brand satisfaction

8/9/2019 Brand Satisfaction

1/12

I: Topic and Author name'Does brand tust matter to brand equity?"- published by Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-AlemanII: Objective

In the currently literary texts, the brand equity on competitive advantages views asmarket-based benefit because it has connection with consumers love to use with that brand.Thereforc, as mentioned above, hust of customers on one brand is the most important featurefor any business fields and the tlust is also the great desire in any relationship. The purpose ofthis study is to interpret the significance of brand trust in bmnd equity developing action.Particularly, this article surveys on the network relationships which driven in the brand trust.III: Introduction

Crcation of a powerful brand in the market is the purpose of nr-rmerous organizations asit gives large number of advantage to the firm, including less weakness to action of competitivemarketing, considerable amount of safety border or margins, large mediator collaboration andprovide brand extension golden oppotunities.Stated this athactiveness in consftucting of brand, which instlument will produce a

powedul brand in reality? This question has been an outstanding and repeated topic inbranding literafure over the last two decades; as a result a lot of research on the importantconceptua.lization of brand equity. Neveftheless, since late 1990s, thete was a new flow ormethod of research in ma.keting (e.g. long-term interconnection, the building of added valuebased on knowledge and expedence, the main pedormance of the role ol marketing in firm,etc.) have accepted for the new method of proceed towards the question what things produce apowerful brand, by that means enhancilg our comprehension of b.and equity. Spe.ifically,analyzing bra[d equity is within a resouce-based approach and marketing relationshipperspective.The latest published works (Falkenberg, 1996; Hooley et al., 2005; Sdvastava et al.,1998, 2001) think the brand as relational marketing based asset because it exists exterior to thefirm and occupies with the relationship of final usen with the brand. The weakness ofmalketing relation is focus on the both marketing theorists and professional's suggestion whichis trusted the main factor on based rclationship. The relationship principles arc connection withbased resowce to braid. The main research question is: Does the brand hust matter connect orrelate to brand equity?

Brand trust studying is in the brand literatue has not developed. The interested in theimportant mafter which has been conceptual or theorctical and therc has been little rcsearchinlo the matter. The deficiency of research is pointed out by Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)who trusts the brand in the processes of brand equity has not been clearly considered. The


2/12

importance of the research has been basically highlighted in the brand literature aurd in thepresent brand managenent application (Bainbidge, 1997; Kamp, 1999; Scoft, 2000)On the support of these re|ection or considemtion, and linking both of theresource-based approach of the firm and literatures of rclationship maiketing, thc studypupose is filling the gap by examining the main brand trust in development of equity of thebrand .To mark this intention, the remainder of this article is assembled as follows. The paperanalyzing brirnd equity is from resourced based. The connection of mirket based bencfit lead toview on bmnd trust. Accordingly, we meltioned a definition of the brand trust and talk aboutthe fashion that bland trust involved in success of brand equity. The data collection and methodused to lest with hypotheses and the rcsult are showed. Ultimalely, we talk about theconclusion in terlrl,s of the suggestions for managedal practice and some limitations and

advices for upcoming resemch arc provided on branding literatue.

IV: Conceptual Framework

V: Theory


3/12

. Ovetull SatisfactiDnAnderson indicated in i994 that overall satisfaction was an ovenll evaluation based on thetotal purchase and consumptron experience with a product or service over a period of time. Brand TrustBrand trust is the confidence drat consumers have for a certain brand. and it is exhibitedthrough two dimensions:

1) Brand reliability shows an organization's ability and willingness to keep its promisesand satisfy customers needs and wants, which will bring a sense of worthy ofconfidence to the customers

2) Brand intcntions reflect the extent that the customers desire to choose a bmnd withtheir iltercsts. The customers' favor towards a bmnd can be a motive for their purchasedecision. At this point, two hypotheses are set up to prove the relationship betweenovemll satisfaction and brand reliabilitv and brand intentionsc Brund Inyahy

Brand loyalty reflects the extent to which consume$' attitudes and behaviors towards a certainbrand affect their purchasing decision over time and displays a brard-consumer relationship.. Brand Equit!Brand equity, as an intangible asset to an orgarfzation, has ben displayed the qualitiesrequired for creating a sustainable competitive- advantage. De Chematony and Macdooaldindicated that brand equity could build in value for customers, help to construct rock-solidcompetitive positions, take time to develop, was inherently complex and couldn't befiansferred to another organization simply. Brand equity has been viewed as a rationalmarket-based asset, which shows its extemal relatioNhip with other market factors andoriginates from a series of brand associations and behaviors that have been developed towardsa particular brandIn a word, brand equity finally originates in the market place from the set of braild associationsand behaviors that have been developd towards the brand

