Thesis Final Paper Rev 1

7/13/2019 Thesis Final Paper Rev 1

1/112

!"# %#&'()*+,")-, .#(/##+ .0'+1 234)(56 .0'+1 70#8#0#+9#6 '+1

7409"',# :+(#+( *8 70#;)4; %#,)1#+()'&


2/112

1

APPROVAL SHEET

This thesis hereto entitled:

The Relationships Between Brand Equity, Brand Preference and Purchase Intent

of Premium Residential Condominium Units

prepared and submitted by Josef Karlo V. Prado in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the degree of Master of Science in Marketing has been examined

and is recommended for acceptance and approval for MSM Final Thesis Defense/Oral Examination.

Mr. Benison Y. Cu, CPM

Adviser

Approved by the Committee on Oral Examination with a grade of PASSEDon August

17, 2013.

Ms. Marie Julie B. Taada

Chair

Dr. Luz T. Suplico-Jeong Ms. Carmelita M. Walton

Member Member

Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science

in Marketing

Dr. Maria Andrea L. Santiago

Dean, College of Business


3/112

2

!'> *8 ?0?0'&9#%+-,6"+$ 2&%=&&, 2'#,. &E/+%7 #,. $/'!"#6& +,%&,% ;;?0?0'&9#%+-,6"+$ 2&%=&&, 2'#,. $'&5&'&,!& #,. $/'!"#6& +,%&,% C)? @

%#29& 0+,%&',#9 !-,6+6%&,!7 -5 6%/.7 B#'+#29&6 ;>

%#29& ))09+,' '&4'&66+-, 6%#%+6%+!6*2'#,. &E/+%7 #,. 2'#,. $'&5&'&,!& ;)

%#29& )809+,' '&4'&66+-, 6%#%+6%+!6*2'#,. 9-7#9%7 #,. 2'#,. $'&5&'&,!& ; 0.9 Excellent

0.8 0.9 Good

0.7 0.8 Acceptable

0.6 0.7 Questionable

0.5 0.6 Poor

< 0.5 Unacceptable


66/112

65

CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS

4.1. Profile of Respondents

4.1.1. Occupation

Respondents were categorized into four basic groups according to

occupation, namely working professionals, entrepreneurs, housewives, and

retirees. As expected of the target socioeconomic market, the sample is

comprised mostly of working professionals (81.7%) and entrepreneurs

(10.4%) (Figure 10).

Figure 10:Respondent Profile by Occupation


67/112

66

A sample that is predominantly composed of working professionals rather

than entrepreneurs might be expected to more risk averse. As such, the

effect of brand loyalty could be disproportionately large, as respondents

could potentially favor known brands over potentially riskier unknown

brands.

4.1.2 Income

As can be expected, respondents mostly belong to the lower end of the

arbitrarily defined income groups, simply because there are fewer families

belonging to the higher income groups. Despite this, higher-income

families were still well-represented; about 34% of the sample have a

household monthly income of more than P450,000 (Figure 11).

Figure 11:Percentage of Respondents by Income Group


68/112

67

4.1.3 Condo Ownership

The vast majority of all survey respondents own only one condominium

unit. Only higher-income investors own multiple units (Figure 12).

Figure 12:Respondent Profile by Number of Units Owned

Figure 13Respondent Profile by Purpose of Ownership


69/112

68

More than half of those surveyed answered that their condominiums will

be used either purely for investment, or both as a residence and an

investment (Figure 13). This could potentially influence brand equity

dynamics in two important ways. First, given their highly rational and

practical nature, investors are less likely to form emotional attachments

with a brand. Therefore, brand associations may not be as important to the

investor market as they would be in others. Conversely, quality

perceptions would tend to have a greater than average influence on value-

seekers, due to their objectivity.

Figure 14:Respondent Profile by Interest in Future Condo Purchases


70/112

69

Most respondents expressed some degree of interest in purchasing another

condominium unit, including a surprising number of those who purchased

their units for residential purposes. The numbers strongly suggest a very

high degree of satisfaction derived from the owners experiences with

their existing units. This, along with reported industry growth rates in

recent years, provide evidence that the countrys real estate developers are

doing very well in meeting the value expectations of what is traditionally a

very demanding and discerning market.

As proposed by Hellier et al (2003) in their previously cited study,

customer satisfaction is an important antecedent of both brand loyalty and

repurchase intent, and must therefore be considered in data analysis.

4.2. Internal Reliability of Measures

As interpreted using Table 9, Cronbachs Alpha values for the six applicable

study variables are all within what is considered as acceptable or good. These results are

unsurprising since the study survey scales borrow heavily from Yoo & Donthus

previously validated brand equity measurement model. The respective figures for each

variable are shown in Table 10:


71/112

70

Table 10:Internal Consistency of Study Variables

Variable Cronbachs Alpha Reliability

Loyalty .881 Good

Quality .804 Good

Associations .865 Good

Awareness .828 Good

Brand Preference .787 Acceptable

Purchase Intent .897 Good

The probable reason for the high/acceptable internal consistency of each variable

used was the inherent reliability of the source material borrowed from the aforementioned

study. The Yoo/Donthu brand equity scales were shown to be consistently reliable

measures of brand equity across all product and service categories, as well as across

different cultures. Brand preference and purchase intent scales appropriated from other

studies use similarly generalizable concepts. Since minimal changes were applied to the

source material, the results of this particular survey proved similarly reliable. These

statistics support the idea that the modified instrument properly measures each study

variable.

