developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity

8/18/2019 Developing and Validating Measures of Facets of Customer-based Brand Equity

1/17

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782

Developing and validating measures of facetsof customer-based brand equity. Journal of

Business Research, 57(2), 209-224

ARTICLE in JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH · FEBRUARY 2004

Impact Factor: 1.48 · DOI: 10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00303-4 · Source: RePEc

CITATIONS

260

READS

2,071

8 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Richard G. Netemeyer

University of Virginia

65 PUBLICATIONS 6,999 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Balaji C Krishnan

The University of Memphis

28 PUBLICATIONS 637 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Chris Pullig

Baylor University


SEE PROFILE

Guangping Wang

Pennsylvania State University


SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Balaji C Krishnan

Retrieved on: 24 March 2016

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris_Pullig?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_4https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris_Pullig?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_5https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris_Pullig?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_5https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris_Pullig?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_5https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Guangping_Wang?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_4https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Netemeyer?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_4https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Netemeyer?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_4https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Balaji_Krishnan2?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_4https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Balaji_Krishnan2?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_4https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782_Developing_and_validating_measures_of_facets_of_customer-based_brand_equity_Journal_of_Business_Research_572_209-224?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782_Developing_and_validating_measures_of_facets_of_customer-based_brand_equity_Journal_of_Business_Research_572_209-224?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782_Developing_and_validating_measures_of_facets_of_customer-based_brand_equity_Journal_of_Business_Research_572_209-224?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782_Developing_and_validating_measures_of_facets_of_customer-based_brand_equity_Journal_of_Business_Research_572_209-224?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782_Developing_and_validating_measures_of_facets_of_customer-based_brand_equity_Journal_of_Business_Research_572_209-224?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782_Developing_and_validating_measures_of_facets_of_customer-based_brand_equity_Journal_of_Business_Research_572_209-224?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782_Developing_and_validating_measures_of_facets_of_customer-based_brand_equity_Journal_of_Business_Research_572_209-224?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782_Developing_and_validating_measures_of_facets_of_customer-based_brand_equity_Journal_of_Business_Research_572_209-224?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782_Developing_and_validating_measures_of_facets_of_customer-based_brand_equity_Journal_of_Business_Research_572_209-224?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782_Developing_and_validating_measures_of_facets_of_customer-based_brand_equity_Journal_of_Business_Research_572_209-224?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782_Developing_and_validating_measures_of_facets_of_customer-based_brand_equity_Journal_of_Business_Research_572_209-224?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782_Developing_and_validating_measures_of_facets_of_customer-based_brand_equity_Journal_of_Business_Research_572_209-224?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782_Developing_and_validating_measures_of_facets_of_customer-based_brand_equity_Journal_of_Business_Research_572_209-224?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782_Developing_and_validating_measures_of_facets_of_customer-based_brand_equity_Journal_of_Business_Research_572_209-224?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782_Developing_and_validating_measures_of_facets_of_customer-based_brand_equity_Journal_of_Business_Research_572_209-224?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782_Developing_and_validating_measures_of_facets_of_customer-based_brand_equity_Journal_of_Business_Research_572_209-224?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782_Developing_and_validating_measures_of_facets_of_customer-based_brand_equity_Journal_of_Business_Research_572_209-224?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782_Developing_and_validating_measures_of_facets_of_customer-based_brand_equity_Journal_of_Business_Research_572_209-224?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_1https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Guangping_Wang?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_7https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Pennsylvania_State_University?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_6https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Guangping_Wang?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_5https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Guangping_Wang?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_4https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris_Pullig?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_7https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Baylor_University?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_6https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris_Pullig?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_5https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris_Pullig?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_4https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Balaji_Krishnan2?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_7https://www.researchgate.net/institution/The_University_of_Memphis?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_6https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Balaji_Krishnan2?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_5https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Balaji_Krishnan2?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_4https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Netemeyer?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_7https://www.researchgate.net/institution/University_of_Virginia?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_6https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Netemeyer?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_5https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Netemeyer?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_4https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_1https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782_Developing_and_validating_measures_of_facets_of_customer-based_brand_equity_Journal_of_Business_Research_572_209-224?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222536782_Developing_and_validating_measures_of_facets_of_customer-based_brand_equity_Journal_of_Business_Research_572_209-224?enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2&el=1_x_2


2/17

Developing and validating measures of facets of

customer-based brand equity

Richard G. Netemeyer a,*, Balaji Krishnan b, Chris Pulliga , Guangping Wangc,Mehmet Yagcid, Dwane Deane, Joe Ricksf , Ferdinand Wirthg

a Department of Marketing, McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4173, USA

b Fogelman College of Business, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152, USA

c Dept. of Business, Pennsylvania State University-Hazleton, Hazleton, PA 18201, USAd

College of Business, Loyola University-New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 70118, USAeSchool of Business, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA

f

College of Business, Xavier University-New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 70125, USAg Agricultural Economics Dept., University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA

Abstract

This article presents four studies that develop measures of ‘‘core/primary’’ facets of customer-based brand equity (CBBE). Drawing from

various CBBE frameworks, the facets chosen are perceived quality (PQ), perceived value for the cost (PVC), uniqueness, and the willingness

to pay a price premium for a brand. Using numerous advocated scale developmental procedures, the measures of these facets showed

evidence of internal consistency and validity over 16 different brands in six product categories. Results also suggest that PQ, PVC, and brand

uniqueness are potential direct antecedents of the willingness to pay a price premium for a brand, and that willingness to pay a price premium

is a potential direct antecedent of brand purchase behavior.

D 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Customer-based brand equity; Validation; Brand choice behavior

1. Introduction

In recent years, customer-based brand equity (CBBE) has

garnered considerable attention. Several conceptualizations

of CBBE exist, and these conceptualizations have offered

valuable insight into the processes that consumers evaluate

and choose brands within a given product category. How-

ever, many CBBE facets have not been systematically

measured or validated within a nomological framework.

The purpose of this research is to measure ‘‘core/primary’’

facets of CBBE and examine their relationships with related

brand associations and brand response variables (i.e., a

‘‘nomological net’’). As further validation of the CBBE

measures, we examine their relationships with actual brand

purchase behavior in three product categories.

This article will proceed as follows. We first briefly

review conceptualizations of CBBE and offer our rationale

for the facets we have chosen to measure. Two studies are

used to derive and initially validate measures of the CBBE

facets. Two more studies test their ability to predict brand

choice behavior. Finally, a discussion with implications for

future research is presented.

2. Core/primary facets and related brand associations

Though the terms ‘‘CBBE’’ and ‘‘brand equity’’ have

been used interchangeably, the present research will focus

on ‘‘CBBE.’’ Two frameworks that encompass the facets

espoused in most CBBE conceptualizations, are those of

Aaker (1996a) and Keller (1993).1 Aaker views CBBE as a

0148-2963/$ – see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00303-4

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-434-924-3388; fax: +1-434-924-

7074.

E-mail address: [email protected] (R.G. Netemeyer).

