This article was downloaded by: [Aston University]On: 18 January 2014, At: 10:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Marketing for HigherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmhe20

Measuring consumer-based brandequity for Indian business schoolsAshita Aggarwal Sharmaa, Vithala R. Raob & Sapna Poplica S.P Jain Institute of Management & Research, Bhavan's Campus,Munshi Nagar, Andheri West, Mumbai 400058, Indiab Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University, 351Sage Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-6201, USAc IILM Institute, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003, IndiaPublished online: 17 Dec 2013.

To cite this article: Ashita Aggarwal Sharma, Vithala R. Rao & Sapna Popli (2013) Measuringconsumer-based brand equity for Indian business schools, Journal of Marketing for HigherEducation, 23:2, 175-203, DOI: 10.1080/08841241.2013.866609

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2013.866609

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Measuring consumer-based brand equity for Indian businessschools

Ashita Aggarwal Sharmaa∗, Vithala R. Raob and Sapna Poplic

aS.P Jain Institute of Management & Research, Bhavan’s Campus, Munshi Nagar, AndheriWest, Mumbai 400058, India; bJohnson Graduate School of Management, CornellUniversity, 351 Sage Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-6201, USA; cIILM Institute, Lodhi Road,New Delhi 110003, India

Brands are fundamentally about experiences and relationships, andtherefore they form prime basis of an institution’s connection with theirstakeholders. With the mushrooming of business schools (both privateautonomous and government supported) and fading global boundaries,especially in the Indian context, communicating a business school brandto stakeholders has become extremely important. It is imperative forIndian business schools to differentiate and build strong brands in thecompetitive business education space in India. Brand building helps increating, evolving and enhancing a brand’s positioning and itsperceptions among stakeholders. These perceptions are critical ininfluencing behavior and hence the performance of an institution. Thepaper aims to assess the brand equity of select Indian business schools(from the prospective student’s perspective) using a familiarity–perception–preference–choice framework. The branding frameworkproposed in this study highlights how consumer-based brand equitymeasures can be used to improve business school positioning and hencethe brand image. This paper gives an opportunity to extend the currentknowledge in measuring the brand equity of business schools, especiallyin India. This study would help institutions apply brand equitymeasurements to their business schools and implement focused brandingefforts to gain a higher student share and build quality education brands.

Keywords: brand equity; Indian business schools; consumer-based brandequity; branding; management education

Introduction

Brands are pivotal sources for generating and sustaining a competitive advan-tage, which not only helps in minimizing quality gaps but also is a source ofstrong and favorable differentiators (Aaker, 1996). The world of Indian businesseducation is in an enriching churn and the last 20 years have seen a phenomenalgrowth of business education in India. The process of liberalization,

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

∗Corresponding author. Email: ashita.sharma@spjimr.org

Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 2013Vol. 23, No. 2, 175–203, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2013.866609

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

privatization, and globalization has not only replaced the traditional approachwith a more professional approach, but also introduced several contemporarycourses to meet the industry demand (Kumar & Dash, 2011). Building abusiness school brand has become an important agenda for business schooladministration and leadership. Challenges from newer institutions, shrinkingglobal boundaries, fragmentation of consumers, more stringent competitionand increased expectations on brand performance have increased the impor-tance of assessing brand equity for business schools. However, there hasbeen very limited academic research to understand the role played by businessschool brand equity, especially in the Indian context.

Need for branding business schools: Education branding worldwide is stilllargely at the stage of differentiation, which is based on self-defined sets of attri-butes and benefits. The Ivy League/top ranking schools have a prestigioushistory or legacy that differentiates them based on reputation built over years,but other schools are still striving to establish their own differentiated valueproposition. Currently schools are focusing more on functional attributes –which are ‘parity points’ rather than ‘differentiators’, but they need touncover the intangible attributes on which they can position themselves. In aglobal market where functionally similar products and services are availablefrom a wide range of suppliers, the ‘brand name’ has become an important dif-ferentiating tool, as it offers promise of value and quality to consumers (Kartono& Rao, 2008). Strong brands help consumers cut through the proliferation ofchoices available in product and service categories.

The goal of brand building in educational institutions is to create awarenessin the minds of target audiences and focus on the intersection of the institution’score values and the expectations of target audience. Branding is about findingthe sweet spot between what the institution is and what their audience wants(Sevier & Sickler, 2004). Parameswaran and Glowacka (1995) in their studyof university image conclude that higher education institutions need to maintainor develop a distinct image to create an advantage in an increasingly competi-tive market. It is this image that will impact students’ willingness to apply tothat institution for enrolment or for other research and developmental activities.The image portrayed by the institution of higher education plays a critical rolein the attitudes of the institution’s publics toward that institution (Yavas &Shemwell, 1996).

In today’s complex and highly competitive marketplace, universities andcolleges are turning to branding as a solution in dealing with global challenges.Topor (2005) suggests that the Chivas Regal Effect is another important reasonfor branding business schools and to build reputation capital, which can be doneby enhancing brand equity and goodwill. A college or university with largestock of reputation capital actually gains a competitive advantage againstrivals because reputation enables it to charge a premium.

Brand equity measures the value of the brand, and it is of particular rel-evance for consumer choice. Although the concept has been extensively

176 A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

researched in the context of physical products, less attention has been devotedto its understanding in the service sector, especially in higher education(Mourad, Ennew, & Kortam, 2010). This is particularly so in the area ofbusiness school branding, despite it being high on credence and experiencequalities (Palacio, Meneses, & Perez, 2002; Saeed & Ehsan, 2010). Businesseducation provides an interesting and important context for research as businessschools across the world are becoming more market oriented.

With this background, this paper proposes a framework of familiarity–per-ception–preference–choice for measuring business school brand equity andimprove the brand image among students as stakeholders. The frameworkincludes determinants relating to brand awareness (familiarity) and brandimage dimensions (the perceived quality – product and service attributes;overall brand image – symbolic attribute; and perceived value for money(VFM)) of the business school which can affect the preference, the willingnessto pay a price premium and choice of a business school brand (behavioral indi-cators/outcomes of brand equity) (Keller, 1993). The empirical research con-ducted with prospective students as stakeholders aims to assess the perceivedbrand equity of the selected Indian business schools and study the relationshipamong variables suggested in this framework. The relationships established inthis research can be used to improve business school positioning to influencestudents’ preferences toward a school and also their actual behavior (probabilityof joining the school and willingness to pay the fee premium).

Research questions

(1) How do the various independent and dependent measures of customer-based brand equity (CBBE) relate to each other in business school branddecisions?

(2) How well can the brand equity measures predict the actual ranking ofbusiness schools as done by external agencies?

The paper is organized into six sections. The second section that followsdescribes the current scenario of Indian business schools. The third section pro-vides a review of relevant literature on brand equity. The methodology and fra-mework employed in the empirical study is presented in the fourth section,followed by study results in the fifth section. The sixth section gives con-clusions, implications and suggestions for future research.

Indian business education

The Indian higher education sector is heterogeneous with different types ofinstitutions coexisting and facing challenges of sustaining and communicatingtheir quality. Hence the branding of education institutions is expected to become

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education 177

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

more important and vital for their growth and survival (Harsha & Shah, 2011).The first full-time management program in India was introduced in 1957 byAndhra University. Foreseeing the demand and importance of managementeducation, the All India Institute of Management and Social Welfare, Kolkataand Delhi University started their management programs in 1958, followedby the setting up of IIM Calcutta and IIM Ahmadabad in 1961 and 1962 in col-laboration with the Sloan School of Management (MIT) and Harvard BusinessSchool, respectively. Many other business schools including other IIMs (IndianInstitute of Management) and XLRI (Xaviers Labour Relations Institute)emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. By 1990, 82 university-based departmentsand business schools were functioning in the country. Newer IIMs were alsoestablished in Lucknow, Indore and Kozhikode by the end of 1990s (Sinha,2006). However, post-1991, there was an unparalleled growth in the Indianmanagement education sector and the number of business schools increasedfrom about 100 in 1988 to over 200 in 1993, nearly 800 in 2003, 1052 in2005–2006 and approximately 1940 by 2010 (Kumar & Dash, 2011).

