c77

8/3/2019 C77

1/15

European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009)July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir

Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Gldem CeritDimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students Consumption of International Brands

1

DIMENSIONS OF BRAND KNOWLEDGE: TURKISH

UNIVERSITY STUDENTS CONSUMPTION OF

INTERNATIONAL BRANDS

Nazli Alimen, Ph.D. Candidate, Izmir University of Economics, The Institute of Social Sciences,

Turkey, [email protected]

Prof. A. Guldem Cerit, Dokuz Eyll University, School of Maritime Business and Management,

Turkey, [email protected]

Abstract

Brand has been considered as one of the most important assets of a company and studied by many scholars.Brand knowledge, which comprises brand awareness and brand image, is the consumer side of brand. Theobjective of this study is to reveal the brand knowledge of nine fashion brands which are largely consumedin Turkey. An exploratory study is performed among university students of different departments and theresults are compared with respect to the departments, gender of the students and the usage frequencies ofthese brands. In conclusion it can be suggested that students belonging to the departments that are morerelated with fashion and female consumers have deeper brand knowledge.

Keywords: Brand Knowledge, Fashion, International Brand.

I. INTRODUCTION

In international business, one of the factors that lead to success in consumer markets is to have a

strong brand, which is achieved through a greater level of brand knowledge. Brand awareness and brandimage are two components of brand knowledge, which are the consumer sides of brand; therefore they couldbe controlled by a company via communication. Brand image is linked to functional and emotional elements,

which could also help a company to communicate with consumers. Fashion, on the other hand, is generallyused to refer to clothing and described as a process which determines particular design, products or socialbehaviours for a specific period of time and replaces them regularly with new ones (Saviolo, 2002).

Fashion has three components that are style, acceptance and timing (Frings, 1982; Packard et al.,1983; Wolfe, 2003). Guedes and da Costa Soares (2005) suggested that the brand could be added as a fourthcomponent of fashion. The brand component has two elements: the international fashion product and themarket segment fashion product. All over the world, international brands present the same image of fashion,

supported by franchising chains and marketing communication activities. It is required that the impact of

personal or environmental determinants on brand knowledge have to be clarified, mainly in the marketswhere fashion is highly consumed, such as young university students. This paper focuses on such anobjective.

1. Brand Knowledge

Brand helps to differentiate products or services from the others (Kotler and Keller, 2009, 276) andembodies every undertaking of the company and represents it to the world as a hologram, plays a part in the

formation of relationships, and expresses and contributes group affiliation (Sherry, 2005, 46). For firms, brands are the markers of their offerings and signs of quality, risk and trust for consumers (Keller and

Lehmann, 2005).

8/3/2019 C77

2/15



2

Knowledge is an outcome of apprehension and information within a particular context. Probst et al.(2001, 24) described knowledge as the whole body of cognitions and skills that individuals use in order

to solve problems. Knowledge, which enables an individual or organization to appraise and aggregatenew ideas and information, is more than a collection of experiences and values (Davenport and Prusack,

1998). Knowledge can also be regarded as the accumulation and cultivation of information and data over

time (Leonard-Barton, 1995).

Correlating diverse information, such as awareness, attributes, benefits, images, thoughts, feelings,

attitudes and experiences, to a brand constitutes brand knowledge (Keller, 2003). Brand knowledge is basedupon a constant communication with consumers that elicits real comprehension of the product or service(Richards et al., 1998). Keller (2003) defined consumer brand knowledge as all descriptive and evaluativebrand-related information, which was individualistic inference about a brand stored in consumer memory.

Kaplan (2007) mentions that a brands overall value demonstrates its equity. According to Aaker(1996) brand equity is a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol, that add to

or subtract from the value provided by a product to a firm, or to a firms customers or to that firmscustomers. It comprises brand related notions as brand awareness and brand image (shown in Figure 1),

which compose brand knowledge and directly affect consumer responses (Keller, 1993).

Figure 1. Dimensions of Brand Knowledge,Keller (1993).