1 As noted by Keller (1998), the concept of ‘‘brand equity’’ has been

defined and operationalized in disparate ways. These include brand equity

as financial strength, the profit and sales margins due to a brand relative to

comparable brands, and conceptualizations focusing on consumer percep-

tions. Keller offers a concise review of the various conceptualizations of

brand equity, as well as their similarities and differences. In this research,

we limit our focus to the more consumer perception-based frameworks of

‘‘CBBE.’’

Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 209 – 224

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271817117_Measuring_Brand_Equity_Across_Products_and_Markets?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271817117_Measuring_Brand_Equity_Across_Products_and_Markets?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271817117_Measuring_Brand_Equity_Across_Products_and_Markets?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271817117_Measuring_Brand_Equity_Across_Products_and_Markets?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271817117_Measuring_Brand_Equity_Across_Products_and_Markets?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271817117_Measuring_Brand_Equity_Across_Products_and_Markets?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2


3/17

set of assets (liabilities) linked to a brand’s name and

symbol that adds to (or subtracts from) the value provided

by a product/service to the customer. A consumer perceives

brand equity as the ‘‘value added’’ to the product by

associating it with a brand name. Though this ‘‘value

added’’ is a function of several facets, the ‘‘core’’ facets

are the primary predictors of brand purchase intent and behavior. Core CBBE facets espoused by Aaker include

‘‘perceived quality’’ (PQ), ‘‘perceived value for the cost’’

(PVC), ‘‘uniqueness,’’ and the ‘‘willingness to pay a price

premium’’ of a given brand.

Keller (1993, p. 2) views CBBE as ‘‘the differential

effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the

marketing of the brand.’’ He also views CBBE as a process

whereby CBBE occurs ‘‘when the consumer is familiar with

the brand and holds some favorable, strong, and unique

brand associations in memory’’ (Keller, 1993, p. 2). The

favorable, strong, and unique associations are termed

‘‘primary’’ associations that include brand beliefs andattitudes encompassing the perceived benefits of a given

brand (Keller, 1993). These beliefs and attitudes can be

functional and experiential (i.e., PQ and value relative to

other brands) or more symbolic (i.e., its ‘‘uniqueness’’). As

with Aaker’s framework, it is the ‘‘primary’’ brand associ-

ations of PQ, PVC, uniqueness, and the willingness to pay a

price premium that are the strongest predictors of purchase

intent and purchase behavior in Keller’s framework. As

such, the focus of our research will be on those ‘‘core’’ or

‘‘primary’’ CBBE facets common to the Aaker, Keller, and

other frameworks.

Given this article’s focus on measuring and validating the

core/primary CBBE facets, it is useful to delineate related

brand associations and concepts. Fig. 1 shows a nomolog-

ical network where the core/primary CBBE facets are the

most salient predictors of the brand response variables of

purchase intent and brand choice behavior (as indicated by

the solid line). Also note that the willingness to pay a price

premium is posited as key linkage between the other core/

primary CBBE facets of PQ, PVC, and brand uniqueness

and the brand response variables. Five related brand asso-

ciations are also included in Fig. 1. Brand awareness,

familiarity, popularity, organizational associations, and

brand image consistency are brand associations that are

viewed as related to the core/primary CBBE facets (as

indicted by the curved line) in several brand equity frame-

works (Aaker, 1996a; Blackston, 1995; Farquhar, 1989;

Keller, 1993, 1998).Consistent with these frameworks, brand awareness is

viewed as the degree to which consumers automatically

think of a brand when a given product category is men-

tioned (i.e., a top-of-the-mind awareness). Brand familiarity

is viewed as the degree to which consumers are familiar

with the brand name, and brand popularity reflects the

degree to which consumers feel the brand is popular with

and used by others. Organizational associations are those

beliefs held by the consumer that the company that markets

the brand is honest, trustworthy, and cares about its cus-

tomers. Brand image consistency is viewed as the degree to

which consumers feel the brand has a rich heritage/historyand a consistent and positive image. Given that most of

these brand associations will not be as predictive of the

brand response variables as core/primary facets (as indicted

by the dotted line in Fig. 1), we term them ‘‘related’’ brand

associations. Still, these brand associations are important as

they should be nomological correlates of the core/primary

facets. As such, their relationships with the core/primary

facets are examined in the studies that follow. We now offer

the conceptual rationale for each of the core/primary facets.

2.1. Perceived quality

PQ is considered a ‘‘core/primary’’ facet across CBBE

frameworks (Aaker, 1996b; Dyson et al., 1996; Farquhar,

1989; Keller, 1993). A definition that has gained some level

of acceptance views PQ as the customer’s judgment of the

overall excellence, esteem, or superiority of a brand (with

respect to its intended purposes) relative to alternative

brand(s). PQ is at a higher level of abstraction than any

specific attribute, and differs from objective quality as PQ is

more akin to an attitudinal assessment of a brand—a global

affective assessment of a brand’s performance relative to

other brands (Aaker, 1996b; Keller, 1993; Zeithaml, 1988).

PQ is considered a core/primary CBBE construct because it

has been associated with the willingness to pay a price premium, brand purchase intent, and brand choice. PQ may

also be a surrogate for other elements of CBBE (i.e., PVC),

and it is applicable across product classes (Aaker, 1996a;

Keller, 1993, 1998).

Theories based in consumer memory, particularly the

means– end chain model and expectancy value theory,

offer useful frameworks for explaining how PQ judgments

are formed. The means–end chain approach suggests that

a consumer’s cognitive structure holds brand-related

information in memory at different levels of abstraction

(Zeithaml, 1988). At the simpler levels are brand attributes

suggesting ‘‘quality’’ benefits (i.e., functional/practical)Fig. 1. Potential relationships with CBBE facets.

R.G. Netemeyer et al. / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 209–224210

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272594833_Conceptualizing_Measuring_and_Managing_Customer-Based_Brand_Equity_in_Journal_of_Marketing_Vol_57_1-22?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272594833_Conceptualizing_Measuring_and_Managing_Customer-Based_Brand_Equity_in_Journal_of_Marketing_Vol_57_1-22?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233894778_Consumer_Perceptions_of_Price_Quality_and_Value_A_Means-End_Synthesis_of_Evidence?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233894778_Consumer_Perceptions_of_Price_Quality_and_Value_A_Means-End_Synthesis_of_Evidence?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233894778_Consumer_Perceptions_of_Price_Quality_and_Value_A_Means-End_Synthesis_of_Evidence?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233894778_Consumer_Perceptions_of_Price_Quality_and_Value_A_Means-End_Synthesis_of_Evidence?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233894778_Consumer_Perceptions_of_Price_Quality_and_Value_A_Means-End_Synthesis_of_Evidence?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233894778_Consumer_Perceptions_of_Price_Quality_and_Value_A_Means-End_Synthesis_of_Evidence?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272594833_Conceptualizing_Measuring_and_Managing_Customer-Based_Brand_Equity_in_Journal_of_Marketing_Vol_57_1-22?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2


4/17

that lead to an overall ‘‘value’’ or payoff from using the

brand. Information relevant to PQ can be obtained via

promotions where the general quality of the brand is

stressed or where quality is inferred from providing

information about intrinsic or extrinsic brand attributes

(Kirmani and Zeithaml, 1993). Quality judgments may

also be inferred via direct experience with a brand, and judgments from direct experience are stronger and are

more easily ‘‘accessed’’ from memory (Fazio and Zanna,

1981). Consistent with expectancy value theory, Keller

(1993) also theorizes that brand associations are at differ-

ent levels of abstraction where brand attributes, benefits,

and an overall affective brand attitude represent the levels

hierarchically. The overall affective judgment can be

represented by the ‘‘primary’’ CBBE facet PQ, where

PQ is a multiplicative function of the attributes and

benefits espoused in expectancy value theory (Ajzen and

Fishbein, 1980).