This phenomenal growth in supply of business schools was largely due tothe changing business scenario in India. After the economic liberalization in1991, India saw a huge growth in its business sector with increasing demandfor qualified managers in business enterprises, and non-profit and non-govern-mental organizations. Professionally managed organizations were looking forpeople familiar with business semantics and thinking, which brought hope tothe aspiring managerial class, especially those on the sidelines of India Inc.to dive into jobs that brought wealth and respect. This change in Indiaimplied hiring someone receiving a stamp (degree) from a top ranking MBAschool (Business Today, 2010). India’s seemingly unstoppable economic rise,an aspiring middle class desire to stand out in a competitive job market and alucrative opportunity for investors fuelled a bubble in the business educationmarketspace (Shah, 2012). Each year IIMs alone receive over 200,000 appli-cations and such huge demand is primarily the result of prestige associatedwith the MBA profession, the employment potential and the image associatedwith some of the top business schools in the country. Being admitted to a topbusiness school is like ‘being born with the silver spoon’; as everything includ-ing a dream job falls into place at the end of the program. Barring the presti-gious administrative and foreign services of India, MBA ranks first in thepecking order of professions (Philip, 2008). Overall, management educationis a big business not just in India but across the world. The global managementeducation market is estimated at approx. US$22 billion and growing annually at10–12% (Friga, Bettis, & Sullivan, 2003).

Over the past four decades, IIMs, which are the super league schools inIndia, have withstood the test of time and emerged as centers of excellence.The acronym IIM connotes a very strong brand image, but there were severalfactors including faculty, location, recruiters and research that helped buildthe brand, says Chandra of IIM-B (Business Today, 2009). The 51-year-old

178 A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

IIM Ahmadabad is considered the best B-School in the country and the IIMbrand is second only to the IIT brand (Indian Institute of Technology) interms of recognition and imagery (Yesodharan, 2004). Besides legacy, thereare many other factors which have made IIMs the most coveted institutions.According to Bakul Dholakia, Director of IIM Ahmadabad (IIMA), the IIMbrand encompasses the quality of students, a focus on diverse areas of trainingand the contemporary nature of the faculty. The alumni also play a big role asbrand ambassadors. Finally, to excel as a brand, IIMA has cultivated a globalimage through interfacing with alumni globally and offering students an inter-national exposure. P.G. Apte, Director IIM Bangalore, said that rigorous studentselection, an excellent learning environment, wide choice in the learningprocess, flow back of experiences into syllabus and pedagogy, and topquality academic and physical infrastructure are among the factors responsiblefor creating the brand that the IIMs represent (Yesodharan, 2004). It takes morethan a decade for an institution to establish its reputation, as it is then that theirgraduates start making an impact on industry. As of now, the position occupiedby IIMs in India seems difficult to replace (Sudarshan, 2011).

The Indian business education market is a cluttered space, with the presenceof business schools that are private autonomous, promoted by state and centraluniversities, independent government supported and those promoted by corpor-ations (Sinha, 2006). As the market is lucrative and the competition is increas-ing rapidly, it is particularly important for business schools to have a brand-driven growth.

Literature review on brand equity

Business schools need to highlight their differentiating characteristics to createhigh brand awareness and preference among the stakeholders (applicants,faculty, industry, government and possible partners); the efforts of which arereflected in their brand equity measures. Bisoux (2010) says that a businessschool can spend years in establishing and reinforcing its brand. Along witha strong brand, a school needs a clear statement of purpose to lead its commu-nity in a single direction.

As competition increases for students, universities need to create and main-tain a distinct image in the marketplace (Keever, 1998). According to theBusiness of Branding Report published by EFMD and CarringtonCrisp (Car-ringtonCrisp, EFMD, & ABS, 2012), the core product offered by manybusiness schools is similar and prospective students believe that there is littlethat differentiates one school from the other. The report recommends that agreat brand be backed up by a high-quality educational experience in orderto make a difference in the student’s decision-making.

Since education is becoming less differentiated (more or less like a commod-ity) across the globe, educational institutions tend to consider students as cus-tomers who represent a major stakeholder group. Student feedback in terms

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education 179

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

of measuring business school image has currently become an essential line ofenquiry (Segev, Raveh, & Farjoun, 1999). Due to changes in the fundingsystem, students increasingly regard themselves as customers. Hence, highereducational institutions are under greater pressure to build and maintain agood reputation for customer service, and invest in creating a more customerfriendly environment (Chapleo, 2007). For the customer, the value of a brandarises from its role as an indicator of desirable attributes and is the basis forbuilding an emotional bond (Teas & Grapentine, 1996). Kotler and Fox(1995) suggested that the public forms images of higher education institutionsbased on limited information, and these images affect the likelihood of peopleattending or recommending the institution. It is the university’s perceived excel-lence and service quality that guides the attendance decision of its prospectivestudents.

The concept of measuring the value of the brand began in the early 1980swith the coining of the term ‘brand equity’ by advertising professionals inthe USA (Barwise, 1993). Keller (1993) identifies two motivating reasons formeasuring brand equity. The first stems from the growing need to developsound procedures for estimating the financial value of a brand for mergersand acquisitions. The second motivation for studying brand equity comesfrom the impetus for firms to improve the efficiency of their marketingprogram by better understanding of consumer’s perceptions and their responseto marketing actions.

Brand equity has been defined in many different ways by academics andpractitioners worldwide. The multi-faceted nature of brand equity and theabsence of any single accepted framework have resulted in a number of differ-ent conceptualizations for the construct (Kartono & Rao, 2008). The literatureon brand equity, although substantial, is largely fragmented and inconclusive.The lack of an agreed definition has in turn spawned various methodologiesfor measuring the construct (Christodoulides & de Chernatony, 2009).

Brand equity measurements have been developed along three theoreticalstreams: finance, psychology and economics. The financial and economic per-spectives are also referred to as firm-based brand equity (FBBE) measures.Financial outcome measures of brand equity assess the value of the brand asa financial asset to the firm. Simon and Sullivan (1993) defined brand equityas an intangible asset whose value can be extracted from the market value ofthe firm. Dubin (1998) adds the income method for brand valuation whereinthe brand earning multiplier is used to calculate the brand’s expected futureearnings based on historical data. This method is also used by Interbrand(a global brand valuation company). The economic orientation of measuringbrand equity includes two inter-related theories: (i) the consumer utilitytheory to assess the brand equity from the consumer’s perspective and (ii) econ-omic theories of demand and supply to measure the value of the brand to thefirm (Kartono & Rao, 2008). FBBE measures are therefore the outcome ofthe consumer’s response to the brand and the brand is considered as a

180 A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

driving force for increased market share and brand profitability. In psychologi-cal orientation, researchers employ a cognitive psychology approach to studyhow consumers perceive and process information about the brand to developrelevant brand equity measures (Keller, 2001, 2002). These measures arebased on CBBE (Christodoulides & de Chernatony, 2009). This paperfocuses on the psychology-based brand equity measures according to the frame-work of familiarity–perception–preference–choice as described earlier.

Aaker (1991) defines brand equity as the set of assets like name awareness,loyal customers, perceived quality and associations that are linked to the brandand add value to the products/services being offered. He presents a frameworkof brand equity that comprises four key measures of the consumer mindset –brand loyalty, awareness, perceived quality and brand associations along withother proprietary brand assets that give brands a competitive advantage.Aaker’s (1996) model of brand equity augments his 1991 framework byadding market-based assessment measures that correspond to the brand’smarket share, price and distribution coverage.

Keller (1993) looks at brand equity from the consumer psychology perspec-tive and introduces the concept of CBBE. He defines brand equity as the ‘differ-ential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to marketing of thebrand’. His framework includes two key dimensions of brand awareness(recall and recognition) and brand image (all possible associations for thebrand) and classifies the method of measuring customer-based brand equityinto direct and indirect approaches. The direct method measures the consumer’sresponse to the marketing of branded product, relative to the unbranded offer-ing. Such outcomes can be measured in terms of the consumers’ behavior orpreferences (stated/observed) after exposure to marketing activity and can beexpressed in terms of their utility, purchase intent, past behavior, brand evalu-ations (or ratings) and willingness to pay a premium among other measures. Hisindirect approach to measure CBBE identifies the sources of brand equity in theminds of the consumers that drive consumer behavior and action outcomes. Itinvolves measuring of constructs like awareness, associations, perceptions andbrand evaluations, and much of academic research on CBBE uses this approach(Christodoulides & de Chernatony, 2009).