1.1. Brand Awareness

Brand awareness is the ability of a potential buyer to recognize or recall that a brand is a member ofa certain product category (Aaker, 1991). It is associated to the strength of brand clew in memory thatenables consumers to ascertain the brand under dissimilar conditions (Rossiter and Percy, 1987). Brand

awareness is the strength of a brands presence in the mind of the consumer (Ross, 2006). Ross (2006)

proposed that experience-induced antecedents do have an impact on brand awareness, and that impact isindicated through the direct relationship within the framework.

8/3/2019 C77

3/15



3

Keller (1993) classifies brand awareness into brand recognition and brand recall (Figure 1).

Brand recognition relates to consumers' ability to confirm prior exposure to the brand when given the brandas a cue. Brand recall relates to consumers' ability to retrieve the brand when given the product category, theneeds fulfilled by the category, or some other type of probe as a cue (Keller, 1993).

1.2. Brand Image

Brand image is defined by American Marketing Association as a mirror reflection [though perhapsinaccurate] of the brand personality or product being. It is what people believe about a brand-their thoughts,

feelings, expectations. Scholars variously described brand image as the perceptions and beliefs held byconsumers, as reflected in the associations held in consumer memory (Kotler and Keller, 2009, 783), a setof associations, usually organized in some meaningful way (Aaker, 1991, 109) and the external form andobservable characteristics of the markets offering (Sherry, 2005, 48).

Brand image is a source that provides the brand to accomplish and remain resonant and adequate in

consumers minds (Sherry, 2005). Communicating the brand image clearly to target consumers, which

allows consumers a need satisfaction by the brand (Park et al., 1986) and differentiate the brand from thecompetitors (DiMingo, 1988), and is an important part of marketing activity (Gardner and Levy, 1955;Grubb and Grathwol, 1967; Moran 1973; Roth, 1995). Roth (1995) suggests that the effect of brand image

strategies on product performance and the management of brand images should be considered whileanalyzing brand image strategies.

Brand image is a meaning associated to the brand by consumers (Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990; Aaker,1991; Keller, 1998; del Rio et al., 2001; Nandan, 2005). Brand image is regarded as a consumer-constructedconcept, due to consumers creating a personal or image related to the brand with regard to their knowledgeand perceptions (Nandan, 2005). These associations, which are linkages of a brand in memory (Aaker, 1991;

Keller, 1993, 1998) and differ among consumers (Hung, 2008), provide marketers to differentiate, position,and extend brands (Low, Lamb, 2000)

and consumers to process, organize, and retrieve information in making purchase decisions (Aaker,1991, 109-113). Brand image is a result of consumers decoding of all the signals delivered by the brand

such as brand name, visual signs, products, sponsoring, and advertising (Kapferer, 1994). Danesi (2006)proposes that the use of brand name enables consumers not only to recognize certain goods and distinguish

them from others, but also to associate connotative meanings to them. Therefore, it allows consumers todecode brand image.

2. Measuring Brand Knowledge: Brand Image and Brand Awareness

Knowledge can be divided into direct or explicit knowledge or indirect, implicit or tacit knowledge

(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Sveiby, 1997). Sharif (2004) mentions that explicit knowledge is objective andtheoretical which can be asserted via formal logical and systematic arguments. Such knowledge is enunciableand alterable with ease, through many forms of media documents, audiovisual equipment, computerised

records etc. He proposes that explicit knowledge can be a part of the world, i.e. relates to some object. Tacitknowledge on the other hand, he explains, is mostly subjective, practical and personal. Therefore, it could bea part of a person, i.e. relates to some subject and this is why it is difficult to formalise and communicate toothers. In this regard, brand knowledge could comprehend both explicit and implicit knowledge.

Perceptions of brand associations held in the consumers minds are called as brand image (Keller,2003). Therefore, measuring brand image is to evaluate these brand associations. To do that, there are several

ways, as applying or adapting an existing list of brand associations (e.g., the brand personality list of Aaker)or developing a new scale, which is achieved through revealing brand associations and then measuring the

strength of brand associations (Chandon, 2003).