What is implicit in both theoretical approaches to PQ isthe notion of ‘‘value.’’ Both the means– end chain and

expectancy value models include PVC as a part of, or a

consequence of, PQ judgments. Though conceptualized as

distinct, disentangling PQ from PVC judgments, as well as

their effects on brand-related response variables in the

minds of consumers, may be problematic. As the next

section suggests, the manner in which PVC judgments are

formed are theoretically similar to the manner in which PQ

judgments are formed. Further, many suggest that PQ

reflects an overall value judgment (Holbrook and Corfman,

1985; Zeithaml, 1988), or, that the two facets can be

combined to form one overall summary construct of brand

attitude (Aaker, 1996a,b).

2.2. Perceived value for the cost

PVC is a ‘‘core/primary’’ facet and is considered a

cornerstone of most CBBE frameworks (Aaker, 1996a;

Farquhar, 1989; Keller, 1993). PVC is defined as the

customer’s overall assessment of the utility of the brand

based on perceptions of what is received (e.g., quality,

satisfaction) and what is given (e.g., price and nonmonetary

costs) relative to other brands. PVC involves the trade-off of

‘‘what I get’’ (i.e., functional and emotional benefits) for

‘‘what I give’’ (i.e., time, money, and effort) (Kirmani andZeithaml, 1993).

Means–end chain and expectancy value theories again

are useful for explaining PVC and its links to other CBBE

constructs. In the means –end chain theory, PVC is at a

higher level of abstraction than any attribute or benefit of a

brand. The attributes and benefits (i.e., ‘‘what I get’’) can be

functional, experiential, or symbolic, and include PQ.

Though PQ has been viewed at a higher level of abstraction,

some feel it is incorporated into PVC judgments (Holbrook

and Corfman, 1985) and should be considered the primary

‘‘what I get’’ component of the PVC equation. Similarly,

expectancy value models suggest that combining attributes

and benefits, including PQ, result in an overall PVC

judgment about the brand (Keller, 1993).

As noted by several theorists, consumers are not likely to

draw a distinction between a brand’s PQ and its PVC (Aaker,

1996a; Holbrook and Corfman, 1985). In addition, the recent

Equitrend study found that PQ explained 80% of the vari-

ance in PVC (Aaker, 1996b). Other evidence, though, doessuggest that the two constructs may be separate. PQ may

have a higher prestige aspect associated with the brand,

whereas PVC may be associated more with the functional

utility of the brand. A bottom line is that the same conclusion

may occur whether PQ, PVC, or both are used to predict

brand-related response variables (Aaker, 1996b).

2.3. Uniqueness

Uniqueness is defined as the degree to which customers

feel the brand is different from competing brands—how

distinct it is relative to competitors. If the brand is not perceived as unique from competitors, it will have a difficult

time in supporting a higher price relative to other brands. As

such, brand uniqueness is considered a ‘‘core/primary’’

CBBE facet (Aaker, 1996b; Agarwal and Rao, 1996).

Judgments of a brand’s uniqueness can be inferred via

differentiating advertising claims or from direct experience

with a brand. Regardless of how it is formed, if a brand is

considered unique, it can command a price premium in the

marketplace (Aaker, 1996b).

Choice theory offers an explanation as to the effective-

ness of uniqueness as a core/primary CBBE facet. When

faced with a choice among brands, features common to

alternative brands may cancel each other out because they

offer little diagnostic information toward preference (Tver-

sky, 1972; Dhar and Sherman, 1996). In contrast, unique

features do offer diagnostic information by differentiating

the brand from other brands. Given that consumers tend to

be cognitive misers, the unique features offer a simplifying

‘‘heuristic’’ for choosing among alternatives. Recent evid-

ence supports this view as unique aspects of a brand affected

both preferences and the willingness to pay a higher price for

a brand (Carpenter et al., 1994; Kalra and Goodstein, 1998).

Further, uniqueness is likely related to PQ and PVC judg-

ments in that consumers may infer that unique aspects have

‘‘value’’ or quality. As such, a strongly held unique asso-ciation implies that PQ, PVC, and uniqueness are related.

2.4. Willingness to pay a price premium

The willingness to pay a price premium is defined as

the amount a customer is willing to pay for his/her

preferred brand over comparable/lesser brands of the same

package size/quantity. It is one of the strongest indicators

of brand loyalty and may be the most reasonable summary

measure of overall brand equity (Aaker, 1996a). Though

this ‘‘price premium’’ construct is conceptualized as a

‘‘core/primary’’ CBBE facet, it has also been considered

R.G. Netemeyer et al. / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 209–224 211

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271817117_Measuring_Brand_Equity_Across_Products_and_Markets?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271817117_Measuring_Brand_Equity_Across_Products_and_Markets?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272594833_Conceptualizing_Measuring_and_Managing_Customer-Based_Brand_Equity_in_Journal_of_Marketing_Vol_57_1-22?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272594833_Conceptualizing_Measuring_and_Managing_Customer-Based_Brand_Equity_in_Journal_of_Marketing_Vol_57_1-22?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263229874_An_Empirical_Comparison_of_Consumer-Based_Measures_of_Brand_Equity?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263229874_An_Empirical_Comparison_of_Consumer-Based_Measures_of_Brand_Equity?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271817117_Measuring_Brand_Equity_Across_Products_and_Markets?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271817117_Measuring_Brand_Equity_Across_Products_and_Markets?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271817117_Measuring_Brand_Equity_Across_Products_and_Markets?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271817117_Measuring_Brand_Equity_Across_Products_and_Markets?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263229874_An_Empirical_Comparison_of_Consumer-Based_Measures_of_Brand_Equity?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272594833_Conceptualizing_Measuring_and_Managing_Customer-Based_Brand_Equity_in_Journal_of_Marketing_Vol_57_1-22?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2


5/17

a differential brand response construct in other CBBE

frameworks. For example, willingness to pay a price

premium is viewed as a result of managing other CBBE

facets well where PQ, PVC, and uniqueness are important

reasons for the willingness to pay a price premium (Black-

ston, 1995; Keller, 1993). Consistent with Fig. 1 then, the

other core/primary CBBE facets should be predictive of this price premium facet.

Several consumer theories offer rationale for drawing

associations between price premium and other CBBE facets.

According to memory theory, once information is stored, an

associative network forms that connects or links the asso-

ciations in some way (Alba et al., 1990). Brand associations

formed from direct experience (i.e., PQ and PVC) tend to be

stronger and are more quickly retrieved from memory than

those formed via other means (Fazio and Zanna, 1981).