However, indirect measures of brand equity lack agreement on what dimen-sions constitute CBBE. Researchers believe that there is no such thing as a uni-versal measure for brand equity and that the market sector and the life stage ofthe brand need to be accounted for when selecting an appropriate measure toassess brand equity (Baker, Nancarron, & Tinson, 2005; Mourad et al. 2010).

Ambler (2000) points out that many confuse the brand equity with brandvaluation (worth of asset). For Ambler, value creation is a much more diffusedprocess which should focus on the value that the brand creates for stakeholders.Business schools cater and create value for multiple stakeholders including stu-dents, faculty, alumni, industry, etc. Brand equity is hence both the ingredientand the outcome of this value creation process.

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education 181

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Higher education represents a context in which brand image potentiallyplays a major role in reducing the risk associated with the service largelybecause the assessment of quality takes place after consumption. Hence astrong brand is important to simplify the decision-making process (Byron,1995; Chen, 2008). In addition, there are a number of factors that directly influ-ence the evaluation of education quality and hence the perception of a businessschool brand (Kurz, Scannell, & Veeder, 2008). These factors include staff,location, size, history, legacy and international presence (Chen, 2008; Mazzarol& Soutar, 2008; Mourad, 2010). Finally, the social image of the education insti-tution and its overall position in the market are important in influencing thehigher education brand equity (Paden & Stell, 2006).

The aggregate brand equity of a business school, which affects its perform-ance and ranking, is the summated brand equity from all its stakeholders. Sta-keholder framework shown in Table 1 highlights the critical business schoolstakeholders at each stage of its operations (Input, Process and Output) andhow perceptions influence the behavior of various stakeholders, the B-schoolperformance and thus its brand equity. To summarize, business schoolsacross the world today need to focus on their brand and measure the equityas the latter directly impacts performance and rankings.

This paper focuses on the indirect approach to measuring CBBE for manyreasons: (i) the CBBE measures allow the assessment of equity at the brandlevel; (ii) a lot of published research uses this kind of measure and (iii) severalpracticing managers are more familiar and comfortable with consumer-basedmeasures. Thus, managers can use this approach as a diagnostic tool fordecision-making. Literature suggests that in the absence of commonly agreedmeasures of brand equity, each sector and brand need to identify its best-suitedvariables (Baker et al., 2005). In order to integrate varied measures of brandequity, this study uses the framework based on the perception–preference–choice paradigm and the hierarchy of effects model (Lavidge and Steiner, 1961;McGuire, 1972). According to Agarwal and Rao (1996), this framework providesmeasures linked to stages through which a consumer passes in the ‘purchase’process and hence can be useful diagnostic information for managers. In a com-prehensive study on the measures of CBBE, they found that most indirectmeasures (with the exception of unaided recall) have convergent validity andhence are appropriate measures for brand equity construct. Mackay (2001) repli-cates the work of Agarwal and Rao and shows that most of the measures are foundto be convergent to estimate choice. This replication provides confidence in theselection of the range of brand equity measures that are employed in this study.

Methodology

The study: measures of brand equity

This research attempts to explore the relevance and importance of customer-based brand equity measures in the business school context and its possible

182 A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

role in strengthening a business school brand. Such study of consumer’s percep-tions will help business schools improve the efficiency of their marketingprogram and also provide guidelines for international expansion and portfolioenhancement.

This paper proposes the CBBE measures related to different stages of hier-archy in business school decision-making for the calculation of brand equity.These are based on extant literature in branding (Agarwal & Rao, 1996).Broad ranges of factors were identified, recognizing that they are relevant to

Table 1. Stakeholder framework for business schools.

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education 183

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

both the awareness dimension and the image dimension of Keller’s CBBE fra-mework. Aaker (1991) defined brand awareness as the ability of potential con-sumers to recognize the brand as a member of a specific category and emphasizethat awareness and recognition are essential before attaching attributes to thebrand. While brand awareness is about the ability to link the brand to a category,brand image is concerned with the associations that an individual makes withthe brand. A brand association is anything linked in memory to the brand(Aaker, 1991) and collectively, these brand associations define the brandimage (De Chernatony, 2001; Keller, 1993). Brand associations may includea variety of attributes like perceived quality, brand name and product attributes(Mourad et al., 2010). The independent variables included in this study areinclusive of both the awareness and the image dimensions suggested byKeller (1993) in his CBBE framework.

The independent variables used in this study are the following:M1: Familiarity with a business school brand is measured on a four-point

scale with categories like ‘not heard of . . . ’, ‘heard but not explored . . . ’ andlikewise. This variable measures the brand awareness attribute as defined inbranding literature.

Perceptions and Attitudes: This is considered a core facet across CBBE fra-meworks, as it has been associated with brand purchase intent and the willing-ness to pay premiums (Aaker, 1996; Dyson, Farr, & Hollis, 1996; Farquhar,1989; Keller, 1993). Perceived quality is viewed as the customer’s judgmentof the overall quality, excellence, esteem and brand superiority (with respectto the intended purpose) relative to competitor brands. This is a more abstractattribute and differs from objective quality as it is more akin to an attitudinalassessment of the brand and contributes to the brand image dimension of thebrand equity (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993; Zeithaml, 1988). The followingmeasures are used to identify respondent’s perceptions and attitudes toward abusiness school brand.

M2: The perception of a business school quality is the aggregate measure,estimated by the sum of average perceptions on nine attributes for businessschools; calculated on a five-point scale; with measures ranging from 9 to 45on a consolidated score. The attributes are Placements Quality, Location, Infra-structure, Intellectual Capital, Admission Process Rigor, Pedagogy, IndustryIntegration, Global Presence and Recognition. Nine attributes are identifiedfor measuring perceived quality through informal group discussions and arebased on parameters considered important by the prospective students for selec-tion of a business school. These attributes are further validated through data onbusiness school perception ratings published by Indian magazines (BusinessToday-Nielsen ratings, 2010; Business World-Synovate B-school survey,2011). Perceptual maps are drawn for selected business schools to understandthe relationship between these attributes, as perceived by students.

M3: Overall brand assessment of a business school is measured on a three-point scale. Overall brand quality assessment is the perceived brand value of the

184 A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

business school (highlighted as symbolic attribute in brand equity measure byKeller in 1993), irrespective of individual attributes, and is determined by thelegacy, image and experiences (Byron, 1995; Cheng & Tam, 1997).

M4: Perceived VFM: Perception of business schools on VFM is alsomeasured on a three-point rating scale. Perceived VFM is defined as the custo-mer’s overall assessment of brand utility based on perceptions of what isreceived vs. what is given (Kirmani & Zeithaml, 1993). VFM in this studymeasures the investment vs. returns ratio for a business school. Students per-ceive the schools high on VFM if the salaries and non-material benefitsobtained after graduating outshine the total fee and investment in education.

M5: Preference: This is a stage of decision-making at which a buyer willselect a particular brand and prefer it over a competitor’s brand, availabilityor access being a non-issue (Dhar & Sherman, 1996). Respondents are askedto rate business schools on the basis of their explicit preference. An 11-pointscale is used to calculate the preference scores. Overall preference for a businessschool is determined by independent variables listed above and the importancegiven to them by different groups of prospective students.

The dependent variables for brand choice used in this study are thefollowing:

M6: Willingness to pay a fee premium: It is defined as the extra amount aconsumer is willing to pay for their preferred brand. This is considered asone of the most reasonable summary measures of overall brand equity(Aaker, 1996). This is viewed as a result of managing other CBBE facets likeperceived quality, perceived VFM, etc. (Blackston, 1995; Keller 1993). Inthis study, respondents identified the fee they are willing to pay for a particularbusiness school. This is captured by using a six-point scale, wherein each pointrepresented a certain range of fees for the two-year program. This measure isalso a representation of the consumer’s choice and hence their willingness topay extra money (pay a premium) to experience the brand.

M7: Another measure of choice included in this study is the likelihood ofjoining a business school if the student gets admitted to a particular institution.In this measure, all IIMs are included to see the variation in choice due to estab-lished brands. Respondents are asked to mention the likelihood of joining theschool on a 0–100-point scale, similar to the one used in this context byAaker and Keller (1990).