8/3/2019 C77

4/15



4

Brand image, which is enrooted in both tangible and intangible associations linked to the attributes ofthe product,is assessed through various approaches (Kaplan, 2007). These approaches could be divided into

two main categories: scaling and sorting (Joyce, 1963). Whether there is a relation between a brand andattribute and its strength is determined via scaling techniques whereas only corporeity of attribute is detected

through sorting techniques (Driesener and Romaniuk, 2006). The scale of Kaplan (2007) is consisted of 13

items (Figure 2). First 8 items of the brand image scale are cognitive brand associations, which evaluate theassociations attached to the physical features and functions of each brands products, and the remaining 5items are emotional brand associations, which measure attributions that each individual himself or herself

attaches to a brand.

Figure 2. Brand Image Scale Items, Kaplan (2007).

Scaling and ranking measures provide to distinguish among brands, as pick-any measure asks for yes

or no for each brand (Driesener and Romaniuk, 2001). Several scholars pointed the distinct patterns in brandimage data while applying pick-any technique (Barnard and Ehrenberg, 1990; Sharp et al., 1998). Driesener

and Romaniuk (2006) evaluated three of these brand image measurement techniques, one of which was asorting, a pick-any, and the other two were, scaling, which were likert rating and ranking and revealed that

all provided equivalent results.

II. OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to reveal the knowledge of 9 fashion brands, which were largely

consumed by university students in Turkey. 7 of them were international fashion brands, Tommy Hilfiger,

GAP, Lacoste, Diesel, Zara, Guess, and Mango. The other 2 were Turkish international fashion brands,which were chosen to compare with the other well-known ones. It was aimed to understand whether havingstudied in the field of fashion affected the knowledge about fashion brands or not. Gender and consumption

of the brands could also be effective on the brand knowledge. These variables were also considered in theanalyses. The research model is given in Figure 3.

Products of this brand

Cognitive

Brand

Associations

1. Perform as expected.

2. Offer value for price.3. Are reliable.4. Are functional.5. Are usable.

6. Are durable.7. Have technical sophistication.

8. Are expensive.

Emotional

Brand

Associations

1. Make a person feel good.2. Target high-income level.3. Increase the respectability of its user.

4. Are admired by my friends and relatives.5. Express my personality.

8/3/2019 C77

5/15



5

Demographic Variables and

Usage Frequency of Brands

Fashion Brand

Knowledge

University Departments

Gender of Students

Usage of Brands

BrandAwareness

Brand

Image

Figure 3. Research Model

III. HYPOTHESES

In order to attain the objectives of the study, 3 main hypotheses and 48 sub-hypotheses were

developed. Each one of these hypotheses was analyzed according to demographic variables (see Table 5,Table 6, and Table 7). These sub-hypothesis are 3 for H1, 8 for H2 and 5 for H3. Each sub-hypothesisincludes 3 sub-hypotheses adding up to a total of 48 sub-hypotheses.

H1: Brand awareness differs with respect to demographic variables and usage for different fashion brands.

H11: The students general awareness of the brand differs due to demographic variables and usage.Sub-hypotheses H111, H112 and H113 test the general awareness of the brand with respect to

departments, gender and usage respectively.

H12: The students awareness of the brand differs due to demographic variables and usage.

Sub-hypotheses H121, H122 and H123 test the awareness of the brand with respect to departments, gender

and usage respectively.

H13: The students familiarity with the brand differs due to demographic variables and usage.

Sub-hypotheses H131, H132 and H133 test the familiarity of the brand with respect to departments,gender and usage respectively.

H2: Cognitive brand image differs with respect to demographic variables and usage of different fashion

brands.

H21: The brands expected performance differs due to demographic variables and usage.

Sub-hypotheses H211, H212 and H213 test the expected performance of the brand with respect todepartments, gender and usage respectively.

H22: The brands offered value for price differs due to demographic variables and usage.

Sub-hypotheses H221, H222 and H223 test the perception of the brands offered value for price withrespect to departments, gender and usage respectively.

H23: The brands reliability differ due to demographic variables and usage

Sub-hypotheses H231, H232 and H233 tests the reliability of the brand with respect to departments,gender and usage respectively

8/3/2019 C77

6/15



6

H24: The brands functionality differ due to demographic variables and usage

Sub-hypotheses H241, H242 and H243 test the brands functionality with respect to departments, genderand usage respectively.