Such accessible associations (PQ and PVC) guide responses

to a brand and brand choice (Farquhar, 1989). Further, the

favorability and strength of the brand associations are alsoaffected by brand congruence. Congruence refers to the

‘‘extent to which a brand association shares content and

meaning with another brand association’’ (Keller, 1993, p.

7). As such, favorable PQ, PVC, and uniqueness are

congruent with a greater willingness to pay a price premium

for a brand.

Pricing theories also suggest strong relations between the

core/primary CBBE facets of PQ, PVC, and willingness to

pay a price premium. For example, Monroe (1990) offers a

model that posits the willingness to pay a particular price for

a brand/product as a function of the total perceived value

and quality of the brand/product. Other researchers share

similar views where PQ and PVC affect the willingness to

pay a price premium for a brand and brand purchase

(Kirmani and Zeithaml, 1993; Sethuraman and Cole,

1997). Finally, choice theory again suggests a uniqueness

to price premium relationship. Unique features offer dia-

gnostic information by differentiating a brand from other

brands, thus offering a simplifying ‘‘heuristic’’ for choosing

among alternatives (Tversky, 1972). Further, unique aspects

of a brand can affect the willingness to pay a higher price for

a brand (Kalra and Goodstein, 1998).

2.5. Summary

Our review suggests the following commonalities among

CBBE frameworks. First, CBBE is multifaceted consisting

of the ‘‘primary’’ or ‘‘core’’ associations of PQ, PVC,

uniqueness, and the willingness to pay a price premium

for a brand. Second, nomological correlates of the core/

primary facets include brand awareness, familiarity, popu-

larity, organizational associations, and image consistency.

Third, response variables relevant to the core/primary

CBBE facets are brand purchase intent and brand purchase

behavior. Fourth, valid measures of core/primary CBBE

facets applicable across product categories are needed to

help managers track CBBE and academicians interested in

CBBE research (Aaker, 1996b; Keller, 1993). It is a CBBE

measurement approach focusing on the four core/primary

facets that is the emphasis of this article. Once these

measures are developed, the strength of the relationships

between the CBBE measures and response variables can

provide a basis for specifying the relations among CBBE

facets and response variables (Aaker, 1996a). We now offer several pretests and studies encompassing numerous advo-

cated psychometric procedures that derive and validate

scales for the core/primary CBBE facets.

3. Measurement pretests

3.1. Focus groups and expert judging pretests

Prior to the main studies, we conducted two focus

groups, expert item judging, and one small pretest study.

The purposes of these procedures were to choose product categories and brands for the main studies, to determine if

our author/literature generated definitions of the core/prim-

ary CBBE facets concurred with the public’s view, and

generate items for the CBBE measures. Such qualitative

procedures are being increasingly advocated as useful scale

development tools (Bearden and Netemeyer, 1998; Haynes

et al., 1999).

Ten product categories were examined by two consumer

focus groups of various ages and ethnic backgrounds. The

categories were colas, toothpaste, jeans, athletic shoes, fast-

foods, camera film, greeting cards, canned soups, pain

relievers, and breakfast cereals. These categories chosen

because they have a high rate of purchase, and existing

surveys of brand strength (i.e., the Young and Rubicam

Asset Valuator and Total Research’s Equitrend) show that

these products have strong and weak brands (Aaker, 1996b).

Focus group participants were asked numerous scaled and

open-ended questions about their perception of brands with

these categories, and their perceptions of quality, value, and

uniqueness associated with brands.

From the focus groups, literature review, and our own

judgment, 65 items were generated to tap the four core/

primary facets of CBBE. Many of the items were adapted

from studies that had examined aspects of brand equity,

brand loyalty, PVC and PQ, etc. (cf., Aaker, 1996a; Zei-thaml, 1988). Two marketing professors with backgrounds

in both measurement and brand choice then judged the

items for representativeness, resulting in 37 items retained

with a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 11 items per

CBBE facet.

3.2. Pretest study

To further trim this item pool to a more reasonable

number, a pretest with a sample of 44 MBA students was

conducted. The pretest entailed a long take-home survey

that asked the students to respond to the 37 items across


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230663824_Elimination_by_Aspects_A_Theory_of_Choice?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230663824_Elimination_by_Aspects_A_Theory_of_Choice?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272594833_Conceptualizing_Measuring_and_Managing_Customer-Based_Brand_Equity_in_Journal_of_Marketing_Vol_57_1-22?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272594833_Conceptualizing_Measuring_and_Managing_Customer-Based_Brand_Equity_in_Journal_of_Marketing_Vol_57_1-22?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271817117_Measuring_Brand_Equity_Across_Products_and_Markets?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271817117_Measuring_Brand_Equity_Across_Products_and_Markets?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230663824_Elimination_by_Aspects_A_Theory_of_Choice?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271817117_Measuring_Brand_Equity_Across_Products_and_Markets?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272594833_Conceptualizing_Measuring_and_Managing_Customer-Based_Brand_Equity_in_Journal_of_Marketing_Vol_57_1-22?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2


6/17

four brands in four product categories. The product cat-

egories were cola, toothpaste, jeans, and athletic shoes.

These categories reflect relatively inexpensive and fre-

quently purchased products (i.e., cola and toothpaste), as

well as two (i.e., jeans and athletic shoes) that are more

costly and less frequently purchased. Given that a focus of

this research was to develop measures applicable across product categories, we felt that these product categories

provide for a stronger initial test of the internal structure and

validity of the measures. The brands were Coca-Cola (i.e.,

all types including Coke Classic, Diet Coke, etc.), Nike

athletic shoes (i.e., all types such as running shoes, cross-

trainers, basketball, etc.), Levi’s jeans, and Crest toothpaste

(i.e., all types including, tartar control, plaque removing,

etc.). Within their product classes, these brands had the

highest brand equity-related ratings from the previous

sources listed (e.g., Landor Associates) and the focus group

results.

The responses were analyzed via principal componentsand item analyses. Given the small sample size and the

exploratory nature of this step, items that comprised each

CBBE facet were looked at separately within each of the

four CBBE facets. Consistent with recent psychometric

literature, we used a combination of statistical heuristics

and content validity judgments to delete or retain items

(Haynes et al., 1999). For each CBBE facet, if an item

consistently had low ( < .50) or very high factor loadings

(>.95) (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988), consistently had low or

very high item-to-total correlations, and was consistently

highly correlated with another item within its facet (>.80),

it was considered for deletion. Items with low loadings and

low item-to-total correlations may not be tapping the same

construct (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994), and items with

very high loadings, very high item-to-total correlations, and

high intercorrelations with other items tend to reflect

empirical redundancy as they are worded too similarly

with other items. Such redundancy can result in an

‘‘attenuation paradox’’ where an item does not contribute

substantively to content validity or reliability (Clark and

Watson, 1995). Overall, these statistical heuristics and

judgment procedures resulted in the retention of 23 items

(a minimum of five and a maximum of seven per CBBE

facet).

