running head: prin ciples behind bra revenue by sustaining customer loyalty, ... building such...

Running

Presented t

28 June 20

Word Coun

head: PRIN

to: Professor P

011

nt: 4,296

NCIPLES BE

Pri

ISM -

Peter Horn

EHIND BRA

nciples behi

Definitio

Candidate:

- Internation

Doctor of P

AND MANA

ind Brand M

on and Conc

Emad Abou

al School of

Philosophy (

AGEMENT

Management

cepts

uElgheit

f Manageme

(Ph.D.)

ent

1

PRINCIPLES BEHIND BRAND MANAGEMENT 2

Abstract

The paper addresses the definition of brand and branding, its meaning for different business

units, customers, and the whole value chain, in addition to the reasons behind the increasing

strategic attention on building successful brands and promoting them as a way of surviving. The

paper also studies customer loyalty and many other brand internal and external benefits can add

value that guarantees strategic competitive advantage and contribution to the bottom line. Best

brand building practices will be discussed starting from legitimate brand owners, how to build

internal branding alignment between business units, best time to build a brand, best channels to

promote it, and the role of internet and telecommunication in building brands. The research also

looks at the financial aspect of brands in terms of revenue increase and cost saving, in addition to

the history of valuating brands as a tangible financial asset that can be placed in organization’s

balance sheets as any other valuable asset, and how far it can add to an organization’s market

value and capitalization.

Keywords: Brand Definition, Branding Principals, Online Branding, Brand Building,

Communications and Brand, Brand Value, Brand Capitalization,


Principles behind Brand Management

Definition and Concepts

Introduction

Organizations today give increasing attention to the value of brands. Senior level

executives are becoming more committed to branding activities and tying those activities and

results to the bottom line. The reasons behind this trend are; product commoditization, and

increased competition. Having the previous challenges for global organizations, effective brand

strategies are essential to survive through increasing customer loyalty, differentiating products

and services from competition, and creating market leadership.1 In today’s competitive

environment, strong brands can introduce many internal benefits for an organization helping to

increase revenue by sustaining customer loyalty, keeping price premium, minimizing the risk of

substitutes, increasing the chances for new products success, attracting new alliances and

licensing opportunities, and enabling transparency and alignment between organization business

units. Externally, effective brand strategies can help decrease costs such as marketing and

selling, leverage the company’s negotiation position and offer protection against price wars.

Strong brands also increase the potentials to leverage customers’ positive word-of-mouth, act as

a magnet to attract and retain best caliber and increase employees’ pride, and empowers external

focus between business units.2 For me and many of my peers, a brand like BMW means a lot.

We perceive driving a five or a seven series as a goal of its own rather than a means of

transportation. It represents ambition, success, and self-actualization. The German manufacturer

succeeded to position its brands in consumer’s minds in a way that is far beyond owning and

driving a reliable luxury car especially when not being the only player in the game having many


similar and even higher-quality German and European luxury cars. BMW was able to translate

the industrial qualities of its brands into a series of emotional and behavioral consumer aspects.

The first thing that comes to consumer’s minds when mentioning the brand is the “joy of

driving”, joy of being a successful middle-aged professional or an ambitious entrepreneur, joy in

the driving experience itself having the power, response, stability, and high-tech options. BMW

positioned its brands innovation in technical capabilities as consumers’ own innovation in live.

Building such consistent and powerful brand images, delivering the promise to its customers

worldwide by supporting this image with high-quality advertising, selective and exclusive

distribution, test drives, sponsorships, and excellent after-sales service has guaranteed a long-

term sustainable competitive advantage and profitability for the organization.

Brand IQ

A brand can be defined as the benefit chain that an organization promises its customers.