The dependent variables used as an indicator of behavioral outcomes arewillingness to pay a fee premium and the intended choice of respondentswhich are in accordance with the literature that perceived quality and perceivedVFM affect the willingness to pay a price premium and the final brand purchase(Kirmani & Zeithaml, 1993; Sethuraman & Cole, 1997). The results are furthervalidated using rankings of select business schools published by Indianbusiness magazines. The choice intention and willingness to pay a feepremium are captured in this research and average objective ranking is calcu-lated using data published in ranking magazines of the year 2011. This

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education 185

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

ranking is based on the objective data given by various business schools ondefined parameters (including the attributes used for variable M2).

Brand loyalty is excluded as a measure as it is treated as an outcome of brandequity rather than one of its dimensions. Especially in the business school scen-ario, brand loyalty will translate into behaviors like referral, donations andenrolling for executive education programs rather than repeated purchase ofthe same service offer repeatedly (Mourad et al., 2010). Brand loyalty thereforeis not included in the assessment of brand equity in this paper.

Study framework

Figure 1 captures the conceptual model used in the study for the estimation of abusiness school’s brand equity with prospective students as stakeholders andhence its implications on their behavior. Prior literature suggests that custo-mized CBBE measures have been used and frameworks have been developedto identify the facets that predict the willingness to pay a premium and thebrand purchase behavior (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993; Mourad et al., 2010).Abundance of literature also suggests that aggregate perceived quality and per-ceived VFM are correlated exogenous constructs and directly influence consu-mers’ willingness to pay the price premium (Blackston, 1995; Kirmani &Zeithaml, 1993; Netemeyer et al., 2004). Monroe’s (1990) study (as cited inMourad et al., 2010) offers a model that posits the willingness to pay a particularprice for the brand as a function of the total perceived value and the quality ofthe brand. Also the willingness to pay a premium is theorized as a primary indi-cator of brand purchase (Aaker, 1996; Blackston, 1995; Dyson et al., 1996;Netemeyer et al., 2004), which further validates the study framework suggestedin this paper.

Figure 1. The study framework.

186 A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Business school brands chosen

The Indian business schools, offering a two-year full-time accredited manage-ment program, can be classified into three categories. The top category schools(super league) are IIMs A, B, C and L. These are established schools and strongbrands with great aspiration value. They have been consistently ranked amongthe top five business schools in India. These schools were not included in ourstudy to eliminate obvious bias because of their strong brand legacy andbrand value built over many years.

The second category is ‘A’ league schools, which include newer IIMs likeIndore and Kozhikode and other private and public schools. These schoolsare rated among the top 20 schools by almost all ranking magazines andhence are aspirational for students who cannot make it to the top 4 mentionedschools. This list also includes certain regional schools, preferred by studentsfrom the neighboring areas, which are more known in a particular region.The business schools chosen for this study are from ‘A’ league but are necess-arily the national schools, which are known across India and attract studentscountrywide. It is believed that these schools are fairly similar and henceform a good set for measuring brand equity and the relationship of brandequity to certain outcome measures. Given the similarity, respondents are notaffected by the ‘halo’ of the better-known schools. This study is confined toa final set of nine schools in the second category ‘A’ league. These are IIM Koz-hikode; IIM Indore; XLRI, Jamshedpur; SPJIMR, Mumbai; NITIE, Mumbai;FMS, Delhi; MDI, Gurgaon; IIFT, Delhi; and NMIMS, Mumbai, with detailson selected characteristics shown in Table 2.

The respondents – prospective students

The study is focused on students aspiring to join business schools in India. Thetotal numbers of students taking the Common Admission Test (CAT) in 2010are around 206,000 (Business World, 2011). CAT is the biggest entranceexam for students wanting to join top business schools in India. It is conductedand administered by IIMs but the scores are recognized for admissions in othertop Indian business schools. Apart from IIMs (as enrolling to CAT is synon-ymous to applying for IIM admissions) who automatically receive all the appli-cations, the rest of the schools in the sample received between 18,000 and75,000 applications in the year 2010 (as they require a separate applicationprocess). The respondents of this survey have applied to at least one of theschools included in this study and have taken the CAT in 2010. The study isconducted on prospective students as stakeholders and hence the brandequity of business school calculated in this paper represents only that of pro-spective students as stakeholders. The sampling method used for the surveyis stratified random sampling; 394 respondents were selected for the studybased on parameters including location, the coaching center they enrolled

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education 187

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Table 2. Summary of ‘A league’ Indian business schools included for the purpose of study.

Name of the school LocationYear of

establishment Institute affiliation

No. of students intwo-year full-time

program∗

Fee for two-yearprogram in INR

(000s)∗

IIMK – Indian Institute ofManagement, Kozhikode

Kozhikode,Kerala

1996 Autonomous institute founded byGovernment of India in collaborationwith Government of Kerala

319 1000

IIMI – Indian Institute ofManagement, Indore

Indore, MadhyaPradesh

1996 Autonomous institute founded byGovernment of India in collaborationwith Government of Madhya Pradesh

320 1200

SPJIMR – S.P. Jain Instituteof Management andResearch

Mumbai,Maharashtra

1981 Private autonomous under BVB trust 180 870

MDI – ManagementDevelopment Institute

Delhi NCR 1973 Private autonomous institute 240 1025

XLRI – Xaviers LabourRelations Institute

Jamshedpur,Jharkhand

1949 Private autonomous institute 240 1200

FMS – Faculty ofManagement Studies

Delhi 1958 Delhi University 226 25

NITIE – National Instituteof Industrial Engineering

Mumbai,Maharashtra

1963 Private autonomous institute 290 430

IIFT – Indian Institute ofForeign Trade

Delhi 1963 Deemed University – set up by Governmentof India

115 1000

NMIMS – Narsee MonjeeInstitute of ManagementStudies

Mumbai,Maharashtra

1981 Deemed University 180 1500

Note: ∗Data as per February 2011.

188A

.A

ggarwal

Sharma

etal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

into for the entrance test preparation, work experience and gender; 227 prospec-tive students, who took the CAT in 2010, participated in the study. The majorityof the data collection was done in Mumbai and Delhi (India). The average ageof respondents was 23 years and 31% were females. The average work experi-ence of the respondents was 1.73 years.

Data collection

Data were collected using a self-administered survey method, with questions onattributes and variables mentioned above in the study framework. The instru-ment was pretested to ensure clear understanding of the questions and responsecategories; and administered with both individual students and groups either attheir homes or at coaching institutions (which prepare the graduates for man-agement entrance examinations).

Results

Individual brand results

The average scores for the nine B-school brands are shown in Table 3. Amongthe nine business school brands, XLRI has the highest scores on six out of sevenvariables and is second on the M7 – choice intention (probability to join).SPJIMR scores highest on M7, probably because respondents were concen-trated in the Mumbai region (where SPJIMR is a leading school). NMIMSscored lowest on almost all variables but one. There are no major contradictionsseen in the data.

Excel-based software, Marketing Engineering for Excel (MEXL), is used todevelop a perception map for the business schools on the above-mentioned nineattributes. The map in Figure 2 shows that dimension 1, which is the aggregateof all variables except location, accounts for 84.6% variance in the data.Respondents perceive the attributes of pedagogy, admission and industry inter-action as highly congruent. All other variables including globalization, intellec-tual capital and program recognition are also closely related. Location, whichprimarily represents the second dimension, constitutes 11.9% variance. Thecongruency between all parameters except infrastructure and location in themap shows that these are considered jointly by prospective students to assessthe business school quality. This is consistent with the literature that all providerattributes, except location and size, are significant in building brand perceptions(Mourad et al., 2010). The red circles represent the placement of nine businessschool brands on the perception map. XLRI appears to be the most preferredinstitute on all attributes. SPJIMR is the most preferred on location. On globa-lization and foreign integration, SPJIMR scores higher, possibly due to the pres-ence of its international campuses. NMIMS comes as the least preferredinstitute on these variables according to data. Also IIMK and IIMI are not dif-ferentiated and their perception on stated attributes is very similar. Table 3

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education 189

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Table 3. Individual business school brand results and preference shares.