VI: hypotheses:Hl: Customea' Overall satisfaction has a positive relationship with Bmnd IntentionsH2: Customers' Overall satisfaction has a positive relationship with Brand ReliabilityH3: Customers' Overall satisfactior has a positive relationship with Brand LoyaltyH4: Custome$'Brand Reliability has apositive relationship with Brand LoyaltyH5: Custome$'Brand Intentions has a positive relationship with Bmnd IryaltyH6: Custome$' Brand Loyalty has a positive relationship with Brand Equity

l;,,-i*;-:-;..-__:.- ..........,-.f---_


4/12

YII: Research MethodologrThe survey was conducted in Spain, and CAII (computer,aided telephone ilterviewilgprogram) was used to administer fte questionnaire, in which two differcnt product categorieswere provided: shampoo and beer The respondents first were assigned to one product andasked which brands they used. Then they were interviewed with reference to one of the brandsmentioned. The researcher rc.eived 271 completed questionnaires, in which 134 were ftomshampoo and 137 were frcm beer, and the rcsponse rate was 67 percent. The hypothesis wastesting through conventional maximum likelihood estimation techniques.Findings$tk ll toidtud rts{rldr indd

'irnd.ldiad la.rer cl{ssie6li$nrto.x,rll !6Lbqdm * trsd relilb{lqsErrll rrilltdid '. ttar{ ieitidr{sBl! rdkrtdla -. }rat1 lotdrt8n!rd 1.lti']6ry * tdd Lipnr1r1., ,nt!n*@ - hoid byllry0r!!d Loldrq- &nd .q!i9

The hypotheses Hland H2 are supported by the finding above. Hl shows T=0.88 p


5/12

the value-chain especially in service industry. Afterward the organization should enhance therelalionship between its brand and its key extemal stakeholders. What,s more the btanddistinctiveness is very important to a firm to differentiate its products ftom its compeurors rcdevelop and shength its competitive position in customer,s minds and cultivate a lons_termrelationship with its custome$. Howevet this research has its limitations. For examol. rhesample is limited and is not rcpresentative of all consumers. A gender bias may occui in rhissurvey, so it could somewhat limit the external validity of the studv.VIII: Questionnaire

A - Brand liabilityI - Is brand name meeting my experience?2- Is brand name that never disappoints me?B -Brand intention;I Does brand name would be honest?2-Does brand name would make any effort to satisfy me?3 - Does brand name would compensate me with brand loyalty problem?C - Brand loyalty:I - I-oyalty to what brand? (Name)2 - I will buy another brand for these reasons only?3 - If my brand is finished in that stor, will I go somewhere else?4 - It another brand is in touch, would I buy my brand?D - Brand equity:1 - Why I buy my brand instead of other even when they are the same?2 - When other brandies exacdy the, why I buy my brand?3 - When other has same quality, why I buy my brand?4 - Why when another brand is not different, it is smarter to buy m y brand?

';:'*-l ";,7."


6/12

Does brand trust matter to brand equity?Elena Delsado-Balestzr and. Josi Luis M n1eft-AhnAnl4arketing Deparmen! Unive6ity of Murcia, [4urcia, Spain

Purpose - fte mGt recent literature on compelitive advantage vieM brand equity as a relational markel-based $sel bmuse ii a ses lrom theGlationshipsthatcoNume6 have wilh brands. civen the lact ihat trust is viewed as fre co.neFsrone aswellas one of tre mostdesirab e qualities inany relalionship.lhe objective oflhis study is lo ana[2e the imponance oI brand irust in the dvelopment of bEnd equity. Specifrcally $e papetexamines the realionships nerwo* n whkh bhnd lrust k embedded.Detign/melhodology/approach A quanlllalive methodology was adopbd.11'e data are based on a suruey conducted ii a region in fie south-emten part of spain, resurinq in 271 surueys-Findings - fte flndings revealthat brand tust is rooted in lhe.$ulto{ past experience wiih he bbnd, and it is aho positvet asso.iated with bEidloyalty. which in lum mainhins a positiverclalionshipwith brand equ ty. F!fthemore, th resuls sugg6tlhat ahhough brand t.ud does not play a tullmdiaiing roe as suggened ry Morgan and Hunt it contributes 10 a better explanation of b6nd equity.originality/value ftese resuLl5 have signilicant mplications.Ire fad lhat brand equity is besl explained when bmnd trun is taken inlo accountrclnforces the idea thal brand equityi5 a re alional market-based a$et Tlerelore, bmnding literatue may be enrkhed $roughrhe inbgration with rheilerature on the Bource-based-view ollhe lim. Frcm a practicalpoinl of view companies musl blild bland tust in odslo enjoy the substantialcompditive and economk adntiges prcvided by brand equity as a rclational, ma*et-based assel.|(eywoids Brand equity, Bland management Trust Consumer behaviour?aper type Research paper