H25: The brands usability differs due to demographic variables and usage.

Sub-hypotheses H251, H252 and H253 test the brands usability with respect to departments, gender and

usage respectively.

H26: The brands durability differs due to demographic variables and usage.

Sub-hypotheses H261, H262 and H263 test the brands durability with respect to departments, gender and

usage respectively.

H27: The brands technical sophistication differs due to demographic variables and usage.

Sub-hypotheses H271, H272 and H273 test the brands technical sophistication with respect todepartments, gender and usage respectively.

H28: The perception of the brands expensiveness differs due to demographic variables and usage.

Sub-hypotheses H281, H282 and H283 test the brands expensiveness with respect to departments, genderand usage respectively.

H3: Emotional brand image differs with respect to demographic variables and usage of different fashion

brands.

H31: The brands making a person feel good differ due to demographic variables and usage.

Sub-hypotheses H311, H312 and H313 tests the brands making a person feel good with respect todepartments, gender and usage respectively.

H32: The brands targeting low-income level differs due to demographic variables and usage.

Sub-hypotheses H321, H322 and H323 test the brands targeting low-income level with respect to

departments, gender and usage respectively.

H33: The brands increasing the respectability of its user differ due to demographic variablesand usage.

Sub-hypotheses H331, H332 and H333 tests the brands increasing the respectability of its user withrespect to departments, gender and usage respectively.

H34: The brands being admired by the students friends and relatives differ due to demographic

variables and usage.

Sub-hypotheses H341, H342 and H343 test the brands being admired by the students friends andrelatives with respect to departments, gender and usage respectively.

H35: The brands expressing the students personality differs due to demographic variablesand usage.

Sub-hypotheses H351, H352 and H353 test the brands expressing the students personality with respect todepartments, gender and usage respectively.

8/3/2019 C77

7/15



7

IV. METHODOLOGY

An exploratory study is designed to evaluate the brand knowledge of university students of differentdepartments, ages, genders, grades and usage frequencies. A field study is performed regarding the brandawareness and brand image of the students with respect to nine international fashion brands and partial

descriptive findings are reached.

1. Questionnaire

A questionnaire is developed to measure the variables. The brand awareness was evaluated accordingto the approach of Aaker (1996) by the statements, I am generally aware of this brand, I am aware of thisbrand and I am familiar of this brand. For brand image, the scale of Kaplan (2007), which consisted of 13

items, was used (Figure 2).

The brand awareness statements were translated into Turkish and then, together with the brand imagestatements, were formed into a 5-point Likert-scale construct (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree). All

translated statements were tested by 11 students and the translation was adapted into the Turkish meaningsinstead of the literal translation. In the first part of the questionnaire, the demographic variables, which

include age, gender, department, grade, if they had ever shopped or frequently shop from the brands listed,were asked. The second part contained open-ended questions and it was asked to describe each brand by twoor three words that come in to mind. The brand awareness and brand image questions were inquired in thethird part.

2. Sample

The survey was conducted at Izmir University of Economics in January 2009. Convenience sampling

method was used in order to reach a heterogeneous group and a total of 201 undergraduate students from thetotal number of 10 different departments constructed the sample. The departments selected were BusinessAdministration, Interior Design, Fashion Business, Translation and Interpretation Studies, Public Relations,

Industrial Design, Fashion Design, Communication Design, Architecture and Logistics Management, ofIzmir University of Economics. In selecting the departments, it was aimed to analyze the responses of

different samples that were experienced in fashion or not.

3. Evaluation of the Results

Data processing is maintained by the SPSS Program version 11. The hypotheses, which are based on

multiple-choice questions, are analyzed by frequencies and t-tests. The answers to the open-ended questions

were analyzed and counted manually.

V. FINDINGS

1. Profile of the Respondents

The questionnaires were responded in January 2009 by 201 undergraduate students from 10 differentdepartments of Izmir University of Economics. 63.7% of the students were female and 36.3% was male. 3%,

6 students, aged 18, 9%, 18 students aged 19, 13.4%, 27 students, aged 20, and 22.4%, 45 students, aged 21.