Familiarity,M1

Aggregateperception ofquality, M2

Overall brandassessment, M3

VFM,M4

Preference,M5

Feepremium,

M6Choice

intention, M7

Preference sharesrecovered by MEXL

model (in %)

Range 1–4 9–45 1–3 1–3 0–10 1–6 0–10 %IIMI 3.07 34.81 2.76 2.64 9.12 4.24 5.08 10.19IIMK 3.04 34.77 2.75 2.65 8.73 3.99 5.05 10.39SPJIMR 3.6 38.12 2.94 2.8 9.27 3.91 7.67 11.82MDI 2.7 33.93 2.5 2.35 7.81 3.45 3.78 8.89XLRI 3.3 38.42 2.96 2.84 9.55 4.29 6.51 24.02FMS 3.24 37.04 2.86 2.92 8.99 3.53 5.79 10.98NITIE 2.46 32.97 2.29 2.44 6.65 2.8 2.86 7.96IIFT 2.75 34.14 2.44 2.42 7.31 3.08 3.3 8.76NMIMS 2.58 30.68 2.02 1.99 6.44 2.66 3.09 6.97

190A

.A

ggarwal

Sharma

etal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

shows the percentage of preference shares for various business schools asrecovered by the MEXL software model. The highest concentration of idealpreference points is near XLRI, SPJIMR and FMS, which depicts that morerespondents preferring these institutions over IIM Indore and IIM Kozhikode.

Perception of business school brands on identified independent variables:the positioning map using MEXL is drawn for business schools for four inde-pendent variables, M1 through M4, is given in Figure 3. Dimension 1 explains86.6% variance in the data. The aggregate perception of business school quality(M2) and overall brand assessment (M3) are highly congruent, signifying thatthe perception of individual attributes for business school performance contrib-utes to the perception of the overall brand image, as suggested by the literaturewhich suggests that image-related dimensions and product/service-relateddimensions are generally significant and related in the context of servicebrands (De Chernatony, 2001). The other two variables are loaded on dimen-sion 1, but familiarity is more loaded on the second dimension, which explains6.4% of variance. The literature suggests that image-related dimensions werefar more important as drivers of brand equity than awareness-related dimen-sions (De Chernatony, 2001; Lovelock, 1991; Mourad et al. 2010). IIMI andIIMK; and MDI and IIFT are perceived very similar on independent variables.Though SPJIMR scores high on familiarity, XLRI is the preferred brand onother variables. NMIMS and NITIE are less preferred in this set of data.

Figure 2. Perception map of business school on select nine attributes.

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education 191

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Relationship between variables

Consistency of the data is judged using aggregate pair-wise correlations amongthe seven variables, M1 through M7, for all the schools. The data show that allthe measures are highly congruent with each other at 99% confidence levels. Allvariables show congruency at 95% confidence level with the minimum being0.753 (for VFM and willingness to pay a premium) and the highest being0.975 (for overall brand assessment and brand preference). As suggested byNetemeyer et al. (2004), favorable perceived quality, brand preference and per-ceived VFM are congruent with a greater willingness to pay the price premiumfor a brand and is also supported by Monroe in 1990 (as cited in Mourad et al.,2010). Dependent variable M5 (preference) is congruent with all independentvariables (M1–M4) and also the two other dependent variables, M6 and M7.The choice intention (M7) is highly congruent with all input variables;whereas the willingness to pay a premium is congruent with overall brandassessment and preference at 99% confidence limits. Recent evidence supportsthat differentiators for the brand affect both the preferences and willingness topay a higher price for the brand (Carpenter, Glazer, & Nakamoto, 1994; Kalra &Goodstein, 1998). Aggregate correlation between the seven measures ofbrand equity used for the suggested framework is estimated and shown inTable 4.

Individual level stepwise regression analysis is separately performed withM5 (preference for business schools), M6 (willingness to pay a fee premium)

Figure 3. Positioning map for independent variables M1–M4.

192 A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

and M7 (choice intention) as dependent variables using M1–M4 as the inde-pendent variables to study the relationship between them. For the aggregate per-ception, M2, each business school attribute score is considered against theconsolidated score to identify the importance of each attribute in making thefinal choice. The attributes and variables affecting the dependent variablesM5, M6 and M7 are presented in Table 5. The figure in brackets against eachvariable shows the beta coefficient for the same. The data are significant at95% confidence limits. It depicts the prime influencers among independent vari-ables on behavioral indicators (dependent variables).

The analysis shows that the perception on overall brand quality assessmentplays a critical role in building preference for four of the nine schools in thesample. As suggested by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), the overall affective judg-ment of a brand is a primary CBBE facet and can be represented as a multiplicativefunction of various attributes and benefits. The other important attribute is percep-tion of program recognition. The willingness to pay a fee premium and choiceintention is influenced by different factors in each case. Familiarity plays an impor-tant role in building willingness to pay a fee premium. This is in contrast with theliterature suggesting that awareness has no direct impact on the consumer’s assess-ment of the brand value (Mourad, 2010). In the case of FMS, its program recog-nition is the only factor influencing all dependent variables. FMS is a businessschool under Delhi University, which is one of the most respected and theoldest central university in India. Overall, the factors playing the most importantrole in influencing behavioral variables are overall brand assessment, program rec-ognition, familiarity, VFM, placements and admission rigor.

The above data show the importance of various attributes in choosing a par-ticular business school and hence can be an important source for businessschools to identify their differentiating criteria and their unique positioning.A further analysis of the respondent group (not attempted here) would give

Table 4. Aggregate correlation between measures of brand equity for business schools.

Correlations

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7

Familiarity

Aggregatequality

Perception

Overallbrand

assessment VFM Preference

Willingness topay fee

premium

Choiceintention

(probability tojoin)

M1 .904∗∗ .907∗∗ .828∗∗ .913∗∗ .784∗ .988∗∗

M2 .904∗∗ .948∗∗ .924∗∗ .896∗∗ .766∗ .911∗∗

M3 .907∗∗ .948∗∗ .949∗∗ .975∗∗ .895∗∗ .901∗∗

M4 .828∗∗ .924∗∗ .949∗∗ .882∗∗ .753∗ .821∗∗

M5 .913∗∗ .896∗∗ .975∗∗ .882∗∗ .948∗∗ .907∗∗

M6 .784∗ .766∗ .895∗∗ .753∗ .948∗∗ .788∗

M7 .988∗∗ .911∗∗ .901∗∗ .821∗∗ .907∗∗ .788∗

Notes: ∗Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); ∗∗Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education 193

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

additional information on the student profiles preferring these attributes andhence help in assessing the right target for business school.

Calculation of business school brand equity

As described in the framework suggested for the study (Figure 1), brand equityscore is a summation of the five measures, M1–M5. The aggregate brand equityis in the range of 25–50. The results are tabulated in Table 6. Ranks of the nineinstitutions, based on the calculated brand equity scores are compared withranks obtained from data on behavioral indicators, M6 and M7. A comparisonis also made with objective rankings of business schools, published by themedia.

The highest brand equity score is for XLRI at 45.81, followed by SPJIMRand FMS. IIMI and IIMK stand at position 4 and 5. The lowest brand equity isfor NMIMS. A comparison between brand equity rankings and choice intention

Table 5. Step-wise regression analysis to study relationship between independent variables (M1–M4) and dependent variables (M5–M7).

M5 M6 M7

PreferenceWillingness to pay fee

premiumChoice intention (probability

to join)

IIMI Overall brandassessmenta (0.373b);locationa (0.236b)

Intellectual capital (0.218);familiarity (0.177);admission rigor (0.173)

Overall brand assessment(0.238); placements (0.224)

IIMK Overall brandassessment (0.294);placements (0.247)

Admission rigor (0.228);familiarity (0.245);industry interface (0.172)

Overall brand assessment(0.164); placements (0.204);VFM (0.211)

SPJIMR Overall brandassessment (0.203)

Placements (0.290);familiarity (0.174)

Infrastructure (0.221)

MDI Overall brandassessment (0.388)

Overall brand assessment(0.253); familiarity(0.258); VFM (0.205)

VFM (0.306); globalization(0.226)

XLRI Placement (0.225) Placement (0.249);familiarity (0.238);infrastructure (0.237)

Program recognition (0.244)

FMS Program recognition(0.261)

Program recognition (0.322) Program recognition (0.347)

NITIE Program recognition(0.237); VFM(0.236)

VFM (0.261); Infrastructure(0.259); Familiarity(0.189)

Program recognition (0.439)

IIFT Program recognition(0.295); VFM(0.213)

VFM (0.284); admissionrigor (0.283)

Admission rigor (0.241);program recognition (0.215)

NMIMS Program recognition(0.320); familiarity(0.205)

VFM (0.260); familiarity(0.202)

Overall brand assessment(0.263); familiarity (0.312);infrastructure (0.181)

aFactors that influence and are predictors to mentioned dependent variable (significant at 95% confidence levels).bEach factor is accompanied by their Beta coefficients of prediction mentioned in brackets.