An executive sl,''''r@y for mdage$ od qeutivereadeE car be foud at tne end of tnis trtide.lntroductionBuilding a stNng bnnd in the market is the soai of manyorsmizarions because iI !rcvides ! host of benetus ro a tm,ir"luding le\s nlDdbiliry _o (olpehuve markebng a.rion..larser mdsins, sreatr int@edr!ry co-operatjon lnd supportud brdd endsion oppoirEides.Givm rhis intftsr in brand building, whlt acrurlly mates abrmd strong? This quesdon has been a significet sndrecur$t theme in the btuding lilerarurc over lhe plst twodecades) resultins in a vlsr body of.eseaich on rhe sllentconcept of b@d quity. However, since the bte 1990s, newr$earch stems nr markedq (e.9. lodg-te@ .e1.!iodships,the creation of added lzlue based on tnowledge lndexperieDce, the role of marketha rdouices in 6rmperfo.mlnce, etc.) have allowed for a new way of.pprolchjns the qustion of what makes a blmd strons,thereby enrichins oE understldding of brand equity,Slecifically) iI is wthrn . resouce based apprcach andrelatio8hip mdkerbg lerspective that we anllyE brand

The oost recst liten1rn ..Falkenbers, 1996, Hooley dr aJ,,2005: SriE:rava 4 al., lao8, 2001) consideA brand equi y aqa relational ma.ket based aset because ir exists ouiside thetum snd resides in the relationships ofinal users wirn brm.ls.At the sme rime, the emersmce of relationship mrrliine !s. dominant focus of both msrketing rheorists andpractironers suggests that trust is rhe roin fador on whicha relationship is b$ed. Comecting, then, the relationshipprinciples with a resourc*based approach to brdd equty, wepropose the foUowing r$ea.ch quesdon: Does b.ud trosmatter to brsd equity?The study of bnDd tros in the brodins lir@rrE has norflouished. Much of lhe interest in this issue h4 beeDconceprual or theoretical n1 @ruq and rhea has bem litdeempirical resrch into it. This hck ofrse.rch is pointed outby Chaudhuj md Holbrcok (200t) who affirm that the rcleof brard irust in the braDd equiry processes has not beeneiplicitly consi.lered. Neverrhele$, ns impoftmce has beentheoretically hishlighted in the br.dins literatue GeeAmbler, r997j Sheth ed Pwativar, 1995) and in thecunet brand mmasmenr practices Gee Bainbridse, 199?;K@pj 1999; S@n, 2000).On the basis or Uese consideEtions, md comecting borhrhe .$ource based apprcach of lhe fm ud lhe .elationshipmarketins lireEtusj rhis srudy aims to 6ll this cap bye&miniog ihe impotuce of b.ard rn$ nl rhe dwelopment'Ib addre$ rhis objecrive, the resr of this paps is th*fo.eorglniad as folloqs. We besin by aDllrzins brmd equity noma resouce-blsed apFoach. Irs cotridehiioo as a rclation.lmarket b.sed asset lqds us to fo@s on brand trust.Consequ@tlt we presedt a defnirioD of brud trust, and

The Emdald Resedrch Regi*d for thk jounal is avlilable ar**w.dreraldinisht.cob/r.e.NhagbterThe ffient issne md tull reF archive ol tnis joumal is available at**w.meE1diEighicont106l-(M2l.hh

Joud dlodEr & MtullFdro kdd &oF cubllhis LhtEd 0sN 10d{1rltDor r0.1Ddr0d01r0r60rst Thir r.earch ms nnd.d by em.t SEC2002 0432lCO2 Ol fton dESpsish Mjni:dy ol Sciene rnd Technolqs.