The majority, 52.2% of the sample, was 22 years old and over, that were 105 students, shown in Table 2. 33of the students, 16.4%, were at freshmen, 68, 33.8%, sophomore, 49, 24.4%, junior, and 51, 25.4%, at thesenior (Table 1).

8/3/2019 C77

8/15



8

Gender , n(%) Age, n(%) Grade, n(%)

Total

(n=201

100%)

Departments Male Female 18 19 20 21

22

and

over

1 2 3 4 n(%)

Business

Administration

19

(54.3)

16

(45.7)-

4

(11.4)

5

(14.3)

9

(25.7)

17

(48.6)

1

(2.9)

6

(17.1)

22

(62.9)

6

(17.1)

35

(17.4)

Interior Design5

(45.5)6

(54.5)-

1(9)

3(27.3)

4(36.4)

3(27.3)

1(9.1)

8(72.7)

1(9.1)

1(9.1)

11(5.5)

Fashion Business13

(39.4)20

(60.6)- - -

4(12)

29(88)

-9

(27.3)5

(15.2)19

(57.5)33

(16.4)

Translation and

Interpretation

Studies

3(16.7)

15(83.3)

4(22)

5(28)

3(17)

2(11)

4(22)

13(72.2)

1(5.6)

2(11.1)

2(11.1)

18(9)

Public Relations16

(50)

16

(50)

1

(3.1)2(6.2)

1

(3.1)

6

(18.8)

22

(68.8)

2

(6.2)

8

(25)

3

(9.4)

19

(59.4)

32

(15.9)

Industrial Design3

(33)6

(67)- -

1(11.1)

3(33.3)

5(55.6)

1(11.1)

1(11.1)

5(55.6)

2(22.2)

9(4.5)

Fashion Design5

(12.5)35

(87.5)1

(2.5)2

(5)9

(22.5)10

(25)18

(45)11

(27.5)19

(47.5)9

(22.5)1

(2.5)40

(19.9)

Communication

Design

3(50)

3(50)

-1

(16.7)1

(16.7)-

4(66.6)

2(33.3)

3(50)

1(16.7)

-6

(3)

Architecture2

(28.6)

5

(71.4)-

3

(43)

1

(14)

3

(43)- -

7

(100)- -

7

(3.5)

LogisticsManagement

4(40)

6(60)

- - 3(30)

4(40)

3(30)

2(20)

6(60)

1(10)

1(10)

10(5)

Total

(n=201, 100%)

73

(36.3)

128

(63.7)

6

(3)

18

(9)

27

(13.4)

45

(22.4)

85

(42.3)

33

(16.4)

68

(33.8)

49

(24.4)

51

(25.4)

Table 1. Demographic Variables (Number of Students and Percentage).

The respondents shopped from at least one of the brands listed. The majority of the students haveever bought an item from Zara, Mavi, Koton, and Mango, respectively. The number of consumers for

Lacoste and Diesel were the same. The students often shop from Zara, Mango, Mavi and Koton. The leastpreferred ones for habitual shopping are Tommy Hilfiger, Diesel, Lacoste, GAP, and Guess. For both of thequestions, GAP and Guess were on the bottom line (Table 2).

Table 2. Usage Frequencies (Number of Students and Percentage).

3. Results of the Hypotheses Tests

H1 aimed to reveal that there is a difference in brand awareness for different fashion brands within thedemographic variables, which are departments and gender, and with usage frequency. For that, t-test was run

and according to the results, p values lower than 0.05 showed that there was a significant difference.H11 wassupported within Public Relations and Fashion Design departments for the brands Zara and Mango, and

within Public Relations and Fashion Business departments for Zara that the students of these departments aremore aware of these brands than the students from the other departments. It was supported among male andfemale students for the brands Zara, Guess, Mango and Koton (shown in Table 3). H12 was supported between gender for Zara, Guess, Mango, Koton, and Mavi that female students are more aware of these

brands than male students. All the sub-hypotheses ofH1 were supported for all brands due to consumption ofthe brands that a student, who has consumed a brand, has more knowledge about it than others. Thus, having

consumed a brand increases the knowledge about it.