4. Study 1

4.1. Sample and procedures

The purpose of this first study was to develop and refine

the CBBE measures and obtain initial estimates of their

psychometric properties. Four samples of adults from a

southeastern city participated in the study. These samples

were collected by undergraduate marketing students as a part

of their ‘‘subjects pool’’ requirement. Students were in-

structed to have one nonstudent adult complete the survey.

The person who completed the survey had to provide his/her

address and phone number as it was instructed to the student

who delivered the survey that respondents to several surveys

would be randomly called to ensure that the person whose

name was on the survey actually had responded. Two

hundred surveys were drafted per product category and

given to subjects pool students. Usable responses wereobtained from the four samples ranging in size (n) from

138 to 154 participants. As such, return rates ranged from

69% (138/200) to 77% (154/200). The average age of

respondents was 34.58 years, 49% were college educated,

53% were female, and the median household income was in

the US$40,000–49,999 range.

Four product categories were chosen (one for each

sample) where three brands were evaluated within each

category. The product categories and brands were: (1) colas:

Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and RC Cola; (2) toothpaste: Crest,

Colgate, and Close-up; (3) athletic shoes: Nike, Reebok,

and Fila; and (4) jeans: Levi’s, Lee, and Wrangler. These product categories each have two strong brands with a third

brand having lesser market share, but a highly recognizable

brand name (Aaker, 1996b). We felt that having two strong

brands and one weaker brand within commonly used

product categories could enhance the generalizability of

the CBBE measures.

Surveys corresponding to the four products categories

were drafted. CBBE items pertaining to the brands were

counterbalanced within each survey such that three versions

of each survey were distributed. For example, approxi-

mately an equal number of respondents who were distrib-

uted the ‘‘cola’’ survey responded to Coca-Cola items first,

Pepsi Cola items first, and RC Cola items first. In addition

to the 23 CBBE items, measures relevant to nomological

validity were included. Single-item measures of brand

awareness, familiarity, and popularity were randomly dis-

persed throughout the survey (see Table 1). Consistent with

Fig. 1, most CBBE frameworks include these brand associ-

ations as related to the core/primary CBBE facets (Aaker,

1996a; Keller, 1993; Lassar et al., 1995). Single-item

measures of purchase intent and a past percentage of brand

purchases were also included for nomological validity test-

ing. These measures are displayed in Table 1 and were

culled or adapted form several sources that examined

aspects of brand strength or brand equity (Aaker, 1996b;Agarwal and Rao, 1996; Cobb-Walgreen et al., 1995). The

past percentage measure included competing brands. For

colas, the brands were Coke, Pepsi, RC, and a ‘‘store brand’’

(SB); for toothpaste the brands were Crest, Colgate, Close-

up, and an SB (a brief description of what an ‘‘SB’’ is was

given to the respondents). Given that SBs are increasingly

capturing market share for many grocery store products,

they were used as an option for colas and toothpaste (Burton

et al., 1998). For jeans, the brands were Levi’s, Lee,

Wrangler, and ‘‘Other Brand (please specify)’’; and for

shoes the brands were Nike, Reebok, Fila, and ‘‘Other

Brand (please specify).’’ Study participants were instructed


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225359099_On_the_Evaluation_of_Structure_Equation_Models?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225359099_On_the_Evaluation_of_Structure_Equation_Models?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233894715_Psychometric_Theory?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233894715_Psychometric_Theory?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225359099_On_the_Evaluation_of_Structure_Equation_Models?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233894715_Psychometric_Theory?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2


7/17

to respond to all measures as pertinent just to their own

personal views/uses of all brands.

4.2. Measurement purification and results

To purify the measures, an iterative approach was adop-ted that included both quantitative and qualitative judgments

(Haynes et al., 1999). For each brand, a factor model

corresponding to an a priori theoretical structure was esti-

mated via LISREL8 covariance structure modeling (Jore-

skog and Sorbom, 1996). As such, 12 four-factor models

were estimated (i.e., one for each brand over the four core/

primary CBBE facets where the factors were freely corre-

lated). These models constituted the first iteration. Items

were deleted that consistently resulted in high within- and/or

across-factor correlated measurement errors and low ( < .50)

or extremely high (>.95) completely standardized within-

factor loadings. However, if an item showed high ‘‘face

validity’’ to its definition, it was retained (Haynes et al.,

1999). This iteration resulted in deletion of four items. In the

next iteration, the remaining 19 items were again specified

to a four-factor model across the 12 brands. Here, we

focused on items that had high cross-loadings to a factor

other than the intended factor and the correlation among the

latent factors themselves. We deleted two items with cross-loadings of .75 or greater and then estimated another four-

factor model.

At this point, we examined internal consistency and

discriminant validity. All reliability estimates were above

.75 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994), and all but one

average variance extracted estimates (AVE) were .50 or

above, a level advocated as indicative of high internal

validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Still, the ‘‘disattenu-

ated’’ correlations among the latent factors of PQ and PVC

(the j correlations) were extremely high. In fact, for 11 of

the 12 brands this correlation ranged from .93 to .99. On a

most stringent test of discriminant validity (i.e., the meanof the average variance extracted estimates of two latent

factors being greater than the square of the j estimate

between the factors), evidence of discriminant validity was

not found between PQ and PVC. For uniqueness, price

premium, and PQ and PVC though, all but two j estimates

showed evidence of discriminant validity. That is, for a

total of 70 possible j comparisons over the 12 brands, only

the price premium– PVC correlation for Crest and the

price premium– PQ correlation for Levi’s did not show

discriminant validity via the rigorous Fornell and Larcker

(1981) criterion.

At the end of Study 1, 17 CBBE items were retained:

four for PVC, five for PQ, three for uniqueness, and five for

willingness to pay a price premium. However, the extremely

high correlations among PQ and PVC suggest a severe lack

of discrimination between these constructs. These results

lead us to conduct Study 2 to further examine and establish

the dimensionality of PQ and PVC and gain estimates of

reliability and validity.

5. Study 2


A sample of 186 nonstudent adults from a southeastern

city was used in Study 2. As with Study 1, undergraduate

subjects pool participants delivered the survey to the adult

respondents. Two hundred fifty surveys were drafted and

186 were completed for a return rate of 74.4%. The average

age of respondents was 33.73 years, 43% were college

educated, 58% were female, and the median income was in

the US$30,000–39,999 range. Three brands were chosen:

(1) Coca-Cola, (2) Reebok athletic shoes, and (3) Levi’s

jeans. Again, these brands were chosen for their high degree

of familiarity and use and their rankings across various brand

rating studies (cf., Aaker, 1996b). The survey contained 18

Table 1

Nomological validity measures for Studies 1 and 2

Study 1

Brand awareness: When I think of (product category), (brand name) is the

brand that first comes to mind.

Brand familiarity: (Brand name) is a brand of (product category) I am very

familiar with.

Brand popularity: (Brand name) is s a very popular brand of (product category).

Brand purchase intent: The next time I buy (product category), I intend to

buy a (brand name) brand.

Past percentage of brand purchases: Below is a list of four brands of

______. On average, when you have bought _______, what percent of

your purchases were devoted to each brand? The sum of the purchases

across the four brands should add up to 100%.