147


7/12

tE3 br.nd ttut nrner to hr.nd equrty? loun.l of Produii & Srad M.nagementn44 Detsadh a&eld aid lai Lu^

we disds the mms in which bad trust contributs to thedevelopmerr of brmd equiry. Ba.ed or Lhi. disrus.ion. atheoretical model of brdd equity is proposed and the mainhlporhes$ ofrhis study de pres$ted. Subsequ{dy, the datacollection, the nethod used ro test the hlporheses md thre\ulrq m deqribed. FituU\. $e di.cus\ rhe resulL in Lem.of their implicatiods for [email protected] practice, their Imilsrionsand direcdoG for turthcr resedch on the bredins literatue.Brand equig as a relatioral market'based assetA nm's srriql ud wealr! is determined by iis abillty tocreat a snprior value to the market. From a resource basedview of the nrm, the souces of weelth c.e.rion are foEd inthe resources endowms! lhar sable rhe tum to efficiendyand/or etrectively produce a ndket otrerjng that hss value forsone mdket secmmts (Hut and Moree, 1995). By doinssor ihe nrm achiwes supdior fmcial performmce that isrcflected in higher dividends md value of srocts (Falkenbery,1996).There n a srowins re.osnidoD, rqardins Lhe re$ur!e. inwhich $is superior nnancial performance lies, that a\rsDr6!rnr propor'ron of organr/alonal per{ormanLe i\deremined by intmeible asse$ such ss: the qual,ty mdexperimce ofpersomel) cot?orate cdtue) knowledge, brandequity, md so forth (F.[renbe.g, 1996; Lusch and Harvey,19S4j Srivastava,t at, 1998). As sith other intmsible a$eb,b'rd equrq elhibs t5e qL,lile. requRd ior .'parre rsustainable competitive advantage. It adds value forastomersj heips to crete defmsible competitive positions)kes time to develop, js inhercndy conplex, sd c@ot beeasily rusferred to other or8anizatioE @e Chermtony andMacDoncld, loo2). TheRfore, it \alue s. s aset i.reflecred in superior nnancial perfor@nce in so ir leads rohider marsins (!trqxnar, 1S8S), areter sales md marketsharq Glooley et al.,2l05, Pttk ud Srinivllm, 19S4),advertisiDs ed prodotio$ thlt are more responsive (Kellerj19S3), eulier market penetation (Robertson, 1993) Ddcheaper product line extensions (Kelle. ed Alter, 1992). A!a conseqnmce, a posidve influence of b@d equity on thelrmvahehas also beq fomd by S'mon and Stnlvm (1eel).The most recmt lite.atu (Hut, 199?; Srivasta ,r al.,1998, 2001) specificllly chancterizes brMd equly as arelational market-based $set. t is primarily relationalbecause, accordins to the branding literature (Aaker, l99liKeller, 1993), much of its value is a resdt of the brud!drernal .elalionshi!! wilh olher m@bers of the value chain(e.s. the distibution system add ihe nml users). Thisrelational mtue makes brand equity be m dslal aset tothe 6rm because ii is often merelv "aihble" ud not"owned" by the 6m. In other wordq brud equity ultimatelyderjves in the mlrket phce hon the set of bed a$octluo$ed behavioE rhat have been developed row{ds the [email protected] sdmary, as a relationll maiket based !set, brlndequity may be expressed as a fiDdion of brmd-conslmerrebrionshils (Asblelj 1997), ud !s such the Etroducuon ofrust as a key relatiotul vinable uiches ou udebtandins ofbrmd equity ud may prcvide beiter performoce predictioBdd a$esment of brand equity.Whd is brmd trut?TtuBt has receiv.d a great deal of atl@don iom scholar! inre\eral drrdplue< such a( p(Jchology. sociolog). economic


8/12

006 brand tru3l n.tter t. br.nd dunv? louhal6f Produd & Brand Manag.mentLkna bcad.-Boa. ^ ona ht; t rL vr.e4 Audx.

indirecr conllcl (e.g. ldveftisjng, woid of mouth) with thebrmd (Kellcr, r993j Kdshnm) 1996). Among lll rhesedifcrenl conracrs) Ihe consunltion experierce is lhe mostrele\dD dd imporrd qou.e ol brrd 'ruJ) becru\. ilsenerarcs a$ociadonsj rnoughs snd inferences that are morself-relvat and held wiih more cenlinty (Dwyer d, al j r 9871Krisbne, 1996). In thjs sense, ii cs be postulated thlt theove.all sa*faction, as a seneral evaluation of theconsumption experience wirh de brand, aenerates brandrust (Gsnesad, 199.1; Selbes, 1998). This leads us to prolose1he following !$othesis:,47. The consmer's ove.all satisfaction with the brru &s! losirive effect on band tust.Considerins brand equixy as a relatjonal market b.sed assetimplies that buildins ud maintaidns ftusl is at the corc ofb'dd eqnh. be.ause ir n a kc\ -l1ara(rcri.dc ar rJsuccessflrl lons-term relationship (Garba.ino md Johnson)1999; krzelere and Husion, 1980j Mores and Hut, 19!4).Takins inro accou! the conceptual .onnectrons otrelationship aspec md the notion of loyalry (Fouinier sdYao, 1997), the prevailina idea in these studies (Chaudhuiand Holbroob 2001; Delsado et zJ.) 2003t Garbarino udJohnson, r99ej husd te,1999) isthatltutisthe cardinaldrive. of loyllry because it deates exchanse rclationshils thatare highly valued, In thjs context, brand loyalty does notexclusively focls on repeated lurchases, bur on the inremaldislosiiions o( atnude tovards the brand, the locus onbchavior would orherwise not p.oyide an adequ.re basjs for acomplete hdersrmding of rhe brand consuner relationship.Co$equddy, bmd loyalq, undedies rhe ongoing proce$ ofcontinuing and mainraining a valued dnd jmportantreladonship that h.s been created by rrusr (chaudhuri and