4.3. Relationship Between Brand Equity and Brand Preference

All regression models used in this study were processed using IBM SPSS

Statistics version 20. When testing the relationship between brand equity and brand

preference, the program yielded a Pearson coefficient of .879, consistent with earlier


72/112

71

studies that unanimously confirmed the existence of a significant relationship between

these two constructs. Theoretically, this means that about 87.9% of the difference in

brand preference among respondents can be attributed to its relationship to brand equity.

Under the guidelines proposed by Levin et al as summarized by Table 8, the correlation

between the two variables is considered strong, again confirming previous theoretical and

empirical evidence on the subject.

The regression model also passes the ANOVA F-test for significance, with a p-

value much less than the standard acceptable threshold of 0.05.

Table 11:Linear Regression Statistics: Brand Equity and Brand Preference


73/112

72

As discussed earlier, brand equity is also important in the industry due to the

considerable risks involved; a reputable brand with a known track record proves to be a

safer, more attractive option in many cases, especially considering a population that is

expected to be risk-averse.

In general, brand equity affects brand preference by adding value, as Aakers

framework espouses. Additionally, the strong effects of brand equity in this context can

also be attributed to the nature of the premium condominium industry, wherein major

developers frequently utilize the pre-selling business model. In this case, customers

usually are not given the opportunity to personally inspect a unit before purchase.

Developers are therefore more reliant on its brands track record and brand promise to

assure its prospective buyers of the kind of quality they are capable of producing.

From the buyers perspective, brand equity plays a large part in reducing the

inherent risk involved in condominium purchase. As cited earlier (p. 47), Chen et al

showed that anticipated risk has a negative effect on post-purchase satisfaction, causing

buyers unnecessary feelings of regret. It can be inferred that reducing this anticipated risk

can potentially improve satisfaction, which will in turn influence brand preference. Brand

equity can potentially be valuable in this regard; it provides additional assurance to

buyers that their substantial investments will be well spent.

Other insights were also discovered when the effect of each individual dimension

of brand equity on brand preference was explored:


74/112

73

Table 12:Linear Regression Statistics: Brand Loyalty and Brand Preference

Table 13:Linear Regression Statistics: Brand Quality and Brand Preference


75/112

74

Table 14:Linear Regression Statistics: Brand Awareness and Brand Preference

Table 15:Linear Regression Statistics: Brand Associations and Brand Preference


76/112

75

All dimensions of brand equity pass the corresponding ANOVA F-tests for

significance, and each were shown to be strongly correlated with brand preference.

Results support Aakers views on the importance of each dimension of brand equity, and

how each dimension contributes towards positive evaluations of a brand.

Comparing the four dimensions, brand awareness is most strongly related to brand

preference (Table 16). This makes logical sense; developing the other dimensions of

brand equity is contingent upon building some level of brand awareness. Without brand

awareness, it would be impossible to form quality perceptions, develop positive brand

associations, or create any kind of brand loyalty.

Table 16:Relationship Between Brand Equity Dimensions and Brand Preference

Variable Pearson

Coefficient

Strength of

Relationship

Significance

Loyalty .784 Strong Significant

Quality .718 Strong Significant

Awareness .866 Strong Significant

Associations .762 Strong Significant

Brand Equity .879 Strong Significant

Contrary to this researchers expectations, brand quality proved to be least

correlated with brand preference. One possible explanation is that high quality does not

necessarily equate to high value. Value is usually thought of as a combination of

product/service, and price (Keller, p.10). Hypothetically, if two real estate brands have


77/112

76

the exact same level of perceived quality but differ significantly in price, value seekers

are expected to prefer the lower-priced alternative. As such, high quality perceptions

alone may not be adequate to ensure brand preference in an industry like the residential

condominium industry, wherein pricing and payment schemes are especially important.

Product quality relative to price may be the more important determinant of preference in

this context.

Brand loyalty is also strongly correlated with brand preference. As discussed

earlier, this is likely due to positive experiences unit owners have had with their current

units, as well as avoidance of unfamiliar brands by risk-averse condominium unit buyers.

If buyers are happy with their previously chosen brands, they would be less willing to

risk a multimillion-peso investment on another brand they have had no prior experience

with. This same relationship was also established in the study of Hellier et al (2003).

Finally, brand associations have a similarly high correlation with brand

preference. Despite the fact that value seekers seem less likely to develop emotional

attachments with a brand, the evidence suggests that the effect of brand associations is

still strong enough to positively influence brand preference. The results also suggest that

some of Kellers characteristics of luxury branding (p. 53), which mostly emphasize

brand associations, would also apply the value seeker market.


78/112

77

4.4. Relationship Between Brand Equity and Purchase Intent

The relationship between brand equity and purchase intent proved to be

statistically similar to the relationship between brand equity and brand preference. P-

value was again less than the acceptable threshold of 0.05, with a Pearson coefficient of

.890. Again, this means that this relationship is statistically significant, and that about

89% of the changes in respondents purchase intent can be attributed to its relationship

with brand equity.