The definition of the term “brand” itself can have different connotations depending on the point

of view of the author and his or her position in the brand’s value chain. Definition types can be

classified by being metaphoric or literal. A metaphoric definition can be: “Totality of all

stakeholders' mental associations about the organization; central, enduring, distinctive identity”

or “Symbols around which buyers and sellers can establish a relationship, thereby creating a

focus of identity”, where a literal definition can be: “Assets of a firm; assets reside in the brand

names owned by a firm”.3 Positive brand perception is built into consumers’ minds through

consistent and multiple experiences over time that deliver high quality and tangible values

differentiated from similar products or services. These fulfilled promises overtime result in

strong and deep loyalties that sustain more profitability over time. Companies can translate these


benefits into a measurable value that can be tied directly to the bottom line.4 In a wider scope,

brand doesn’t end at fulfilling the previous attributes in consumers’ minds. The brand value

extends to include all of the company’s stakeholders in associating rational and emotional

attributes of the brand. A brand is defined by industry professionals as the most valuable asset a

company could have.5 Digging more into the definitions of brand components or in other words,

aspects that brand consists of; we find few terminologies that are associated with the brand such

as: brand essence; which is consumers' mental associations with a brand, corporate identity or

corporate name; which identifies all of the brand associations of a firm”6. A brand name is the

written, heard and spoken attributes of any brand. Brand names can be Acronym such as IBM or

UPS, descriptive as in Airbus. Brand names can also follow founder’s names, or be in a foreign

word.7 Brand equity term refers to how a brand is compared against its competitors in terms of

consumer’s awareness, attention and loyalty share. On the other hand; a brand portfolio refers to

group products or brands that share related characteristics of one mother brand name such as

Pepsi Max, and Pepsi Light that fall under the main brand of Pepsi. Brand community is a term

referring to a self-selected group of actors sharing similar social and behavioral values and

cultures that revolve around a certain brand.8

Successful Brand Building

Successful branding starts in market departments, marketing organizations have been and

always will be the ultimate brand owner. Brands are not created by customers; they are created

by marketers to end at serving customers’ needs and wants. Brand makers own the heart and soul

of the brand and should guide, coordinate, and integrate all branding activities across the

organization and its value chain.9 All branding activities will go in vain without a holistic


approach with top management commitment and support. The CEO should act as the ultimate

brand ambassador who provides motivation and spirit to build the brand with and even through

people. CEOs should communicate to other C-level executives the value and priority of branding

so that each function head would see a direct benefit to him/her, that speaks the business unit and

team language such as translating brand value into a bottom line asset in a balance sheet to the

CFO, translating the brand as a golden attraction for high caliber recruiting to human resources

departments, and a guide for consistency and innovation for the COO. While the CEO should be

the initiator, function heads are the ones who are most capable to achieve the successful brand

building goals. In some companies that take this issue seriously, they appoint someone at the

chief level to make branding a top priority and to be responsible for selling the brand value ideas

to all stakeholders and position it in their minds as the reason for existing.10 From a strategic

perspective, a new brand building initiative should start by clearly selecting a brand development

approach before the actual branding process starts. A company can strengthen its core

competencies by continuing to enhance existing products or services and introducing new and

related ones that serve same and related groups. Another approach is to extend brand portfolio

relevance by introducing new products or services that can be supported by existing organization

competencies. Or to leverage brand portfolio relevance by introducing new and unrelated

products or services taking advantage of new market opportunities even when necessary internal

competencies are not available.11 In building brands for business (B2B), successful branding

should focus extensively on two aspects; educating and training sales force as the primary touch

point between the brand and customers, and the actual product or service delivered to customers.

The brand image and culture becomes primarily represented in the organization’s own product or

service makers as well as sales, account manager, or project managers’ personal norms, attitudes,


appearance, and personality. Building a corporate brand on the other hand starts with employees’

individual brands where branding activities are very much related and intersected with corporate

communication and organizational behavioral aspects.12 Sometimes, change management is

needed in order to build a brand-aware culture across the organization. Connecting brand

organizational Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and reflecting branding activities into the

Balanced Score Card can create interdepartmental alignment and adoption of branding activities.

Best Time to Build Brands

Although new brands can enjoy a higher demand and purchasing power in economic

booms, building brand awareness in economic downturns should allow better chances for

success because of a lower advertising clutter by competing brands, and by having many

consumers looking for alternatives and lower-priced products. In recessions, competitors will cut

marketing costs opening doors to quickly gain market shares. Media and advertising activities

during recessions are about 30 percent cheaper than after recession.13 For example; Economic

downturns in developed markets such as the US and Europe represent an opportunity for Chinese

branded goods with competing quality and lower prices. Some of these companies successfully

differentiated itself by offering attractive deals to distributers instead of spending huge marketing