This is falrly wcll suppo.led by sevdll auftos in theb.mdins literatur. Fore$mplq Sle$ and Psrvltitlr (1995)assert dDr r-\e losic behind rhe qisrence of rhe brud s rotlmsmit trust 1o the marlet, especblly when direcr conraclbeMem consmers and complnies lre dot possible. Anothertellins ara@st itr suppod of this lieRpoinl is !h!t theuique value perceived in a brmd by conslnds may bederived from sreater tlust in that parlicular !@d rhar olherbrDds do nor provide (Chaudhuri and Holbroot, 2001).From a mdagerisl perspedive! companies have also besuto conside. the idea of winins consmers' trost in ords 1obuild a relarionship. In the consumer muket, ihere are roomey uonymous consumers, maldns ir ulilely that rhecomlany could develop le.sonal rlationshils with each one.Thus, consuers develop a relatiodship with the bnnd,which becomes a substitute for hnmm contact between theorganization and its tustones (sherh dd Panatiyar, 1995).Trust, therefore, can be dcveloped through this reladonshipwith rhe brud. The ffien pra,ri.e' ^f .nmfme. hmanasins their brmds illushte this idea. Fo. dmple,Macbod (2000) considers rhat much of the vocabdary ofmodem brand buildins uses words associlted wirh pcrso@lrel*ionships such as trust and Blackston (1992) views tnsl robe one component of conslmers' relationships with brsds.More recendn Hiscock (2001, p, i) has claimed thlt "thedtimate goai of makering is to gendare an ifiedse bondberween rhe consumer dd lhe brhd, and the marninsEdient of rh's bond is irust".

thtuh. 11 Numb.3 2AO5 . 137 196Based on these ideas, we put foqa.d rh hrporhesis rharbrdd h.r will .orurbure ro brand lolalr] as rhe ma{mrmerTrssion of a successtul reladonship berwem the consumer

/JZ Tle codslmer's tust in a brmd has a posidve efect onFjnally, one characteristic ofbruds wilh higb levels of equiqris th$ consumers are very loyal to rhm. In facr, b@d loyalryis ihe main driver of brsd equity because it G considered tobe the p.th that leads ro cerrain oarleri4g advstages @d.rLcomA e.g. 'edr.ed turkcrins ...'.. fi"p fremim'IrEket share) erelter rsde leverase)) which have been closelyassociated wirh band equity (Aaker, t99li Bello andHolbrook, 1995! Park ed Srinivasan, 1994). Therefore, wepropose anoder hlpoth$is describing the relationshipbetweer brdd loyalry md bmd equiry:93, The consume* loyalty to rlLe brud has a positive

eEed on b.and equiry-MethodThe data are based on ! survey done in a Resion of 1,100,000inhabitants in lhe south eastern pari of Spain- Aquestionnaire was administered through the use ol !compuer aided telephoDe nridviewing (CATI) proeram bya market research nrm. The particilans were real consume6who reported their consrhlnon expeience with one of lwodiferenl product catesories: shampoo and ber. Thescproducts pere chosen because rhey are fiequentlypuchafd, and mosr leople are familiar with them andhave experienced different brands. Respondents wereasianed to one pro.lud and were !sLed which brands theyuse.l. They were jnrerviewed *ith refe.{ce to one of iheb@ds mentioned. To obtain rliable mswers) Ihe s@!1e uitwas conlosed ofthose individuals who wre active decisionmakers ofrne brand lhey consumed.By random phone cllls sith the use of the CATI prosam,we obtained 27r comlleied questiomailes (134 for shampoodd 137 ibr beer)) yielding a response nie of 67 percenl -aressoneble response mte aivm rhll lhe suvey was complerelyvolunBry and the puticipdts received no compensarion loranswering the questioruire.The sample *as well t,allnced in terms ot mosrdmqraphic and socio economic charaderisrics (e-s. ase,incomes, educarion) ercept for gender. Specifically, 23percent of t]1e sample was male snd ?7 percent was female,Ahhoueh a rudom sanplins process was used to seiecl eachpaflc1lant in the study, there is a dispropofuonarrepresenution of women to m6. This eq be explajned bythe olrual md social values ofthe eeoeraphical area in whichthe slNey wls ldministered. Sisnificant soder diEerencesstill exist in the sens inat there is ! la.ge prcpordon ofhouscwives. In uddition, both siay-at-home an.l wortinswomd ieldn the vast majority of taditioml responsibilitiesfor the cm of fte household iDcludins mosr forms ofshopping. However, mo$ people are faniliar with bothshampoo Gecause ir is a pesonal hrgiene product) lnd beer(becruse the seosaphical dea of ftis srudy is one with lhehishe* levcls of beer codsrmlrion in Spain).Table I provides a detailed desdiption of the sample,