In accordance with previous studies and theory, brand equity is shown to be a

very strong predictor of purchase intent. As indicated earlier, industry-specific

characteristics such as the large investment costs involved and prevalence of pre-selling

also make purchases inherently risky, thus making a brands track record potentially

more valuable to consumers.


79/112

78

Table 17:Linear Regression Statistics: Brand Equity and Purchase Intent

Testing the relationships between each of the individual dimensions of brand

equity versus purchase intent yields the following results:


80/112

79

Table 18:Linear Regression Statistics: Brand Loyalty and Purchase Intent

Table 19:Linear Regression Statistics: Brand Quality and Purchase Intent


81/112

80

Table 20:Linear Regression Statistics: Brand Awareness and Purchase Intent

Table 21:Linear Regression Statistics: Brand Associations and Purchase Intent


82/112

81

Once more, all of the four dimensions of brand equity show strong correlations

with purchase intent. P-values for all regression models are less than ! = 0.05, thus

validating their statistical significance. These findings further lend credence to the Aaker

model of brand equity, which asserts that all dimensions of brand equity positively

influence purchase intent.

Comparatively, brand awareness shows the strongest relationship with purchase

intent (Table 22). In their study of consideration sets, Elias and Spiegler (2011) note that

consumers should not be expected to be aware of each feasible alternative in a purchase

decision. And if a customer is unaware of a certain brands characteristics in the premium

residential condominium segment, then that customer will automatically disregard it from

his or her set of possible purchase alternatives, regardless of whatever objective value the

product may have.

Table 22:Relationship Between Brand Equity Dimensions and Purchase Intent

Variable Pearson

Coefficient

Strength of

Relationship

Significance

Loyalty .827 Strong Significant

Quality .757 Strong Significant

Awareness .855 Strong Significant

Associations .736 Strong Significant

Brand Equity .890 Strong Significant

The relationship between quality and purchase intent is notably stronger than that

of quality and brand preference. A possible explanation is that brand quality plays a


83/112

82

greater role in purchase intent because the choice of purchase directly affects the

residents quality of life or the investors return potential, whereas preference may not. In

making a large investment such as a condominium purchase, the buyer is thus forced to

be more objective, which makes perceived quality a relatively stronger choice criterion.

Conversely, the relationship of brand associations and purchase intent is weaker

than the previously discussed relationship of brand associations and brand preference. In

the same way that brand quality is a more objective value, associations offer more

subjective values for the consumer. Given the target market and industry, buyers are not

inclined to evaluate purchase decisions on the basis of brand associations that do not

necessarily add any functional value to the product.

Here is where the difference between brand preference and purchase intent

becomes most apparent. Brand preference is by nature more strongly linked to attitudes

and image than purchase intent. On the other hand, purchase intent is more influenced by

situational factors, most notably current spending power.

Brand loyalty is also strongly correlated with purchase intent. A condominium

purchase, whether as investment or as residence, is a large part of an owners life. It is

expected that owners form strong connections with their chosen condo brands, and that

these connections can become strong influencing factors in future purchase decisions.

The study by Hellier et al (2003) also underscores the importance of customer loyalty in

driving repurchase intent.


84/112

83

4.4. Relationship Between Brand Preference and Purchase Intent

The linear regression model also provides statistical evidence of a strong

relationship between brand preference and purchase intent (Table 23). The resultant P-

value is again less than the required threshold of 0.05, and can therefore be considered

significant.

Table 23:Linear Regression Statistics: Brand Preference and Purchase Intent


85/112

84

The existence of a strong positive relationship between brand preference and

purchase intent is corroborated by several studies, most notably those written by Cobb-

Walgren et al (1995), Moradi and Zarei (2011), and Hellier et al (2003). Customers have

shown the inclination to favor certain brands over others, and there is strong evidence to

suggest that the favored brands enjoy a significant advantage in terms of purchase

consideration.


86/112

85

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Summary and Conclusions

This study was made in order to establish correlations between brand equity,

brand preference, and purchase intent in the premium condominium market. It was

further limited to include only respondents with the psychological profile referred to as

the value seeker, a more pragmatic market subsegment that includes investors and

owners who value price to benefit ratio above all other criteria. The intended result of the

study can be summarized by these objectives:

General Objective

To establish the relationships between brand equity, brand preference and

purchase intent.

Specific Objectives

1) To gain insight into key success factors in the market by looking at the effects

of the dimensions of brand equity


87/112

86

2) To increase understanding of how brand equity affects the premium

condominium market

3) To empirically confirm theoretical relationships between study variables

The studys conceptual framework mainly involves Aakers model of brand

equity, which characterizes brand equity as a combination of four distinct dimensions,

namely brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand awareness, and brand associations. The

Aaker model is the one most commonly adopted for research objectives similar to those

of this study. As such, the operational frameworks used herein were based on earlier

studies that also utilized the Aaker model (Chen/Chang 2008, Moradi/Zarei 2011), with

an additional emphasis on the effect of each individual dimension of brand equity.

The research survey instrument consists of profiling information and five-point

Likert scales that measure customer assessments of each dimension of brand equity, as

well as brand preference and purchase intent.