194 A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

ranks shows that XLRI and FMS are the most sought-after brands, thereby sup-porting the literature that brand equity has direct effect on purchase/choice be-havior (Aaker, 1991; Keller 1993). Though the brand equity perception of IIMIand IIMK, according to this research, is lower than SPJIMR, they are more pre-ferred to SPJIMR at the final decision stage, which could be the halo effect ofthe IIM brand name. This is in conformance to the literature suggesting theimportance of brand name and legacy in decision-making (Mourad et al.,2010; Saeed & Ehsan, 2010). NITIE and NMIMS are the least preferred inthe sample. Hence, the aggregate brand equity measures based on perceptionvariables are quite related to behavioral indicators of choice (Agarwal &Rao, 1996). When the brand equity results are observed in accordance withvariable M6 (willingness to pay fee premium); IIMI and XLRI ranks on thetop followed by IIMK. The willingness to pay a fee premium for FMS islower, perhaps because of the reference pricing perception. FMS being the gov-ernment-owned institution charges the least fee per annum (refer Table 2) and isthe most affordable MBA institution in the world. Therefore, with the constantscale being used in the research, the average score for variable M6 was lowerfor FMS

The results are also mapped against the business school rankings done byIndian business magazines. These publications seek data on the said parametersfrom business schools and a relative grading method is used to arrive at objec-tive rankings. The parameters and the weights given differ across publicationsresulting in ranking variation. The rankings published in four publications,Business Today, Outlook, The Week and Business India in the year 2011 aretaken for measurement purpose. The consolidated rankings and the averagerankings as calculated from the data are shown in Table 7.

XLRI is consistently the most preferred institute on behavioral variables andalso scores highest in the brand equity score, in line with the literaturesuggesting that perceived quality, VFM and overall brand image are core

Table 6. Normalized scores for brand equity measure of business schools.

IIMI IIMK SPJIMR MDI XLRI FMS NITIE IIFT NMIMS

Familiarity – M1 8.52 8.46 9.39 7.99 8.91 8.85 7.57 8.07 7.77Quality perception – M2 8.43 8.46 8.91 8.37 8.87 8.76 8.28 8.40 7.98VFM – M3 9.11 9.14 9.50 8.36 9.61 9.79 8.59 8.54 7.46Overall brand assessment – M4 9.28 9.28 9.72 8.33 9.68 9.29 7.83 8.29 7.44Preference – M5 8.24 7.72 7.87 7.65 8.74 8.22 7.48 7.55 7.21Brand equity score (from study) 43.58 43.06 45.39 40.69 45.81 44.91 39.75 40.86 37.87Brand equity rank (from study) 4 5 2 7 1 3 8 6 9Willingness to pay fee

premium – M68.18 7.93 7.86 7.25 8.17 7.40 6.67 6.97 6.59

Brand rank (based on M6) 1 3 4 5 2 6 8 7 9Choice intention rank – M7 4 3 5 6 1 2 8 7 9Magazine rank – secondary

sources (based on Table 7)4 2 3 6 1 7 5 8 9

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education 195

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

facets of brand equity measures (Aaker, 1991; Agarwal & Rao, 1996; Keller,1993; Mourad, 2010; Netemeyer et al., 2004). The IIMs, especially IIM Kozhi-kode, scores higher in objective rankings perhaps because the lure for the IIMbrand name becomes high at the final selection stage (they are in the top 5 acrossall scores). SPJIMR scores higher than IIMI and IIMK on the brand equitymeasure but falls at fifth place in the choice intention. In objective rankingsit is placed in the third position (between the two IIMs considered in thisstudy). The advantage of the IIM brand for IIMI and IIMK is not visible inthe estimation of individual independent variables used in research, but at thetime of making a final choice, prospective students may prefer IIMs for itsenduring value and brand advantage. The data also reflect that IIMs and FMShave a strong legacy, which works to their advantage to influence choice behav-ior as suggested in the literature that tradition and history have a positive impacton brand equity while the university’s international reputation has a marginallysignificant impact (Kim, Kim, & An, 2003).

The ranks obtained from objective magazine rankings match the ranksobtained with this study and analysis. This shows that there is a relationshipbetween the customer-based brand measurement approach and the perceivedimage of the institution. So if business schools can improve their brandequity, it would influence stakeholder behavior and the brand image of the insti-tution (which is also reflected in rankings). As suggested by Mourad et al.(2010), the market position (leadership) does not impact brand equity in thesame proportions but universities adopt brand management strategies toimprove their ranking in the higher education market (Brunzel, 2007).

This paper estimates the relationship between brand equity ranks (estimatedfrom the brand equity scores calculated in this study), magazine ranks (based onTable 8) and the business school ranks based on behavioral variables (M6 andM7) using the rank correlation method. The results show that there is a high cor-relation between the brand equity ranks and the choice intention ranks (0.85),followed by the rankings based on willingness to pay a fee premium (M6)

Table 7. Objective media rankings.

BusinessWorld

TheWeek Outlook

BusinessIndia St. dev.

Average ranking(calculated)

IIMI 7 10 8 15 3.56 10IIMK 5 7 7 16 4.92 8.75SPJIMR 12 8 10 7 2.22 9.25FMS 16 16 5 11 5.23 12MDI 14 17 6 8 5.12 11.25XLRI 3 5 4 5 0.96 4.25IIFT 17 10 9 13 3.59 12.25NITIE 6 12 11 14 3.40 10.75NMIMS 4 18 14 20 7.12 14

Note: Average ranking calculated with lower ranks signifying high ratings.Source: Business Today, Outlook, The Week, Business India (2011 rankings).

196 A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

and the choice intention (M7). The ranking based on the brand equity scoresand the willingness to pay a fee premium is also highly correlated (0.703).The magazine rankings and the brand equity ranks show the lowest rank corre-lation of 0.62 (though reflecting high agreement).

The results of this study are consistent with the literature review that productattributes, quality, perceived price value and benefits determine the overallbrand equity of a service provider and thus influence the customers’ behavior(Aaker, 1991; Lemon, Rust, & Zeithaml, 2001; Teas & Grapentine, 1996).Based on this study, researchers propose a framework for measuring businessschool brand equity as mentioned in Figure 1.

Conclusions and implications

This paper presents an analysis of the determinants for brand equity in the caseof business schools, which are a high credence service. A modified brand equityframework is suggested based on the Keller (1993) and Lavidge and Steiner(1961) models. The findings suggest that brands have a significant role toplay in business school selection. Besides the empirical conclusions, concep-tually the paper suggests that business school leaders need to be aware of thevariable impact of different attributes on brand equity, according to their impor-tance and perceptions in stakeholders’ minds. The distinctive contribution ofthis paper is through formulating a framework (Figure 1) for investigating deter-minants of brand equity of business schools from the prospective students’ per-spective, with a specific reference to Indian market. This framework can beextended for analyzing business education from the perspective of severalother stakeholders apart from the prospective students; this extension is leftfor the future research. For those involved in marketing education brands, thepaper would serve as a diagnostic tool for assessing and improving the brandvalue with focused marketing efforts.

Brands are fundamentally about experiences and relationships and thereforethey form the main basis of an institution’s connection with stakeholders.According to the EFMD report (CarringtonCrisp, EFMD, & ABS, 2012), theoverall reputation of a business school is important for all audience groups

Table 8. Rank correlations between ranks estimated from brand equity scores, magazine rankings,and M6 and M7 score ranking.