Brands I have shopped from (n,%) I have never shopped from (n,%) I often shop from (n,%)

Zara 151 (75.1%) 50 (24.9%) 118 (58.7%)Mavi 150 (74.6%) 51 (25.4%) 85 (42.3%)

Koton 145 (72.1%) 56 (27.9%) 80 (39.8%)

Mango 131 (65.2%) 70 (34.8%) 106 (52.7%)

Tommy Hilfiger 112 (55.7%) 89 (44.3%) 30 (14.9%)

Diesel 107 (53.2%) 94 (46.8%) 48 (23.9%)

Lacoste 107 (53.2%) 94 (46.8%) 37 (18.4%)

GAP 95 (47.3%) 106 (52.7%) 42 (20.9%)

Guess 59 (29.4%) 142 (70.6%) 17 (8.5%)

8/3/2019 C77

9/15



9

Supported Sub-Hypotheses (Method of Analyses: t-test)

Koton t= 3,203 p

8/3/2019 C77

10/15



10

Supported Sub-Hypotheses (Method of Analyses: t-test)Business Administration- Public RelationsH2: Cognitive brand image differs with respect to demographic

variables for different fashion brands. Tommy Hilfiger t=2,261 p

8/3/2019 C77

11/15



11

Supported Sub-Hypotheses (Method of Analyses: t-test)H3: Emotional brand image differs with respect to demographic

variables for different fashion brands.H341: Departments

Fashion Business-Public Relations

H31: Make a person feel good.

H311: DepartmentsKoton t=-2,188 p

8/3/2019 C77

12/15



12

Mango and Koton. Tommy Hilfiger, GAP, Diesel and Mavi were also sportive according to the studentsdescription.

Brands Statements n %

Expensive 40 28.6

High Quality 19 13.6

Sportive 15 10.7

Colors (Red, White, and/or blue) 14 10

Products (Sweater and T-Shirt) 4 2.9

Tommy Hilfiger(Total Number of

Respondents

=140)

Brand 4 2.9 Brands Statements n %Sportive 28 21.9 Expensive 27 23

Comfortable 18 14Products (Bag, Shoes and

Watch)20 17

Expensive 14 11 Unnecessary 14 12

Products (Sweat shirt, Polar and

T-Shirt)12 9.4 High Quality 7 6

Basic 7 5.5 Exaggeration 6 5.1

GAP(Total Number of

Respondents

= 128)

High Quality 6 4.7

Guess(Total Number

of Respondents

= 117)

Stylish 6 5.1

Expensive 27 19 Inexpensive 44 33.6

High Quality 27 19 For Women 14 10.7

Classic 19 13.4 Low Quality 12 9.2

Crocodile 11 7.8 Bazaar 10 7.6

Basic 11 7.8 Design 8 6.1

Lacoste

(Total Number of

Respondents

= 142)Products (Shirt, T-Shirt and

Shoes)5 3.5

Mango

(Total Number

of Respondents

= 131)

Many people have 5 3.8

Expensive 44 30.7 Inexpensive 25 21

Stylish 38 26.6 Assortment 10 8.4

Products (Jeans and shoes 16 11.2 Low Quality 8 6.7

High Quality 15 10.5 Feminine 7 5.9

Sportive 8 5.6 High Quality 6 5

Diesel

(Total Number of

Respondents

= 143)Young 6 4.2

Koton

(Total Number

of Respondents

= 119)

Turkish 3 2.5

Inexpensive 33 23.4 Jeans 32 24.4

Many Assortments 19 13.5 Turkish 17 13

Stylish 17 12 Sportive 13 10

High Quality 12 8.5 High Quality 11 8.4Casual 6 4.3 Expensive 10 7.6

Zara

(Total Number of

Respondents= 141)

Form 3 2.1

Mavi

(Total Number

of Respondents= 131)

Proper Price 9 6.8

Table 6. Description of the Brands by the Respondents

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.020.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