Survey respondents were limited to those owning pre-selected projects from five

of the countrys leading premium residential condominium developers. This helps ensure

that the resultant sample is representative of the overall market, and not just certain

brands. In order to facilitate cross-brand comparability, the projects selected were those

that are most similar in terms of quantifiable attributes such as unit size, price per square

meter, and location.


88/112

87

Survey questionnaires were sent to unit owners in all pre-selected projects, and

responses were screened using demographic and psychographic profiling questions to

ensure inclusion in the target market. The pool of valid surveys was then subjected to

systematic random sampling in order to select the 115 respondents that were used in the

study.

Internal consistency of each study variable was tested using Cronbachs Alpha.

Each linear relationship was tested using separate regression models, and analyzed using

ANOVA F-tests for signifance and Pearson coefficients for relationship strength.

Frequencies and percentages of descriptive data, interviews with real estate developers,

and personal insights were also utilized to supplement the analysis.

The relationships between brand equity, brand preference, and purchase intent

have been explored in various studies and theoretical works. All prior evidence seems to

indicate that there is indeed a strong link between the three variables, and this study

supports the existence of these relationships in the premium residential condominium

industry. Brands that are rated highly in terms of brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand

awareness, and brand associations have a very high likelihood of being the preferred

brands. Furthermore, results show that brand equity measures can serve as powerful

predictors of purchase intent, an important metric for assessing a products potential sales

performance.

While causal relationships cannot be empirically confirmed using regression

analysis, theory suggests that stronger brand equity should in fact lead to improved


89/112

88

preference and purchase intent. This can be explained in closer detail by looking at each

dimension of brand equity. Similarly, brand preference should also be expected to result

in a higher probability of purchase intent. It follows that a more favored brand would

generally be a more attractive purchase option for the consumer in normal circumstances.

The findings of this study adequately address its established objectives, as

detailed below:

General Objective

To establish the relationships between brand equity, brand preference and

purchase intent.

Strong empirical evidence supports both the significance and strength of each

relationship, as detailed in Table 24. The three main study variables have

statistically relevant linear correlations. Additionally, Pearson coefficients for

each linear model are all very high; further proof of the strength of the underlying

relationships between constructs.

Table 24:Testing of Research Hypotheses

Hypothesis Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable

Pearson

Coefficient*

Accept or

Reject

H1 Brand Equity Brand Preference .879 Accept

H2 Brand Equity Purchase Intent .890 Accept

H3 Brand Preference Purchase Intent .886 Accept

*significant at != 0.05


90/112

89

Again, these findings are consistent with various works that have explored the

effects of brand equity on both brand preference and purchase intent. Across a

multitude of industries and cultural settings, various researchers have consistently

discovered that brand equity positively influences customer perceptions of

preference and their intent to purchase a product.

The results are also in line with Aakers well-renowned brand equity framework,

which advocates the message that a brands strength in terms of awareness,

associations, perceived quality, and loyalty is critical in acquisition and retention

of customers.

All in all, both theoretical and statistical methods yield substantial evidence in

support of the study hypotheses. As such, all three study hypothesis are accepted.

Brand equity significantly influences both brand preference and purchase intent,

and brand preference also significantly influences purchase intent.

Specific Objectives

To gain insight into key success factors in the market by looking at the effects

of the dimensions of brand equity


91/112

90

The statistical results and their theoretical underpinnings support the idea that all

four dimensions of brand equity must be properly developed in order to maximize

competitive potential in the market. Brand awareness and loyalty seem to be the

strongest predictors of brand preference and purchase intent, while brand

associations and perceived quality are also valuable to a certain extent.

It seems self-evident that awareness would be the most important dimension of

brand equity; the other three dimensions all require at least some level of brand

recognition and recall. As indicated by Hellier et al (p. 37), brand loyalty can be a

result of customer satisfaction from previous purchases, a powerful driver of

future repurchase intent. It stands to reason that the customer would be more

inclined to purchase from the same brand if he or she is generally satisfied with it.

Perceived quality and associations both add value to a brand, thus making it more

appealing both in terms of preference and purchase intent. The findings however,

indicate perceived quality affects purchase intent more than brand associations do.

Presumably, this is because the actual purchase decision forces customers to be

more objective, thus limiting the non-tangible value that brand associations add to

the product. On the other hand, the presented statistics show that brand

associations influence brand preference more strongly than perceived quality

does. This could be because of the nature of the non-tangible values of brand


92/112

91

associations, such as image. For example, most young males would probably

prefer a Ferrari to a Toyota largely due to image, but Toyota routinely sells many

more units than Ferrari. The image of Ferrari is a powerful driver of preference,

but is oftentimes not considered a practical purchase due the price premium its

brand commands. As such, those looking for the best possible quality at a certain

price point would probably opt for a Toyota. Similar arguments can be made for

the premium condominium industry.

To increase understanding of how brand equity affects the premium

condominium market

As indicated earlier, brand awareness proved to be important as it is basically a

requirement to be able to generate favorable assessments of a brand. Loyalty,

especially when rooted in past customer satisfaction, creates connections with

customers that influences positive attitudes and behavior towards a brand.

Perceived quality and associations improve the customer evaluations of a brands

value and benefits.