Study 2

Organizational associations

1. The firm that makes (brand name) is a good corporate citizen.

2. The (brand name) company is honest with its customers.

3. The company that makes (brand name) of (product category) is socially

responsible.

4. The company that markets (brand name) really cares about its

customers.

Image consistency

1. (Brand name) brand of (product category) has a rich history.

2. (Brand name) brand of (product category) has a strong brand image.

3. (Brand name) brand of (product category) has a consistent brand image.

4. Over the years, (brand name) of (product category) has a maintained a

strong image.

5. Over time, (brand name) brand has been very consistent in what it

stands for.

Purchase intent

1–3. For my next purchase of (product category), I intend to buy a (brand

name) brand. (With scale endpoints of unlikely– likely, probably will –

probably will not, disagree– agree.)

4. The next time I buy (product category), I intend to buy a (brand name)

brand.

Past percentage of brand purchases

Below is a list of four brands of ______. On average, when you have

bought _______, what percent of your purchases were devoted to each

brand? The sum of the purchases across the four brands should add up to

100%.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233894715_Psychometric_Theory?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233894715_Psychometric_Theory?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237202324_Evaluating_Structural_Equation_Models_With_Unobservable_Variable_Sand_Measurement_Error?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237202324_Evaluating_Structural_Equation_Models_With_Unobservable_Variable_Sand_Measurement_Error?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233894715_Psychometric_Theory?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237202324_Evaluating_Structural_Equation_Models_With_Unobservable_Variable_Sand_Measurement_Error?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2


8/17

CBBE items (four for PVC, five for PQ, five for price

premium, and four for uniqueness retained from Study 1).

We added one more uniqueness item.2

For nomological validity purposes, two multi-item meas-

ures that should correlate with the core/primary CBBE

facets were included: a four-item measure of organizational

associations and a five-item measure of brand image con-sistency. Consistent with Fig. 1, organizational associations

of honesty, trustworthiness, and caring for customers may be

considered ‘‘secondary’’ brand associations that are related

to the core/primary CBBE facets via an inferencing process

(Keller, 1993; Brown and Dacin, 1997). That is, a brand

perceived to have high PQ, PVC, and uniqueness may also

be viewed as having strong organizational associations of

company reputation via the belief inferencing process (Park

and Srinivasan, 1994). Brand image consistency is also a

brand association that has been hypothesized as related to

the core/primary facets of PQ, PVC, and willingness to pay

a price premium (Aaker, 1996b; Farquhar, 1989).Two other validity measures were also included. The first

was a four-item brand purchase intent measure and the

second was the past percentage of brand purchase measure

used in Study 1. (Table 1 displays all nomological validity

measures.) As not to fatigue the respondents, the survey was

split into two parts of equal length (about four pages) and

responded to over a 10-day interval. Items for all CBBE

facets across the brands were completely randomized to

minimize the potential of ‘‘yea-saying’’ response set bias.

5.2. Measurement purification and results

The responses were again subjected to confirmatory

factor analyses using LISREL8. For each brand, a four-

factor model corresponding to a four-item PVC factor, a

five-item PQ factor, a four-item uniqueness factor, and a

five-item willingness to pay a price premium factor was

estimated. For the PVC and PQ factors correlations were

again at or above .90 across the three brands (.88 to .95).

One item in the PQ facet and one item in the price premium

facet still showed extremely high cross-loadings with other

facets or were judged to be somewhat redundant in item

wording. These two items were deleted from all further

analyses.

At this stage, two more analyses were conducted. First,we combined the four remaining items for PQ and the four

items for PVC into one factor and compared it to a two-

factor structure where PQ and PVC were modeled as

separate, but correlated factors. Across brands, no evidence

of discriminant validity was found for the two-factor model

(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). As such, the decision was made

to form an eight-item PQ/PVC factor. This decision is

consistent with the theoretical and empirical findings (par-

ticularly those of Study 1) related to these constructs. PVCis a customer’s overall assessment of the utility of the brand

based on perceptions of what is received (e.g., quality,

satisfaction, liking) and what is given (e.g., price, non-

monetary costs) relative to other brands. This suggests that

PQ judgments are likely incorporated into PVC judgments

(or vice versa). Also, as noted by several theorists, in the

minds of consumers there is likely little or no distinction

between a brand’s PVC and PQ (Aaker, 1996b; Holbrook

and Corfman, 1985). With the exception of the PQ/PVC–

price premium correlation for Levi’s, correlations among the

other facets ranged from .41 to .79 with evidence of

discriminant validity.Based on these results, a three-factor model that corre-

sponded to an eight-item PQ/PVC factor (i.e., four PVC

items and four PQ items), a four-item uniqueness factor, and

a four-item price premium factor was estimated. Table 2

presents three fit indices viewed as robust to sampling

characteristics to evaluate model fit: the non-normed fit

index (NNFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the root

mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Values in

the .90 range and above have been noted as designating

adequate fit for CFI and NNFI (Hu and Bentler, 1995), and

values ranging from .05 to .10 have been deemed acceptable

for the RMSEA (Browne and Cudeck, 1993). As Table 2

shows, all NNFI and CFI estimates were above .90 and all

RMSEA estimates were at or below .10.

Evidence of discriminant validity for the three constructs

was examined and found. The square of the parameter

2 We added another uniqueness for the following reasons. We had five

items for uniqueness going into Study 1. Two of the items were reversed

worded and just did not load well (i.e., well below .50) for any of the brands

of Study 1. Thus, we added one more positively worded item: ‘‘( Brand

name) is distinct from other brands of ( product category)’’ for Study 2.

Given that our scales could be used in a variety of studies, we wanted to

have at least four items per construct as a three-item scale will be ‘‘just

identified’’ as a single-factor model via confirmatory factor analysis—

precluding any measures of fit. A four-item scale will be ‘‘over-

identified’’—giving estimates of fit.

Table 2

Study 2 measurement model fit and internal consistency estimates

Fit statistics

c2 df CFI NNFI RMSEA

Coke 257.30 101 .95 .94 .10

Reebok 190.30 101 .97 .96 .07

Levi’s 186.75 101 .97 .96 .07

Internal consistency

PQ/PVC Uniqueness Price premium

Coke

Coefficient a .95 .94 .90

Average .78 .79 .70

Reebok


Average .78 .72 .66

Levi’s


Average .79 .71 .74


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271516200_The_Company_and_the_Product_Corporate_Associations_and_Consumer_Product_Responses?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271516200_The_Company_and_the_Product_Corporate_Associations_and_Consumer_Product_Responses?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237202324_Evaluating_Structural_Equation_Models_With_Unobservable_Variable_Sand_Measurement_Error?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237202324_Evaluating_Structural_Equation_Models_With_Unobservable_Variable_Sand_Measurement_Error?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271516200_The_Company_and_the_Product_Corporate_Associations_and_Consumer_Product_Responses?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237202324_Evaluating_Structural_Equation_Models_With_Unobservable_Variable_Sand_Measurement_Error?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2