Attributes Rank correlation

Brand equity rank and willingness to pay fee premium rank 0.704Willingness to pay fee premium and choice intention ranks 0.769Brand equity ranking and choice intentions rank 0.852Brand equity ranks and magazine ranks 0.630Willingness to pay fee premium and magazine ranks 0.778Choice intention and magazine ranks 0.630

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education 197

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

when determining the VFM and the enrolment decision, almost feeding a vir-tuous circle with VFM driving reputation.

Well-designed and consistent brand campaigns are essential for the businesseducation marketspace. Product quality and features (tangibles) that generatepreferences are traditional marketing communication messages. Recently thefocus is on creating and maintaining differentiated positioning through abrand’s unique set of intangibles and hence building a greater brand reputation.Pre-2009, the Wharton Business School brand did not stand for anything otherthan a clear recognition that it was the best finance school (functional differen-tiator). In fall 2009, Dean Thomas Robertson wanted to both clarify the school’sbrand and deliver more consistent messaging. After much deliberation,Wharton came up with the new positioning and refreshed its brand with theidea – ‘Knowledge for Action’, based on the belief that Knowledge is themuscle of any business. The branding campaign used multimedia to highlightthree strategic initiatives: innovation, social impact and global presence(Shayon, 2012).

Several other US business schools have also taken proactive steps to reposi-tion and differentiate themselves on non-functional attributes and build strongerbrand equity. The examples of these include Kellogg School of Management(Think Bravely), Harvard (We educate leaders who make a difference in theworld) and Stanford (Change lives. Change Organizations. Change the World).In India, business schools have been communicating overall brand/institutionimage (which are built on parity points rather than differentiators) but nowthere is a need to identify the points of difference and build brand strength onthem. This study presents the possibility to explore intangibles as differentiators,rather than functional attributes which today are non-differentiators.

Brand communications are the means of creating, evolving and enhancing abrand’s positioning and are a basis of managing its perceptions in the market.It is imperative to differentiate the business school and build a strong brand ina cluttered education market with the use of right communication tools. Recog-nizing that brand equity has an awareness dimension, familiarity to the brandis largely driven by marketing activities including advertising, publicity andword of mouth. Thus, they serve important influencers on the overall brandequity (Mourad et al., 2010). The study suggests that prospective students as sta-keholders infer the business school brand on overall brand image, which is alsobuild through ‘word of mouth’. Therefore, the role of public relations and socialmedia becomes critical. A strategic approach to integrated marketing communi-cations through the choice of a right message and the media vehicle is critical tocreate high brand awareness and preference among stakeholders (e.g. applicants).

For effective brand building, business schools need to align their vision,culture and the image as perceived by customers and identify its intendedtarget audience (Hatch & Schultz, 2001). The detailed profiling of respondentscan help in building homogenous subgroups, which can be further used to

198 A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

identify the right target group for a business school based on the fit between aschool’s positioning and students’ interests.

Finally, it is imperative to constantly audit the business school brand. Thebrand equity calculation has been primarily the task of commercial brandsand higher education and business schools in particular have not madeserious efforts to monitor and enhance their brand equity. This study highlightsthe relevance and importance of customer-based brand equity measures to esti-mate the overall perception of a business school and hence predict its perform-ance. The framework suggested in this paper can be used to commission similarresearch among prime stakeholders to assess brand equity and understand per-ception vis-a-vis other schools. These data can be further used to analyze theimpact on the stakeholder’s behavior and interactions. Brand equity measure-ment would help facilitate marketing programs to generate more positive con-sumer perceptions and create a well-recognized brand name that can not onlyreduce marketing costs and influence potential consumers’ choice but alsoexpand the size and loyalty of an institution’s stakeholder base.

The challenges of building an education brand are compounded by rankingmethodologies, which make an institution’s value proposition blatant, thoughnot necessarily accurate (Harsha & Shah, 2011). A similar analysis, assuggested in this paper, can be used by business schools to improve their per-formance on the other factors identified in this study and hence, improve theirposition rankings. The relevance of such a study holds true across the globe as itis a value input for creating right differentiation and hence preference for thebusiness school vis-a-vis competition.

Limitations and future research

This study is not without limitations, and some are described below: first, thestudy is primarily concentrated in two metro areas of India – Delhi andMumbai – hence the bias for certain schools could be a possibility in data col-lection. A large representative sample from across the country can give a betterestimate of business school brand equity. Second, the behavioral indicators usedin the study are choice intentions highlighted by the respondents (ideal ordesired choice), which could be different from the actual choice made. A longi-tudinal study with data on the actual school chosen would give a much betterestimate of brand equity measure and performance. Finally, this research canbe further extended to include a detailed respondent profiling (age, income, edu-cation, location, experience, gender, etc.) to identify the differences amonggroups of applicants and hence segment the population. This additional analysismay indicate how a business school can reach out to selected subgroups andstrengthen the study by understanding the impact of certain consumer attributeson brand equity.

Administrators may consider commissioning research on the effects on theoutcome measures after the school changes its equity among prospective

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education 199

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

students (considering the costs involved as well). This ‘what-if’ analysis can bevaluable in estimating the returns on their marketing investments.

Though the essence of a great brand necessarily lies in its product qualityand service experience, the business school must emphasize on creatingvalue and building strong and well-differentiated brands that can influencethe consumers’ decision-making. The branding of a business school is impor-tant to generate not just the mindspace but loyalty and association with sta-keholders. This study of brand equity evaluation is thus a first step in thejourney of building business school brands. Similar studies can be donefor other stakeholders namely industry, faculty, alumni and current students,and then it would be possible to compare the brand equity across the groups.It is the intent of the researchers to repeat this study in a few years to see howexternal and internal changes in the business schools are reflected in thesemeasures.

ReferencesAaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing the value of brand name. New York,

NY: Free Press.Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York, NY: Free Press.Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of

Marketing, 54(1), 27–41.Agarwal, M. K., & Rao, V. R. (1996). An empirical comparison of consumer-based measures of

brand equity. Marketing Letters, 7(3), 237–247.Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Ambler, T. (2000). Marketing and the bottom line. London: Pearson Education.Baker, C., Nancarrow, C., & Tinson, J. (2005). The mind versus market share guide to brand

equity. International Journal of Market Research, 47(5), 523–540.Barwise, P. (1993). Brand equity: Snark or boojum? International Journal of Research in

Marketing, 10(1), 93–104. Retrieved from http://journals2.scholarsportal.info/details.xqy?uri¼/01678116/v10i0001/93_besob.xml

Bisoux, T. (2010, July/August). Brand and deliver. Bized, AACSB Publication, 48–51.Blackston, M. (1995, July/August). The qualitative dimension of brand equity. Journal of

Advertising Research, 2–7. Retrieved from http://www.warc.com/fulltext/JAR/6212.htmBrunzel, D. L. (2007). Universities sell their brands. Journal of Product and Brand

Management, 16(2), 152–153.Business India. (2011, November). The Q-factor: BI’s B-School special, p. 94.Business Today. (2009, October). The IIM caste system. Retrieved from http://businesstoday.

intoday.in/story/the-iim-caste-system/1/4731.htmlBusiness Today. (2010, October). The top 10 business schools, pp. 39–50.Business World. (2011, June). India’s best B-Schools 2011, pp. 60–61.Byron, S. (1995). Brand equity and market-based assets of professional services firms. Journal

of Professional Services Marketing, 13(1), 3–7. Retrieved from http://byronsharp.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/marketbasedassets1.pdf

Carpenter, G. S., Glazer, R., & Nakamoto, K. (1994). Meaningful brands from meaninglessdifferentiation: Dependence of irrelevant attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 31,339–350. Retrieved from http://www.bm.ust.hk/�mark322/Meaningful%20brand.pdf

CarringtonCrisp, EFMD, & ABS. (2012). The business of branding 2012. A. Crisp,S. Hardcastle, & L. Brown. Retrieved from http://www.carringtoncrisp.com/images/PDFs/Bus_of_Brand_Exec_Summary_2012_%28PDF%29.pdf

200 A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Chapleo, C. (2007). Barriers to brand building in UK universities. International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(1), 23–32. Retrieved from http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/18867/3/Published_2006_JONVSM_Brand_Barriers_Paper.pdf

Chen, L.-H. (2008). Internationalization or international marketing? Two frameworks for under-standing international students’ choice of Canadian universities. Journal of Marketing ofHigher Education, 18(1), 1–33. doi:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/08841240802100113

Cheng, Y. C., & Tam, W. M. (1997). Multimodels of quality in education. Quality Assurance inEducation, 5(1), 22–31. doi:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1108/09684889710156558

Christodoulides, G., & De Chernatony, L. (2009). Consumer based brand equity conceptualiz-ation and measurement: A literature review. International Journal of Market Research,52(1), 43–66. Retrieved from http://eprints.aston.ac.uk/17462/1/Consumer_based_brand_equity_conceptualizations_and_measurement.pdf

De Chernatony, L. (2001). From brand vision to brand evaluation: Strategically building andsustaining brands. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

Dhar, R., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). The effect of common and unique features in consumerchoice. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(2), 193–203. Retrieved from http://faculty.som.yale.edu/ravidhar/documents/TheEffectofCommonandUniquefeaturesinConsumerChoice.pdf

Dubin, J. A. (1998). The demand for branded and unbranded products: An econometric methodfor valuing intangible assets. Studies in consumer demand: Econometric methods applied tomarket data (Chapter 4, pp. 77–127). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.