Other studies also provide insights into the effect of brand equity on brand

preference and purchase intent. The most notable example is the research of Chen

et al (p. 47), which shows that anticipated regret and expected risk in the pre-


93/112

92

purchase phase indirectly correlates with post-purchase dissatisfaction. The study

applies to the housing market, but the concepts therein are transmissible to the

premium condominium market as well. In both cases, purchases are extremely

difficult due to their inherent risk, importance, and complexity. This causes a

great deal of anticipated regret even before the purchase, which influences buyers

into actual feelings of regret when the purchase occurs. Under this premise, it can

be reasoned that reducing anticipated risk should also have a positive effect on

satisfaction. One of the best ways to do so is to develop a well-established and

reputable brand. Customers can feel more secure about their investments if they

are assured of a certain level of quality typical of the brand in question.

Investments are even more difficult in the premium condominium market due to

the proliferation of the pre-selling method. It becomes much more important to

build a trusted brand, since there is literally no way to inspect the product to be

purchased. The act of pre-selling a condominium unit is tantamount to selling a

very expensive promise; and customers need to hear that promise from a

trustworthy source before they commit to the substantial investments involved.


94/112

93

To empirically confirm theoretical relationships between study variables

As shown earlier, very high Pearson correlation coefficients as well as acceptable

p-values provide empirical evidence of a strong relationship between all three

main study variables. All Pearson coefficients are about .89, which statistically

means that about 90% of the changes in brand preference and purchase intent can

be attributed to changes in brand equity. This is of course a very strong indicator

that all three study variables are closely linked to each other.

P-values for each significance test were all less than 0.00, safely below the

threshold of 0.05 required to be considered significant. While we cannot

empirically confirm causality based on these findings alone, statistics show that

the relationships do exist for this particular market.

Moreoever, The positive slopes for each linear model also confirm the directional

relationships. As brand equity increases, brand preference and purchase intent

also increase. As brand preference increases, purchase intent increases as well.


95/112

94

5.2. Recommendations for Future Studies

While there were some useful findings derived from the study, a number of

improvements can be made to enhance their value. These include the following:

1. It would be highly useful to conduct studies on the causal effect of brand equityon both brand preference and purchase intent. The weakness of the linear

regression model used in this scenario is that it cannot confirm that the increase in

the dependent variable is directly caused by the increase of the independent

variable. Although all evidence seems to indicate that there is a strong

relationship between brand equity, brand preference and purchase intent, current

methodologies cannot be used to empirically confirm causation. If such a

methodology could be developed, it would be invaluable to the study of brand

equity, and more effectively address the objectives of this particular research.

2. Studies on other subsegments of the real estate industry would also be useful.Perhaps brand equity dynamics would differ if one considers the prestige-seeker

market, or value seekers in the mid-end/low-end market. Studying all segments of

the industry would enable researchers to draw industry-wide conclusions that

would prove useful to marketers. Differences between subsegments can also

provide very useful insights regarding the inner workings of the market. In


96/112

95

particular, the effects of both brand associations and perceived quality would

probably differ across socioeconomic market segments and psychographic

profiles. The extent to which these relationships differ is impossible to determine

without further research, and in this researchers opinion would be interesting to

discover.

3. The academe and future researchers could also consider the use of more advancedmethodologies, most notably structural equation modeling, that could reaffirm the

presented findings. This would eliminate some of the limitations of the study and

allows for further analysis that is not possible using only linear regression models.

These limitations include the inability to provide relative weights for each

dimension and the assumption of a linear relationship between variables. Both of

these can potentially vary significantly in reality and thus change the

corresponding analysis and conclusions. Further more, structural equation models

can also reveal the possible relationships the dimensions of brand equity have

with each other, thus adding an additional layer to the analysis that could further

improve understanding of how brand equity affects consumers.

4. Similarly, future researchers can also try using frameworks other than the Aakermodel, in order to further enrich understanding of the influence of brand equity on


97/112

96

brand preference and purchase intent. For example, Young and Rubicams Brand

Asset Valuator is a widely used brand equity model that deviates enough from

Aakers work to provide fresh insights for analysis, since it looks at the brand

equity construct from an entirely different perspective. The repurchase intention

framework proposed by Hellier et al (2003) is another interesting attempt at

understanding the different variables involved in purchase intent, and could

potentially help describe relationships between the individual brand equity

dimensions.

5.3. Marketing Recommendations

Results indicate that the dimensions of brand equity are powerful influencers of

possible brand acceptance and success. In light of this, the following strategic and tactical

marketing actions are highly recommended for real estate developers in the premium

residential condominium market targeting value seekers.

Product

As proposed earlier, customer satisfaction is potentially one of the most important

sources of brand loyalty in the market. It is therefore important that customers feel that

they are receiving excellent value for their investment. Use of durable unit materials and


98/112

97

branded fixtures would help achieve this, in conjunction with regular maintenance of the

buildings, common areas, and outdoor areas within the development. Ancillary services

can also provide additional value to consumers. Services such as reception, security, and

housekeeping are necessary and should of course be prioritized accordingly. In addition,

developers could benefit significantly by introducing various convenience amenities such

as accessible messengerial services or in-house laundry concessionaires. By going above

and beyond current service expectations, real estate developers can perhaps delight their

consumer base and inspire brand loyalty. Additionally, condominium dwellers typically

value convenience, and having these accessible amenities can prove very valuable to

them.