t89


9/12

Do! brand tust man.r to brand .quity? Journ.l ol todud & Srand ManrgemntBLna Dekano-Ban @ ann Jdi Lrk Munm AknAn

Table I Sample infomationuatM 14 NLrj4 3 2045 67 1q6

Tbble II also repons iDfor@don abour the reliability mdconvers{t rzlidity of the ditrerent measures. Dis@minavaLidia is el\o indicned jnce rhe .oD6oence inrenr (2 x standard eEors) mud the comlation estimate lretweenmy eo latent indic.to6 never nrludes 1.0 (Anderson mdGerbins 1988).ResultsThe proposed stutual model is specied by the htpor,\dizedrelatioships in Figu.e 1, disassed in the ten as JJ1 ,t13. Thepath linEng overall satisfadion ud bmd loyalty is alsoesrimated, which b in line with prvious r$e$ch on brmdloyarly Gee Andeson add Sdlivm, 1993; Bloemq md Kasper,1s95; oliver, 1999)Dl. Codlentional muimM liEelihmdestimarion techDiqus sere used to test ihe model. The lit ofthe modei is satisflcrory OL46j =399.08; GFI=0.87;SRMR = 0.046; RMSEA: O.O8l CFI:0.92j -Ir'I O.INF:0.91), L\@by suggesting that the nonolosical network ofrelarionshils lirs ru dau.ln terhs or ou hrpotheses (see Table III), rhe nndinss forlt1 (overall sltisfaciion - brmd reliability; yr:0.88,, < 0.05; overali satisfadion - b.od intentionsj 72r = 0.55,? < 0 05) sugssi thst band tn$ is rooted in the resul! ofpast erldience wi& the brmd (i.e. overall satisfacdon). Assuegested by Singh and Sirdeshmnkh (2000)) we obsere thatthe eEects of overall sadsfadjon are not specific ro a slneledimension ofband trust.Specifically, as the squared mdti]rle corelations (SMC'ffa! ovml sarisferion exp]ains a substmtial modt of thriance of bnnd trut brand reliabiliry = 0.?8, ud b6dintentions = 0.30. The lad that b@d reliabiliry, as pdeivedby consumes, relis more heavily on overall satisfadion thdbmd intendons do is in line with Rnpel a a-l\ (1985)statements about how hsl evolves. According to theureasoninsj b.snd relilbility is heavily related to the66islecy of bmd performme 4 srsElsl by the overallsatisfaction consmers nave with ihe brdd. In comparison withbqnd reliability, bsnd intmtions caplrr the essmce of b6dtust that is not setrely roored in pasr er?erience. HNsu,rhe fad thal plst e4eridce (e.s. sarisfadion with the brmd) isnot an exact bmmdd of b@d intotions does no1 imply thatpa e.:!'qienLe play\ no rcle n) explainna btrd in endon..Continuins with the consetu@ces of brand rlust, it isfoud Io be positively a$ociated with brmd loyalty, srtugsuppon b ,.I? Grmd reliability - brsd loysliy B3r 0,12,t


10/12

D@i brand tl6r n.fte. to brand equit? louhal of Frodu.r & Srand Manag.mentI4da Delsalh-Bau,:ur edfu$ Lvi Mnffi14bndn uotume I 4 . Nudbd 3 . 2a05 . I 37 196

Iable ll construcls measuremem summary: conf matory factor analysis afd scale reliabilityt-v.lu SCR' AVE" Alpha

lxl k a brand name that meets my expechtions 0.94 20,31I feelconfidence in [XI bbid nahe 0.88 18.20lxl k d brdnd nane that never disappoints ne 0.78 1r.09lxl brand name guarantees satkf.ction O.s2 19,31Ixlbhnd nane would be honettand sincere in addr.ssing ny con


