journal of Marketing Studies, 2010, Vol. 2, pp.180-189.

Nunnally, J.C., Psychometric Theory, 1978, New York: McGraw-Hill.

O’Loughlin, S., “Net worth”, Brandweek, 2006, Vol. 47, pp.22-28.

Oliver, R.L., Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer, 1997, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Papadopoulou, K, Kanellis, P. and Martakos, D., “Investigating trust in e-commerce: A literature review

and a model for its formation in customer relationship”, Proceedings of the 7th Americas Conference on Information

System, 2001, 3-5 August, Boston.

Pappu, R. and Quester, P.G., “Does brand equity vary between department stores and clothing stores?

Results of an empirical investigation”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 2008, Vol. 17, pp.425–435.

Park, S.-H., The antecedents and consequences of brand image: Based on Keller’s customer-based brand

equity, 2009, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbus, US.

Patwardhan, H. and Balasubramanian, S.L., “Brand romance: A complementary approach to explain

emotional attachment toward brands”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 2011, Vol. 20, pp.297-308.

Perez, M,E., Padgett, D. and Burgers, W., “Intergenerational influence on brand preferences”, Journal of


Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T., “The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion”, Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology, 1986, Vol. 19, pp.124-181.

Pike, S., Bianchi, C., Kerr, G. and Patti, C., “Consumer-based brand equity for Australia as a long-haul

tourism destination in an emerging market”, International Marketing Review, 2010, Vol. 27, pp.434-449.

Rauyruen, P. and Miller, K., “Relationship quality as a predictor of B2B customer loyalty”, Journal of

Business Research, 2007, Vol. 60, pp.21-31.

Reynolds, K.E., and Arnold, M.J., “Customer loyalty to the salesperson and the store: Examining

relationship customers in an upscale retail context”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 2000, Vol.

20, pp.89-98.

Roberts, J., Morrison, P., Chandrashekaran, M. and Gordon, A., “Measuring sources and outcomes of brand

equity”, Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Conference, 2004, New Zealand.

Sanyal, S.N. and Datta, S.K., “The effect of country of origin on brand equity: An empirical study on

generic drugs”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 2011, Vol. 20, pp.130-140.

Schlosser, E., Fast food nation: The bitter truth about fast food, 2002, Available:

www.spiritouch.com/en/pdfs/FastFoodNation.pdf.



ISBN 978-0-9925622-0-5

Schumacker, R. and Lomax, R., A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.), 2004,

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sen, S. and Johnson, E.J., “Mere-possession effects without possession in consumer choice”, Journal of

Consumer Research, 1997, Vol. 24, pp.105-117.

Sichtmann, C., “An analysis of antecedents and consequences of trust in a corporate brand”, European


Smith, S. and Wheeler, J., Managing the customer experience, 2002, London: Prentice Hall.

Tan, T.M., Hishamuddin I. and Devinaga, R., “Hierarchical chain of consumer-based brand equity: Review

from the fast food industry”, International Business and Economics Research Journal, 2011, Vol. 10, pp.67-80.

Tong, X. and Hawley, J.M., “Measuring customer-based brand equity: Empirical evidence from the

sportswear market in China’, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 2009, Vol. 18, pp.262-271.

Van Zyl, M.K., Steyn, N.P. and Marais, M.L., “Characteristics and factors influencing fast food intake of

young adult consumers in Johannesburg, South Africa”, South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2010, Vol. 23,

pp.124-130.

Wang, H.Z., Wei, Y.J., and Yu, C.L., “Global brand equity model: Combining customer-based with

product-market outcome approaches”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 2008, Vol. 17, pp.305-316.

Xu, J.B. and Andrew C., “A conceptual framework of hotel experience and customer-based brand equity.

Some research questions and implications’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 2009,

Vol. 22, pp.174-193.

Yoo, B., and Donthu, N., “Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity

scale”, Journal of Business Research, 2001, Vol. 52, pp.1-14.

Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S., “An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity”,

Academy of Marketing Science, 2000, Vol. 28, pp.195-212.

Yoon, S.J., “The antecedents and consequences of trust in online-purchase decisions”, Journal of

Interactive Marketing, 2002, Vol. 16, pp.47-63.

Zainuddin Z., Kamaruzaman, J., Muhammad, A.S.A.H. and Wan Asri W.A.A., “The influence of business

profiles on brand equity awareness among small and medium scale food entrepreneurs in Terengganu”,

Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2009, Vol. 1, pp.64-80.

Zajonc, R.B. and Markus, H., “Affective and cognitive factors in preferences”, Journal of Consumer

Research, 1982, Vol. 9, pp.123-131.

Zinnbauer, M.A. and Bakay, Z., “Modeling brand equity in a modern business context”, SAM/IFSAM VII

World Congress, 2004, 5-7 July, 2004, Göteborg, Sweden.

Documents

MALAYSIAN FAST FOOD BRAND EQUITY - …cld.persiangig.com/preview/vuz4MCjuhD/12.Malaysian Fast Food Bran… · LITERATURE REVIEW Gil, Andrés and ... of quality perception, brand awareness,