Price

Competitive pricing is another factor in achieving customer satisfaction. This is

especially true in a very competitive industry wherein there are a number of viable,

quality alternatives. Generally, brands that enjoy high levels of brand equity are expected

to command price premiums, but this may not be the case in an industry where there are a

number of strong players with their own relative strengths. There may not be a single

brand that significantly exceeds all the others in terms of brand equity. As such, a

competitive pricing method, wherein companies adjust their pricing based on similar

competitive offerings, may be the most appropriate in this market. By extension, payment


99/112

98

schemes must also be comparable to those offered by the major players. This is especially

important for the value seeker market, considering their highly objective personality

types. If a brands price premium cannot justify the tangible benefits the product offers, it

may prove unappealing for the discerning investor.

Placement

Real estate channels generally consist of mostly direct marketing by developer

sales agents and independent brokers. Some satellite sales offices and small stalls in high-

traffic locations such as shopping malls also complement the direct marketing efforts. By

doing this, developers can effectively target a wide audience while providing the one-on-

one correspondence necessary to deliver an adequate sales pitch. This current system

seems to be the ideal fit for the industry and need not be changed.

Promotion

Promotion of premium residential condominiums is also largely dependent on the

efforts of the individual sales agents and brokers selling these projects. Since ads

generally need to contain large amounts of information, print is the most common

medium used. Billboard ads are another very common way to generate awareness of

certain projects. These various advertising initiatives serve the important purpose of


100/112

99

educating the customer about a brand and its benefits, and should be maintained.

Additionally, another important function of promotion is to improve brand associations.

As such, developers should look into brand-building mass media campaigns apart from

the project-specific advertising that is generally characteristic of the industry. TVCs or

radio ads can be effective for this purpose. The continued use of celebrity endorsements,

a fairly recent industry trend, is also encouraged as it helps build positive brand

associations.

Of course, different brands have would have different promotional objectives

based on their brand personality and market position. Century Properties, a relatively new

major player in the industry, did an effective job conveying its position as a premium

developer through its strategic partnerships with Trump Properties, Versace Home, and

endorser Paris Hilton. These partnerships sent a strong message to consumers that

Century is not a small developer with few resources, but rather a serious player that is

well worth considering even in comparison with the more established firms.

On the other hand, a brand such as Ayala Land Premiere already has a very

established name with clear associations. It could therefore benefit from a promotional

campaign that highlights product quality instead of the lifestyle messages that developers

typically utilize in their advertisements. Both Rockwell Land and Shang Properties could

adopt a similar strategy as well. The focus on the products objective advantages sends a

compelling message suitable for value seekers.


101/112

100

The brand that could potentially benefit the most from improved brand

associations is Robinsons Luxuria, since its parent company is most well known as a

mid-end brand. However, its current campaign prominently features endorser Solenn

Heusaff, whose image and stature as an endorser would be more comparable with

low/mid-end condo brand endorsers (Anne Curtis, Angel Locsin), than Centurys lineup

of internationally renowned names. This unfavorable comparison reinforces the company

image as a mid-end brand, and potentially hinders its market acceptance. The use of

different endorsers, or other image-building lifestyle messages would be more

appropriate in this scenario.


102/112

101

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets. CaliforniaManagement Review, 38(3) pp. 102-120

Aaker, D. A. (1996)Building Strong Brands.New York: The Free Press

Berry, L. L. (2000). Cultivating Service Brand Equity,Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 28(1) pp. 128-137

Bitner, M. (1995). Building Service Relationships: Its All About Promises,Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4) pp. 246-251

Bonett, D. G. & Wright, T. A. (2011). Sample Size Requirements for Multiple

Regression Interval Estimation.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(6) pp. 822-830

Chang, H. H. et al (2008). The Antecedents and Consequences of Brand Equity in

Service Markets.Asia Pacific Management Review, 13(3) pp. 601-624

Chen, C. & Chang, Y. (2008). Airline Brand Equity, Brand Preference, and Purchase

Intentions: The moderating Effects of Switching Costs.Journal of Air TransportManagement, 14(1) pp. 40-42

Chen, J. et al (2011). Perceived Risk, Anticipated Regret and Post-purchase Experience

in the Real Estate Market: The Case of China.Housing Studies, 26(3) pp. 385-402

Cobb-Walgren, C. J. et al (1995). Brand Equity, Brand Preference, and Purchase Intent.

Journal of Advertising, 24(3) pp. 25-40

De Chernatony. L. et al (2003). Building a Services Brand: Stages, People and

Orientations, The Service Industries Journal, 23(3) pp. 1-21

Dorsch, M. J. et al (2000). Consumer Intentions to Use a Service Category, Journal of

Services Marketing, 14(2) pp. 92-117

Elias, K. & Spiegler, R. (2011). Consideration Sets and Competitive Marketing,Revuewif Economic Studies, 78(1) pp. 235-262

Ellyatt, H. (2012, November 2) The Next Big Thing in Premium Branded Real Estate.