11/12

De3 bra.d tu{ man.r tu brand .q!ily? ,ournal ol Pbduci & BrEnd Manaq.mcnlEttad D.lsat RaA.,@ ann Jdi Lri Mututu Abnai

of a chi square ditrerence elr (CDT) to rest the nullhrpothesis: MT Il,{: 0.In compliison with the theoretical model, rhe consrinedmodel (MA2) id{ti6es bEnd lrust as the primuy prearsorofbrod loyllry because it pla]s a fi mediarins role belweoovera]] satisfaclon md bred loralty, which i in line wirh rhcommird{r trust theory (Morgan ed Hunt, 1994). Incont@s!, the constiained model (N{A3) is in line wirh lheliteratue thar conside$ over.ll satisfacrion as the keyconslruct in exphiiing brmd loyalty. Cosequenrlt in ihismodel brand rrus is ody jusr ! perilherll evaluation of ihepasl erlerience sith the brmd ihar does nor have iEthe!eftids on brand loyalty.The top secrion of Tsble IV ofre6 the chi-square fircomparisons amola these modeh, In rhe irst step, thetheordcal model (Ficlr 1) was comp{ed with a le$parsimonious MAl. A noniignificmt CDTwould lead ro rheacceptane of the hore pmimonious MT. Tbble IV repo.ts.nonaignincut chsee in chisquare beMed ou model andthe CFA, le!.lins us to considd MT !s ! bene specincliion.Next, we conftasred MT wirh a consfained model MA2 (i.e.eith }3, path equal to zero) and ihe ditrdence in chi-squarent beMed the nvo models was sicDi6cmr. This resdr leadsus to stay with the less parsimonious thorcticsl hodelbecause ir has a sienificet better 6t. Finally, w comparedMT wirn m ahernarive model (MA3) where it is proposedrhal brmd l1ust has no efect on brand loyalry. In this case weare comparins MT wirh a more parsimonious model.Accordins 10 rhe CDT, the rheorerical model (MT)provided a sisnificmdy belter nt to the data (, < 0 01) L\mrhe model MA3. Therefore, the dEoredcal model wasdeemed the besr represoladon of the network relarionshipsin which brand trust is embedded.Dii


12/12

Do6 brand ttGl maft.r to br.nd.quily? rourn.l of frodl.t & lr..d tt.nagrmenlEbna Delsa,C.-Batle:d and loi Lui Jnnm Atendn

!11 of rel!!ionshi!!? If lhar is lhe c!se, then, how is lruslThird, research on brandins indusrial produds has beenlimited. The flct tha! in today's comperiuve businessen\iroDmenr, induq rial hrm' a-e 'ncreasinaly usinsbrmding to diferentiate then products snd dso developrelationships wiih their customers @kes allareni lhe need ofqpuding rhe body of tnowledee of the subject. A point ofdelartue is to examine rhe research on conslns brmdrn8.Therefore, our nndings ofrer industrial brlnding researchessome ideas that cm be applied in the industrial sector.Otr a more smeral level, rhere is also room for addirionalsrudies that oiercome the limnations of this r*e!rch. Thesample is not represdarive of the etrnre poprtation ofconsume$. As distused previously, the smple was rmdotulyselected by phone-calls intwiewing only rhose individualswho were active decision makers jn the prcducts dalyrd.Thh re.ulred in a dispropo-bonal repre\en@rior of womed

ve6us men, Being soJ our ieslits may reflect a sender biasthat limits the sternal validity of this *udy. Theseneralizability of the results could be extnded byconsidering other demosraphic sroups. FiDally, theseneralizability of the results could be ertended bybroadening the lst of products, for exmple duble soodsud lervice! in which brud lrusi msy be ev@ moreimportant in developins bEnd equity.Implietions foa practiceThis study has several matusenal impiications resardinsbrand equity. Fi6t, in oder to enjoy the substantialcompetilive and economic advlntlges lrovided by bnndequity as a relational marlet based asset, companies mu*build brand rusl. To that purlose. Fromise centic lpproachis needed whs mamsinB the brmd. It implies to position thebrsnd es a promise, ss a set of dpedations lhat the brlndofers a certain qpe and level ofvalue. Providins this value on! consisrenr basis h at the helrl of building st.ongrelatio$hips with cotsume6 because they develop a sdseof trust that ihe brmd will conrinue to deliver lhat value,\vhen this happens, the brand cm sene as a catal]ft forstrmsthenins the relationship md for forming a bond rhatcompetitos will 6nd difncult io breat. This will be thefoudation for the onaoing success and sustained compeirjee