THGAP

LACO

STE

DIESEL

ZARA

GUES

S

MAN

GO

KOTO

N

MAVI

BRANDS

DESCRIPTIONS,%

EXPENSIVE

HIGH QUALITY

INEXPENSIVE

SPORTIVE

Figure 4. Description Frequencies of Brands

8/3/2019 C77

13/15



13

VI. CONCLUSION

Consumer demands are rapidly changing and getting similar to each other not only in a single countrybut also internationally. In order to be successful internationally, it is important to have a strong brand. Inthis paper, brand knowledge, which consists of brand awareness and brand image, of 9 international fashion

brands was evaluated by a research among the Turkish university students. It is concluded that threevariables, gender, departments and usage frequency have an effect on brand knowledge. The students, who

were studying in Fashion Design and Fashion Business departments, had a little more knowledge of thesebrands than others. This slight difference could be as a result of advertising and communication activities.

Not only people in the fashion business, but also others get some information about fashion brands willinglyor not through promotions. Magazines, shopping centres and other consumers around could also providesuch knowledge. This could also be an explanation for the knowledge about GAP, which recently enteredinto the Turkish market that had almost the same values as the other brands. The students might have

accumulated information about GAP via TV, magazines, travels and so on. Therefore, it is important toconsider these factors too while creating a successful fashion brand or entering into a new market.

Comparison of the brand knowledge among genders revealed that the female students had more

knowledge of the listed brands than the males. Furthermore, having consumed a brand leads to a significanteffect on brand knowledge. Moreover, the brands Lacoste, Tommy Hilfiger, Diesel and Guess, which are

positioned as luxury items in Turkey, were more likely to be described on a negative way, e.g. unnecessary,for middle-age and low quality, by non-users and positively, such as high quality and comfortable by users.

The study has presented interesting outcomes regarding the perceptions of university students fromdifferent departments. The fashion brands aiming young consumers should consider brand knowledge, brand

image and brand awareness impacts on their target segments. In a globalized world where local preferencesare also playing an important role, brands act effectively in the development of the market demand. Brand

knowledge is a key to evaluate in reaching the consumers and this study has proved the importance ofempirical studies in this respect.

Limitations and Further Research

This study revealed the effects of demographic variables on brand knowledge by evaluating nine

international fashion brands. It is noticed that the brand awareness statements, although they were notliterally translated into Turkish, were difficult to be understood by the students since there was no strict line

to describe them in Turkish. Therefore, for the further studies, it will be useful to describe what is aimed togather through these statements in the native language instead of translating the exact statements. It is also

purposeful to compare the brand knowledge of the same brands in different samples and different countriesin future studies.

References

Aaker, D. A. 1991. Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name . New York: Free

Press.

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

Aaker, J. L. 1997. Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXXIV (August1997), 347-356.

Barnard, N.R. and Ehrenberg, A.S.C. 1990. Robust Measures of Consumer Brand Beliefs. Journal of

Marketing Research, 27 (November), 477-487.

8/3/2019 C77

14/15



14

Chandon, P. 2003. Note on Measuring Brand Awareness, Brand Image, Brand Equity and Brand Value.March 2003, INSEAD Working Paper Series, http://library.nyenrode.nl/INSEAD/2003/2003-019.pdf ,

retrieved on 26 December 2008.

Danesi, M. 2006.Brands. UK: Routledge.

Davenport, T. H. and Prusak, L. 1998. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know.Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA.

Del Rio, A.B., Vazquez, R. and Iglesias, V. 2001. The Effects of Brand Associations on ConsumerResponse.Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 410-425.

DiMingo, E. 1988. The Fine Art of Positioning.Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 9, Issue 2, pp. 34-38.

Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G.M. 1990. In Search of Brand Image: A Foundation Analysis. Advances inConsumer Research, 17: 110-119.

Driesener, C. and Romaniuk, J. 2001. Brand Image? Pick a Measure, Any Measure. Australian & NewZealand Marketing Academy 2001, Parmerston North, Department of Commerce, Massey University.

http://smib.vuw.ac.nz:8081/WWW/ANZMAC2001/anzmac/AUTHORS/pdfs/Driesener.pdf , Retrievedon 26 December 2008.