CNBC.com. Retrieved January 26, 2013 from http://www.cnbc.com/id/49638752/The_Next_Big_Thing_in_PremiummdashBranded_Real_Estate


103/112

102

Faircloth, J. B. et al (2001). The Effect of Brand Attitude and Brand Image on BrandEquity.Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(3) pp. 61-75

George, D. & Mallery P. (2003) SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide andReference. 11.0 Update 4

thEdition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon

Gill, M. S. & Dawra, J. (2010). Evaluating Aakers Sources of Brand Equity and theMediating Role of Brand Image.Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for

Marketing, 18(3/4) pp. 189-198

Gulas, C. S. et al (2009). Brand and Message Recall: The Effects of Situational

Involvement and Brand Symbols in the Marketing of Real Estate Services. ServicesMarketing Quarterly, 30(4) pp. 333-341

Hellier, P. K. et al (2003). Consumer Repurchase Intention: A General StructuralEquation Model,European Journal of Marketing, 37(11/12) pp. 1762-1800

Hung, J. et al (2012). Developing Experience-Based Luxury Brand Equity in the LuxuryResorts Hotel Industry, Global Journal of Business Research, 6(4) pp. 45-58

Jourdan, P. (2002). Measuring Brand Equity: Proposal for Conceptual andMethodological Improvements.Advances in Consumer Research, 29(1) pp. 290-297

Keller, K. L. (2009). Managing the Growth Tradeoff: Challenges and Opportunities inLuxury Branding.Brand Management, 16(5/6), pp. 290-301

Kelly, K. & Maxwell, S. (2003). Sample Size for Multiple Regression: ObtainingRegression Coefficients That are Accurate, Not Simple Significant.Psychological

Methods, 8(3) pp. 305-321

Kotler, P. & Keller, K. L. (2012)Marketing Management: 14th

Edition. New Jersey:

Prentice Hall

Krishnan, B. C. & Hartline, M. D. (2001). Brand Equity: Is it More Important in

Services?,Journal of Service Marketing, 15(5) pp. 328-342

Laroche, M. et al (2004). Exploring how Intangibility Affects Perceived Risk, Journal ofService Research, 6(4) pp. 373-389

Levin, J. A. et al (2009)Elementary Statistics in Social Research, 11th

Edition.New

Jersey: Pearson

Mizik, N. & Jacobson, R. (2008). The Financial Value Impact of Perceptual Brand

Attributes.Journal of Marketing Research, 45(1) pp.15-32


104/112

103

Moradi, H. & Zarei, A. (2011). The Impact of Brand Equity on Purchase Intention andBrand Preference - The Moderating Effects of Country of Origin Image.Australian

Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(3) pp. 539-545

Myers, C. A. (2003). Managing Brand Equity: A Look at the Impact of Attributes.

Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12(1) pp. 39-51

OCass, A. & Lim, K. (2001). The Influence of Brand Associations of Brand Preference

and Purchase intention: An Asian Perspective on Brand Associations,Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing, 14(2/3) pp. 41-71

Park. C & Srinivasan V. (1994). A Survey-based Method of Measuring andUnderstanding Brand Equity and Its Extendibility,Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2)

pp. 271-288

Stahl, F. et al (2012). The Impact of Brand Equity on Customer Acquisition, Retention,

and Profit Margin.Journal of Marketing, 76(4) pp. 44-63

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics. New Jersey:

Pearson

VanVoorhis, C. R. & Morgan, B. L. (2007). Understanding Power and Rules of Thumb

for Determining Sample Sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3(2)pp. 43-50

Viitanen, K. (2004), Brand in Real Estate Business Concept, Idea, Value,FIG WorkingWeek, May 22-27 2004,pp. 1-9

Washburn, J. H & Plank, R. E. (2002). Measuring Consumer Based Brand Equity: AnEvaluation of a Consumer-Based Brand Equity Scale.Journal of Marketing Theory and

Practice, 10(1) pp. 46-62

Yoo, B. & Donthu N (2001). Developing and Validating a Multidimensional Consumer-

based Brand Equity Scale.Journal of Business Research,52(1) pp. 1-14

Yoo, B. & Donthu N (2000). An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix Elements and

Brand Equity.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2) pp. 195-211

Brand Asset Valuator.All about the Brand Asset Valuator Tool. Retrieved January20, 2013, from http://www.brandassetvaluator.be/en/what/


105/112

104

Brand Planning by Kevin Lane Keller.Brand Planning eArticle. Retrieved January 21,

2013, from http://www.marksherrington.com/downloads/Brand%20Planning%20eArticle.pdf

Colliers Real Estate Market Report. Colliers International.Retrieved January 20, 2013,from http://www.colliers.com/en-GB/Philippines/Insights

Family Income Distribution. Social Weather Station. Retrieved January 20, 2013, fromhttp://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=

0CDwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sws.org.ph%2Fpr20110321%2520-%2520Family%2520Income%2520Distribution%2520by%2520Mr%2520Tomas%2520

Africa_FINAL.pdf&ei=sDf9UNvCCqqiiAfNnIC4Dg&usg=AFQjCNFZ9Cewzp-31isHmD118TME5BmYxw&bvm=bv.41248874,d.aGc