9/17

Table 3

Study 1 validity-related correlations

Colas Intent Past % Awareness Familiarity Popular

Coke Pepsi RC SB

Coke

PQ/PVC .84 .41 .27 .31 .30 .71 .62 .60

Uniqueness .65 .37 .28 .20 .24 .56 .43 .41Price premium .64 .43 .33 .31 .29 .44 .43 .36

Pepsi

PQ/PVC .66 .36 .48 .07 ns .15 ns .63 .35 .33

Uniqueness .30 .08 ns .12 ns .01 ns .04 ns .33 .13 ns .21

Price premium .56 .19 .22 .12 ns .03 ns .48 .09 ns .10 ns

RC

PQ/PVC .53 .16 .08 ns .23 .12 ns .45 .36 .37

Uniqueness .19 .01 ns .04 ns .13 ns .07 ns .21 .22 .38

Price premium .60 .07 ns .03 ns .25 .03 ns .64 .19 .34

Pastes Intent Past % Awareness Familiarity Popular

Crest Colgate Close-up SBCrest

PQ/PVC .75 .64 .35 .29 .26 .80 .73 .70

Uniqueness .63 .49 .23 .23 .17 .62 .47 .35

Price premium .66 .65 .29 .38 .22 .66 .50 .49

Colgate

PQ/PVC .77 .48 .42 .04 ns .03 ns .76 .58 .55

Uniqueness .57 .32 .30 .04 ns .04 ns .60 .47 .43

Price premium .73 .35 .31 .14 ns .02 ns .68 .38 .38

Close-up

PQ/PVC .70 .38 .04 ns .67 .01 ns .71 .47 .52

Uniqueness .46 .33 .11 ns .39 .01 ns .48 .45 .42

Price premium .73 .35 .06 ns .49 .13 ns .69 .40 .37

Jeans Intent Past % Awareness Familiarity Popular

Levi’s Lee Wrangler Other

Levi’s

PQ/PVC .81 .48 .15 ns .12 ns .27 .73 .68 .64

Uniqueness .54 .29 .04 ns .12 ns .16 .55 .50 .35

Price premium .79 .44 .21 .14 ns .17 .60 .49 .51

Lee

PQ/PVC .78 .12 ns .64 .01 ns .29 .78 .56 .71

Uniqueness .47 .03 ns .38 .08 ns .17 .48 .28 .26

Price premium .75 .02 ns .66 .03 ns .40 .75 .42 .58

Wrangler

PQ/PVC .68

.14 ns

.02 ns .57

.16 .70 .52 .64Uniqueness .29 .06 ns .15 ns .25 .01 ns .31 .21 .28

Price premium .61 .05 ns .11 ns .48 .36 .58 .37 .43

Shoes Intent Past % Awareness Familiarity Popular

Nike Reebok Fila Other

Nike

PQ/PVC .76 .48 .21 .06 ns .22 .69 .55 .47

Uniqueness .56 .33 .21 .04 ns .19 .59 .54 .40

Price premium .76 .48 .43 .10 ns .17 .54 .48 .26

(continued on next page)



10/17

estimate between pairs of constructs (j2) was less than the

average variance extracted estimates of the two constructs in

all but one instance (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). (Only the j

correlation between PQ/PVC and willingness to pay a price

premium for Levi’s did not meet this rigorous criterion.)

Evidence of internal consistency is provided by coefficient a and average variance extracted estimates. As Table 2

shows, a ranged from .87 to .96 across CBBE facets and the

average variance extracted estimates were all above .50.

Appendix A shows the final version of the CBBE facets

retained from Studies 1 and 2.

5.3. Evidence of validity: Studies 1 and 2

In Studies 1 and 2, measures related to nomological

validity of the CBBE facets were gathered. Table 3 shows

these results for Study 1. It was expected that PQ/PVC,

uniqueness, and the willingness to pay a price premiumwould be correlated with brand purchase intent (‘‘intent’’)

and past percentage of brand purchases (i.e., ‘‘past %

Coke’’). The data confirmed these expectations. Of the 72

correlations of each CBBE facet with ‘‘intent’’ and

‘‘past %,’’ for their respective brands, 68 were significant.

It was also felt that the correlations of the CBBE facets

would be negative or nonsignificant with past percentage of

brand purchases for the other brands examined within a

given product category. For example, the Coke CBBE

facets were expected to be negatively correlated or uncor-related with ‘‘past %’’ for Pepsi, RC, and SB. This

expectation was largely confirmed for the brands of Study

1. Of the 144 correlations of the CBBE facets with past

percentage of brand purchases for other brands, all were

either negative or nonsignificant. We also correlated the

core/primary CBBE facets with brand awareness, brand

familiarity, and brand popularity. Several frameworks sug-

gest that these constructs are related to the core/primary

CBBE facets (Aaker, 1996a; Keller, 1993, 1998). Of the

144 correlations pertaining to these constructs, 141 were

significant in the expected direction.

Table 4 displays the validity results for Study 2. Thecorrelations of PQ/PVC, uniqueness, and willingness to pay

a price premium with brand purchase intent (‘‘intent’’) and

past percentage of brand purchase (‘‘past %’’) were again all

positive and significant across brands. PQ/PVC and will-

Table 3 (continued )

Table 4

Study 2 validity-related correlations

Coke Intent Past % Image consistency Organizational associations

Coke Pepsi RC SB

PQ/PVC .62 .56 .20 .29 .29 .53 .45

Uniqueness .60 .44 .16 .23 .30 .76 .63

Price premium .68 .43 .13 ns .17 .34 .59 .57

Levi’s Intent Past % Image consistency Organizational associations

Levi’s Lee Wrangler Other

PQ/PVC .80 .53 .12 ns .04 ns .42 .57 .52

Uniqueness .48 .40 .04 ns .14 ns .31 .62 .61

Price premium .68 .50 .09 ns .06 ns .36 .32 .33

Reebok Intent Past % Image consistency Organizational associations

Reebok Nike Fila Other

PQ/PVC .64 .53 .22 .04 ns .25 .62 .56

Uniqueness .69 .45 .19 .11 ns .25 .82 .72

Price premium .73 .49 .22 .01 ns .22 .62 .58

‘‘ns’’ denotes a nonsignificant correlation. All other correlations are significant at the .05 level or better.