Driesener, C. and Romaniuk, J. 2006. Comparing Methods of Brand Image Measurement. InternationalJournal of Market Research, Vol. 48, Issue 6.

Frings, G. S. 1982.Fashion from Concept to Consumer, 3rd edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Gardner, B.B. and Levy, S.J. 1955. The Product and the Brand.Harvard Business Review, Vol. 33, March-

April, pp. 33-39.

Grubb, E.L. and Grathwol, H.L. 1967. Consumer Self-Concept, Symbolism, and Market Behaviour: Atheoretical Approach.Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, pp. 22-27.

Guedes, G. and da Costa Soares, P. 2005. Branding of Fashion products: a Communication Process, AMarketing Approach. Proceedings of the Association for Business Communication 7

th European

Convention, May 2005.

Joyce, T. 1963. Techniques of Brand Image Measurement. in New Developments in Research, Market

Research Society: London.

Kapferer, J. 1994. Strategic Brand Management. New York: Free Press.

Kaplan, M. D. 2007. Product Appearance and Brand Knowledge: An Analysis of Imperative Relationships.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Izmir University of Economics.

Keller, K. L. 1993. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity.Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 57, (January 1993), 1-22.

Keller, K. L. 2003. Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge. Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 29.

Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. 2005. Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities.

Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 740-759.

Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. 2009. Marketing Management. 13th

Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

8/3/2019 C77

15/15



15

Leonard-Barton, D. 1995. Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation.Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA.

Low, G. S. and Lamb Jr, C. W. 2000. The Measurement and Dimensionality of Brand Associations.Journal of Product&Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 350-368.

Moran, W.R. 1973. Why New Products Fail.Journal of Advertising Research, 5-13.

Nandan, S. 2005. An Exploration of the Brand Identity-Brand Image Linkage: A CommunicationsPerspective.Brand Management, Vol. 12, No.4, 264-278.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Createthe Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford Press: Oxford, UK.

Packard, S., Winters, A.A. and Axelrod, N. 1983. Fashion Buying and Merchandising, 2nd edition. New

York: Fairchild Publications.

Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and MacInnis, D.J. 1986. Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management.Journalof Marketing, Vol. 50, (October 1986), 135-145.

Probst, G. JB, Raub, S. and Romhardt, K. 2001. Managing Knowledge: Building Blocks for Success. John

Wiley: Chichester, UK.

Richards, I., Foster D. and Morgan, R. 1998. Brand Knowledge Management: Growing Brand Equity.Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol:2, Issue 1, 47-54.

Ross, S. D. 2006. A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Spectator-Based Brand Equity. Journal ofSport Management, 20, 22-38.

Rossiter, J. R. and Percy, L. 1987.Advertising and Promotion Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Roth, M. S. 1995. The Effects of Culture and Socioeconomics on the Performance of Global Brand Image

Strategies.Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXXII (May 1995), 163-175.

Saviolo, S. 2002. Brand and Identity Management in Fashion Companies. DIR, Research Division SDABOCCONI Working Paper No. 02-66.

Sharif, A.M. 2004. Information, Knowledge and the Context of Interaction. The paper presented at EMCIS

(European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems) 2008, on 25-26 May 2008, in Dubai.

Sharp, B., Romaniuk, J. and Mackay, M.M. 1998. Displaying and Analysing Patterns in Perceptual Data, in

Comparing Methods of Brand Image Measurement, Carl Driesener, and Jenni Romaniuk., 2006,International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 48, Issue 6.

Sherry, J. E. 2005. Brand Meaning, in Alice M. Tybout and Tim Calkins (eds.), Kellogg on Branding: TheMarketing Faculty of the Kellogg School of Management, John Wiley&Sons, Inc., pp. 40-72.

Sveiby, K. E. 1997. The New Organizational Wealth. Berret-Koehler: San Francisco, CA, USA.

Wolfe, M. G. 2003. The World of Fashion Merchandising. Illinois: The Goodheart-Wilcox Company.

c77

Documents