Household Population of the Philippines Reaches 92.1 Million. National Statistics Office.Retrieved January 20, 2013, from http://www.census.gov.ph/content/household-

population-philippines-reaches-921-million

Managing Brand Equity.Brand Amplitude.Retrieved January 20, 2013, from

http://www.brandamplitude.com/perspectives/toolkits

Power and Sample Size Determination for Linear Models. SAS Paper 240-26.Retrieved

February 21, 2013 from http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi26/p240-26.pdf

Understanding Changes in Philippine Population.National Statistics CoordinationBoard, Retrieved January 20, 2013, from http://www.nscb.gov.ph/beyondthenumbers/2012/11162012_jrga_popn.asp


106/112

105

APPENDIX A: RESEARCH SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Name (Optional):Age:

Occupation:

Combined monthly household income:

Php 100,000 180,000

Php 180,000 450,000

Php 450,000 1,000,000

More than Php 1,000,000

I own a condo from the following brands (check all that apply):

Century

RLC

Shangrila

Ayala

Rockwell Land

I own this many condo units:

1 condo unit

2 condo units

3 condo units

more than 3 condo units

I own a condominium primarily for:

Residential use

Investment

Both (I have one of more units primarily for residence and others for investment)

How likely are you to purchase at least one more condo sometime in the future?

I expect to purchase another condo

I am strongly considering another condo purchase

I am somewhat considering another condo purchase

I am not considering another condo purchase


107/112

106

Please choose one (1) statement that best describes you and mark it with an X

___ I would likely prefer or buy a condo that is associated with a well-known

international name (Trump, Raffles, Armani, Versace, etc.)

___ I would likely prefer or buy a condo that has prestigious features such as privatepools, designer branded fixtures, and a glassy building facade

___ I would likely prefer or buy a condo that offers the best price for same physical

unit specifications (materials, location, size, etc.)

___ I would likely prefer or buy a condo that, if all other things are equal, offers thebest price

___ I would likely prefer or buy a condo where all of my basic needs are within

walking distance, such as schools, offices, supermarkets, laundry, etc.

___ I would likely prefer or buy a condo that is gated, exclusive, quiet, and relativelyshielded from heavily populated areas

___ I would likely prefer or buy a condo that offers the greatest amount of amenities

possible, including a gym, swimming pools, function rooms, entertainment and

facilities, and others

___ I would likely prefer or buy a condo that is located near a trendy/hyped

commercial area such as Resorts World Manila, Bonifacio High Street and thelike

Please encircle one for each item:

Legend:

SA Strongly AgreeA Agree

N Neither Agree nor DisagreeD Disagree

SD Strongly Disagree

Please select one condo brand you own and indicate it here: ______________


108/112

107

1) I consider myself loyal to this brand in the premium condominium market

SA A N D SD

2) This brand would be my first choice for premium condominium units

SA A N D SD

3) I would not buy other brands of premium condominium units if this brand were

available.

SA A N D SD

4) The likelihood of quality of this brand is extremely high for their premium

condominiums

SA A N D SD

5) The likelihood that the premium condominium units of this brand would greatlyappreciate in value is very high.

SA A N D SD

6) I recognize this brand among other brands in the premium condominium

segment

SA A N D SD

7) This brand is the first brand that comes to mind when I think of premium

condominiums.

SA A N D SD


109/112

108

8) Some characteristics of this brand as a premium condominium developer come to

mind very quickly.

SA A N D SD

9) I can quickly recall some of the projects/developments of this brand.

SA A N D SD

10) I have difficulty imagining this brand in my mind as a premium condominium

developer

SA A N D SD

11) I find that this is an appealing brand for premium condominiums.

SA A N D SD

12) This brand is the best brand for premium condominiums.

SA A N D SD

13) If I were to purchase a premium condominium unit, I would prefer this brand if

everything else were equal.

SA A N D SD

14) I am willing to recommend others to purchase premium condominium units

from this brand

SA A N D SD


110/112

109

15) If I eventually find myself in the market for premium condominium units, I

would be willing to purchase from this brand.

SA A N D SD


111/112

110

APPENDIX B: DETAILED SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHIC

INFORMATION

Respondent Profile by Occupation

Occupation Frequency Percentage

Employee 94 81.7%

Entrepeneur 12 10.4%

Housewife 5 4.3%

Retired 4 3.5%

Total 115 100%

Respondent Profile by Income

Income Range Frequency Percentage

Php 100,000 180,000 35 30.4%

Php 180,000 450,000 41 35.7%

Php 450,000 1,000,000 18 15.7%

More than Php 1,000,000 21 18.3%

Total 115 100%

Respondent Profile by Number of Units Owned

Number of Condominium Units Frequency Percentage

1 unit 94 81.7%

2 units 16 13.9%

3 units 3 2.6%

4 or more units 2 1.7%

Total 115 100%

Respondent Profile by Purpose of Ownership

Purpose of Ownership Frequency Percentage

For Residence 54 47.0%

For Investment 38 33.0%

Both For Residence and Investment 23 20.0%

Total 115 100%


112/112

Respondent Profile by Interest in Future Condo Purchases

Interest in Future Condo Purchase Frequency Percentage

Does not expect to purchase another unit 25 21.7%

Somewhat considering another purchase 45 39.1%

Strongly considering another purchase 30 26.1%

Expects to purchase 15 13.0%

Total 115 100%

Documents

Thesis Final Paper Rev 1