Dyson, P., Farr, A., & Hollis, N. S. (1996). Measuring and using brand equity. Journal ofAdvertising Research, 36, 9–21. Retrieved from http://www.sba.pdx.edu/faculty/ahutinel/Read/10.pdf

Farquhar, P. H. (1989). Managing brand equity. Marketing Research, 1, 24–33.Friga, P., Bettis, R., & Sullivan, R. (2003). Changes in graduate management education and new

business school strategies for the 21st century. Academy of Management Learning &Education, 2(3), 233–249.

Harsha, P. P., & Shah, S. (2011). Creating brand value of higher education institution. IJMT,19(2), 152–158.

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2001). Are the strategic stars aligned to your corporate brand?Harvard Business Review, 79, 128–134.

Kalra, A., & Goodstein, R. C. (1998). The impact of advertising positioning strategies on con-sumer price sensitivity. Journal of Market Research, 35, 210–224. Retrieved from http://www.marketingpower.com/ResourceLibrary/Publications/JournalofMarketingResearch%28JMR%29/1998/35/2/612172.pdf

Kartono, B., & Rao, V. R. (2008). Brand equity measurement: A comparative review and a nor-mative guide (Johnson School Research Paper Series, 24-09). Retrieved from Social ScienceResearch Network Electronic paper collection http://ssrn.com/abstract¼1401149

Keever, S. (1998). Building your image on campus. Journal of Career Planning andEmployment, 58(2), 42–46.

Keller, K. (2001). Building customer based brand equity: A blueprint for creating strong brands.Marketing Management, 10(2), 14–19. Retrieved from http://mktg.uni-svishtov.bg/ivm/resources/CustomerBasedbrandEquityModel.pdf

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity.Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–22. Retrieved from http://www.iseg.utl.pt/aula/cad1849/conceptualizing_measuring_managing_cbbe.pdf

Keller, K. L. (2002). Branding and brand equity (Marketing Science Institute RelevantKnowledge Series Report No. 02-60). Retrieved from http://bear.warrington.ufl.edu/weitz/mar7786/Articles/Keller%202002.pdf

Kim, H., Kim, W., & An, A. (2003). The effect of consumer based brand equity on firms’ finan-cial performance. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(4), 335–351. Retrieved from http://www.iseg.utl.pt/aula/cad1849/effect_cbbe_firms_fin_perform.pdf

Kirmani, A., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). Advertising, perceived quality and brand image. In D. A.Aaker & A. Biel (Eds.), Brand equity and advertising (pp. 143–161). Hillsdale, NJ.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education 201

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Kotler, P., & Fox, K. F. A. (1995). Strategic marketing for educational institutions (2nd ed.).New York, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kumar, S., & Dash, M. K. (2011, January). Management education in India: Trends, issues andimplications. Research Journal of International Studies, 18, 15–25. Retrieved from http://www.eurojournals.com/RJIS_18_02.pdf

Kurz, K., Scannell, J., & Veeder, S. (2008). Willingness to pay: Making the best case for insti-tutional value and return on investment. University Business, 11(5), 31–32.

Lavidge, R. J., & Steiner, G. A. (1961). A model for predictive measurement of advertisingeffectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25, 59–62.

Lemon, K. N., Rust, R. T., & Zeithaml, V. A. (2001). What drives consumer equity? MarketingManagement, 10(1), 20–25.

Lovelock, C. (1991). Services marketing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Mackay, M. M. (2001). Evaluation of brand equity measures: Further empirical results. Journal

of Product & Brand Management, 10(1), 38–51.Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. (2008). The Global market for higher education: Sustainable and

competitive strategies for the new millennium. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.McGuire, W. J. (1972). Attitude change: The information processing paradigm. In C. G.

McClintock (Ed.), Experimental social psychology (pp. 108–141). New York, NY: Holt,Rinehart & Winston.

Mourad, M. (2010). Internationalization: A new positioning strategy in higher education market.International Journal of Management in Education, 4(2), 185–200. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJMIE.2010.030875

Mourad, M., Ennew, C., & Kortam, W. (2010). Brand equity in higher education. MarketingIntelligence & Planning, 29(4), 403–420. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/promo/pdf/global/brand_equity_in_higher.pdf

Netemeyer, R. G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., . . . Wirth, F. (2004).Developing and validating measures of facets of customer based brand equity. Journal ofBusiness Research, 57, 209–224.

Outlook. (2011, September). India’s best business schools: Outlook-MDRA rankings, 36–37.Paden, N., & Stell, R. (2006). Branding options for distance learning programs: Managing the

event of university image. International Journal of Instructional Technology and DistanceLearning, 3(8), 45–54.

Palacio, A. B., Meneses, G. D., & Perez, P. J. (2002). The configuration of the university imageand its relationship with the satisfaction of students. Journal of Educational Administration,40(5), 486–505.

Parameswaran, R., & Glowacka, A. E. (1995). University image: An information processingperspective. Marketing for Higher Education, 6(2), 41–56.

Philip, J. (2008). Management education in India. Proceedings from XIII International Study &Practical Conference – Competitiveness in Information Society: BRICS-countriesExperience, State University of Management, Moscow, Russia.

Saeed, M. K., & Ehsan, U. (2010). Exploring the most important factors while branding thebusiness schools. Journal of Management & Social Sciences, 6(1), 36–43.

Segev, E., Raveh, A., & Farjoun, M. (1999). Conceptual maps of leading MBA programs in theUnited States: Core courses, concentration areas and the ranking of the school. StrategicManagement Journal, 20, 549–565.

Sethuraman, R., & Cole, C. (1997). Why do consumers play more for national brands than for storebrands? (MSI Working paper No. 97-126). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Sevier, R. A., & Sickler, E. (2004). Is image still everything (Stamats White Paper 14). Retrievedfrom www.stamats.com/resources/whitepapers/pdf/whitepaper14.pdf

Shah, A. (2012, September). India’s business schools get tough lesson in supply and demand.Reuters. Retrieved from http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/india-education-mba-business-schools-idINDEE88900W20120910

Shayon, S. (2012, April 24). Wharton brand refresh isn’t just academic. Brand Channel.Retrieved from http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/Wharton-Rebrand-042412.aspx

Simon, C. J., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The measurement and determinants of brand equity: Afinancial approach. Marketing Science, 12, 28–52.

202 A. Aggarwal Sharma et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Sinha, D. P. (2006). Management education in India: Perspectives and challenges. Hyderabad,India: ICFAI University Press. ISBN: 9788178812793.

Sudarshan, K. (2011). Input quality matters – Brand IIM. Indian Management, 50(5), 78–82.Teas, K., & Grapentine, T. (1996). Demystifying brand equity. Marketing Research, 8(2), 24–30.The Week. (2011, November). Best B schools: The Week-MaRS national survey, p. 55.Topor, B. (2005). Branding higher education. Marketing Higher Education Newsletter, XV(2),

15–18.Yavas, U., & Shemwell, D. J. (1996). Graphical representation of university image: A correspon-

dence analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 7(2), 75–84.Yesodharan, D. (2004, January 7). Is the IIM brand losing sheen? Economic Times, p. 7.Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end model

and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2–22.

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education 203

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

57 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14