Shoes Intent Past % Awareness Familiarity Popular

Nike Reebok Fila Other

Reebok

PQ/PVC .80 .35 .55 .05 ns .12 ns .81 .44 .63

Uniqueness .63 .22 .35 .07 ns .11 ns .66 .44 .53

Price premium .71 .22 .42 .16 ns .18 .70 .29 .45

Fila

PQ/PVC .55 .18 .13 ns .12 ns .04 ns .57 .34 .55

Uniqueness .48 .11 ns .01 ns .07 ns .09 ns .40 .42 .41

Price premium .68 .13 ns .06 ns .27 .00 ns .68 .30 .38

‘‘ns’’ denotes a nonsignificant correlation ( P >.05). All other correlations are significant at the .05 level or better.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237202324_Evaluating_Structural_Equation_Models_With_Unobservable_Variable_Sand_Measurement_Error?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237202324_Evaluating_Structural_Equation_Models_With_Unobservable_Variable_Sand_Measurement_Error?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271817117_Measuring_Brand_Equity_Across_Products_and_Markets?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271817117_Measuring_Brand_Equity_Across_Products_and_Markets?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271817117_Measuring_Brand_Equity_Across_Products_and_Markets?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270855672_'Strategic_brand_management'?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237202324_Evaluating_Structural_Equation_Models_With_Unobservable_Variable_Sand_Measurement_Error?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-f98c4990-7872-41fd-94ae-2b92adaeb81d&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyMjUzNjc4MjtBUzo5OTQ2NzI2OTI0Njk5MkAxNDAwNzI2MjUzNjU2


11/17

ingness to pay a price premium were also more strongly

correlated with ‘‘intent’’ and ‘‘past %’’ than was uniqueness,

and the correlations of the CBBE facets with past percent-

age of purchase for other brands (including ‘‘SB’’) were all

negative or nonsignificant. The correlations of the core/

primary CBBE facets with brand image consistency and

organizational associations were significant as well.

5.4. Summary of Studies 1 and 2

Two studies were used to derive the final form of the

core/primary CBBE measures, test their dimensionality and

internal consistency, and gain estimates of nomological

validity. These studies resulted in retaining an eight-item

‘‘PQ/PVC’’ measure, a four-item ‘‘uniqueness’’ measure,

and a four-item ‘‘willingness to pay a price premium’’ for

the brand measure. Across 12 brands, the measures

showed evidence of dimensionality and internal consist-

ency. These measures showed evidence of validity as theywere correlated with measures of brand purchase intent,

past percentage of brand purchases within a given product

category, and other brand associations (i.e., awareness,

familiarity, popularity, brand image consistency, and organ-

izational associations).

6. Study 3


Though Studies 1 and 2 provide evidence of distinct and

internally consistent core/primary CBBE measures, and that

these measures are related to past behavior and intent, little

was offered about the measures relative to future behavior.

This third study represents a field test that extends the scale

validation process by examining the CBBE measures rela-

tions with actual brand purchase behavior. We contacted a

local Independent Grocers Association supermarket in a

southeastern city. The manager of the supermarket agreed

to allow us to contact shoppers and supplied us with

US$5.00 gift certificates redeemable for any merchandise

at the store as an incentive for shoppers to participate.

During a 4-day period (Wednesday to Saturday), shoppers

were contacted as they entered/exited the store. They werefirst shown the incentive to participate and screened to

determine if they (or household members) used coffee and

cola—the target product categories. If they agreed to par-

ticipate and satisfied the screening question, the study

procedures were explained to them. Shoppers were handed

a packet containing a four-page survey, the US$5.00 gift

certificate, three postage-paid return envelopes, and a page

of instructions that fully reminded them of the study

procedures. They were told that the survey was to be

completed at home and mailed back to the researchers

within a 2-week period in one of the postage-paid enve-

lopes. They were also told that we needed their grocery store

receipt(s) for their next purchases of any coffee and cola

from stores that printed the brand names of the products on

the receipts. They were to mail the receipts back to us (with

their name printed on the receipts) in the other postage-paid

envelopes. (Given the limited time in the store, these

procedures were repeated on a separate page at the end of

the survey as a reminder of what the study entailed.) A totalof 250 shoppers were given the study packet.

Two weeks after the last day, we distributed the study

packets, 101 shoppers had returned the survey for an

effective response rate of 41% for the survey. Of these, 63

returned grocery store receipts with the brand names of cola

and/or coffee printed on the receipt. As such, we mailed

reminder letters to those who had not yet sent in their receipts

for cola, coffee, or both products. From this procedure, 14

more behavioral responses were gathered such that of the

original 101 completed surveys, 77 respondents provided

behavioral data (i.e., grocery receipts) for cola purchases and

66 provided behavioral data for coffee purchases. Averageage of the respondents was 50.37 years, 50% were college

educated, 71% were female, and 86% classified themselves

as the primary grocery shopper for their household.

6.2. Measures

The survey contained measures specific to two brands: (1)

Coca-Cola and (2) Community Coffee. Coca-Cola was again

used as a focal brand due to its ratings as a national brand of

high equity across numerous studies. Community Coffee is a

regional brand sold in only a few southeastern states that has

developed a strong customer base. In general, on a per unit

basis, it is priced well above competing national brands such

as Folger’s, Maxwell House, etc. Thus, as a further test of the

validity of the CBBE facets, a strong regional brand was

used as a focal brand in the product category. For both Coca-

Cola and Community Coffee, participants responded to the

final versions of the CBBE measures (see Appendix A). We

used the returned grocery receipts as the behavior measure.

(All grocery receipts were checked for a date to ensure that

the focal product categories were purchased after the ques-

tionnaire was completed and returned.) If the receipt indi-

cated the respondent had purchased a Coke brand (i.e., Coke

Classic, Diet Coke, Caffeine-Free Coke, etc.), and no other

brand (including Dr. Pepper and root beer), this response wascoded a ‘‘1,’’ i.e., did purchase. If the receipt indicated any

soda brand other than a Coke brand, this response was coded

a ‘‘0,’’ i.e., did not purchase. This same coding scheme was

used for coffee brands and Community Coffee.

6.3. Results

Confirmatory factor models of the eight-item PQ/PVC,

four-item willing to pay a price premium, and four-item

uniqueness facets fit the data well for Coke (CFI=.93,

NNFI=.92, RMSEA=.11), but marginally for Community

Coffee (CFI=.89, NNFI=.87, RMSEA=.14). Still, other



12/17

aspects of measurement model acceptability were strong as

coefficient a estimates ranged from .89 to .95, and AVE

estimates ranged from .67 to .77 across measures for both

brands. Correlations among these four constructs ranged

from .32 to .89 ( P < .01) for Coke and .34 to .81 ( P < .01)

for Community Coffee.

Given these correlations, MANOVA with follow-up

univariate ANOVAs was used to assess mean differences

on the CBBE measures between the ‘‘purchased’’ and

‘‘nonpurchased’’ groups. Such an approach reflects

‘‘known-group’’ validity testing where those who did pur-

chase should show higher mean scores on the CBBE facets

than those who did not purchase (Bearden and Netemeyer,1998). Each CBBE facet was used as a dependent variable

with the independent variable being purchase behavior

coded from the grocery receipt. As Table 5 shows, both

multivariate and univariate effects were significant and

effect sizes (i.e., h2) ranged from .12 to .26. All mean

scores for the CBBE facets were higher for those who ‘‘did

purchase’’ the brand compared to those who ‘‘did not

purchase’’ the brand. In sum, the CBBE measures were

related to actual purchase behavior.3

7. Study 4

Prior literature suggests that once CBBE measures are

developed, models should be used to determine which facets

predict the willingness to pay a price premium and brand

purchase behavior (Aaker, 1996a; Keller, 1993). The

strength of the relationships between CBBE measures and

criterion variables can provide a basis for prioritizing con-

structs such that a model relevant to several brands in a

product category can be specified. In this study, we use our

literature review and findings from the previous three

studies to specify and test such a predictive model.

developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity

Documents