However, companies must take ca& not to promsee\erlhirg lor all people. Ther ha,e ,o.onrder $etr osncaplbilities and the desies oftheir tarser consmer sesmentsbefore deining rheir p.omises ofvelue, Once they are dennedthese promises have Io be lepr consistentln especially whenthin3s chmse quickly md buyeB face grell scerlainly.Second, since irust is built thmud experience, the horeposirive experienc$ th conslner has with lhe b!ud, rhemore ttustins he or she is liLely to become- As sudr,investments in satisfadion lrogesj complajnt hsdling sdin Ll'e de. en ot,onmuicanon Eoo me'chandLirg \Faresie..that sid in ctatins and informins consmeF about theresponsiv aftitud$ md behlvioa of the b6ds) !re wlys of

Third, history has prcvm that consuFes wil eive secondcheces to bnnds they trust (Harin, 2000). The consmerourrase ar conr@inared coca-cola cans in some wesrernEu.opean couDfies in 1998 ud Perier mineral watercontainins macceptable levels of benzene in 1990 sre cases

inpoi . Because of the sllosthof bothbnnds they@ntinueto iljoy a rlbstutiai repuBtion despile of rhe m6?ectedprcduct harh dises. ConsequeDtly, as far as the brddingIiterature sugeests that itust is the esence of the value !h!t asirons brmd provides for consmesr plyiog.tteorio! to howmuch consumers tut in a brud mi8ht be considered as atool to matuse brmd equity. This is pdtionuv impoltmt inhe.lth@re, leeal serices and i[ duable products.Our nndinss are of special relevmce in rhe business tobusioess arena as far as a nlnbtr of studies Gee Hothomedzl., 19e3i McQuiston &d Djckson, t99l) have sho@ thatindustial buyes wiU choose ftcoeEized bmd names ftodestablished ompanies as a way to reduce both corpor.te sd

Finally, compeies wilh trusted ofline bmnds also beneftfton a "halo effect" in trins to esublish a pls{ce on theweb. The anonrmity of tbe lortroer maker bredDC moremc'al becsus. consmers are lRelJ o be more r(eptive rotying online offennss from a trusted brmd name. In otherwoids, having r ruste.l bred gave compuies a rclativelysmooth md sucessin tusition to trhe Net as in rhe case ofBarnes & Noble dd Toys R Us (Haryin, 2000).NoteI Recendy, r$earchen hlve be$rn Io documenr that ihissltisflction]oyalty relationship is not a simple liDear efrect(Oliva ,/ ,4j 1992). However, as lointed by Singh ddSirdeshmulh (2000), suficiut rsedch does not sist tospeciry the dature of this no liDearity or to suggestcondidons thar favor ii. Consequendy, we sleci& !directional ftlationship onlt.RelrencesL^ke\ D.A. (r99r), MMsitE Brand Eeuirt: Ca?itllitiaE aflrhe Value aJ a Brund Nane, Frce P.e$, New Yo!k, NYAmbler, T. (199?)j "How much of brlnd equily is esphiDedby ttusrl" ) Manasene"t De.ind, Vol. 35 No, 4, !p. 283-92,Andaleeb, S.S. (1992), "The ttust concepi reseeh issues forchmers of dbiribudon'i Reedtuh tu Mathetitue, yot. r1,pp. 1 34.AndeBo4 E.!{. ed Sulivsj M.\v. (1 993I "The stecedenuand coDsequences of ostomer saiisfaaion for tumsiMarh.tinC Scierce, Vo1. 12 No. 2, pp, 125 43.Andenon, J.c. md Gerbins, D.W (1988), "Srnctual

equarion modelling jn practice: a reviev lndrecomended Avo{tep apprcach!', Psrcholnei.al tuII.Nit,Vol. 103 No- 3) pp. 411-23.Andesot:, E.Vi, Fornell, C- sd Lhm,fu, D (r994t"Customer sltisfactlo4 muket share, ud prcfrtability:findinss from Swedeni Jdmal oJ Marhenry, yol. 5a, J,ny,p!, 53 66.Basozi, R ud Yi, Y (1988), "O! lhe srluadon ofstructull equatiod nodetE", JMdt of rtu A.anenrt oJMarhe|inq S.ietue,Vol, 16 No. 1, pp, 74-94.BriDbridce, J. (1s9?), "Who wins rhe mtio@l r.Et?iMth.rinsz Ociobet 23, pp. 2l-3.Bello, D.C- ud Holbrcok M.B. (1995), "Does d abssce ofbtud equity sene.alize a@s prcduct cla$$", tosH,.l ,/Bdtar ,R6dault, Vol, 34 No. 21pp. 125-?l.193

brand satisfaction

Documents