costs.14 During the dot-com boom in the late 1990s, new digital brands did everything to build

awareness by introducing efficient names, attractive web pages and graphics. The result was a

great failure for many of them because they adopted traditional brand building techniques

invented by consumer goods giants and applied it online. Where packaged-goods companies

owned the full customer experience through packaging, distribution and advertising, online

consumers owned a great deal of brand experience through their control over information


presented online.15 In the global financial crises started in 2008, Google, for example, was able

to build even greater brand awareness and increase sales substantially by attracting more online

sellers to save expensive TV and printed advertising budgets and use Google AdWords, an

application where online sellers bid on certain Google search keywords to appear in first search

results. What brand owners also should be aware of is that economic downturns are a golden

chance to test their brands’ performance and true equity and make sure they are still relevant and

value-adding to consumers. Strong brands that survive recessions proved to come out stronger

than ever before.16 Marketers should also be careful not to introduce new brands or transform

successful brands into generic ones due to short-term selling and marketing tactics that can

conflict with the long-term strategies for their brands.17

Promoting the Brand

The most effective vehicle for promoting the brand is customers, building customer-

centric brands that add real value, position those promised values in product features, prices, and

advertising is the ultimate tool for marketers to sustain strategic competitive advantage. When

consumers are loyal to your brand, they will favor it against competitive or substitute products

even at a higher cost, they will also recommend it to their friends leveraging your product with

the effective impact of word-of-mouth, saving huge advertising spend.18 Customers acquired

through word-of-mouth were found to add much more long-term value to companies compared

against customers acquired by marketing activities who found to achieve only short-term results

and lower loyalty.19 The effect of WOM can vary between industries or categories. The effect

was found high where perfect competition and many players in market such as restaurants and

movies and lower where oligopoly and few players such as telecommunication operators.


Negative word of mouth was also found to have greater effect than positive word of mouth,

especially in service sectors.20 In B2B marketing, word-of-mouth (WOM) has always been

considered as the ultimate and most effective tool for marketers. Traditional WOM approaches

have included public relations, trade shows and customer referencing. However, in today’s

world, marketers should leverage the increasing power of WOM through the revolutionary social

networks, blogs, and media sharing communities. While old challenges remain the same from

choosing the right channels to dealing with unstructured customer communications, new

technologies can be utilized to enhance or empower traditional methods such as customer

referencing.21 A company can leverage one positive word of mouth online a lot easier and faster

through online communities. Promoting a brand will be much more effective and efficient if the

brand itself was built around real customer needs analysis, behavioral and influential patterns

study, resulting from accurate customer segmentation and modeling.22 In order to complete this

segmentation more effectively, it is very important to define accurately who from these segments

derives the most referrals or has the most impact on your revenue. This would help in planning

other promotional activities and marketing campaigns more effectively.23

Communications and Building the Brand

There is not an exact percentage number that can measure communications contribution

to brand building effectiveness, however being the heart and soul affecting brand building; it

should exceed 50 percent. With the start of the digital age in late 1990s represented in internet

and mobile communications, traditional concepts and approaches to build a brand has changed

forever. Consumers now are more empowered than ever with almost full control over their brand

experience. Consumers are no longer receivers to mass advertising, but became proactive in


searching, selecting, comparing, and personalizing their buying process. The internet has also

enabled the globalization of brands in less time having websites accessible from all over the

globe. With the proper search engine optimization and cross-cultural websites, organizations

now are able to reach their prospects anywhere in a cost-effective and efficient way.24 Latest

trends now in designing web user experience and building online brands are no longer

emphasizing on having fixed attractive interfaces and contents for users to interact with, based

on usability analysis and creative designers best judgment. The new approach now is building

the base for usability, functionality, and contents rules and having users customize their own

experience with drag-and-drop, simple and logical actions. Users can choose what type of

contents to appear to them in their next visit, what size of text, what colors, screen resolution,

videos and image quality, and even where these contents and web blocks are placed in their

interface. In other words; users are building their own customized brand and brand experience.

From a customer relationship management perspective, internet has enabled organizations to

build their brands through collecting prospects and customer data in databases and segmenting

these customers accurately and efficiently to target later with personalized email campaigns,

focused messages and one-to-one marketing.25 With the rapidly-developed telecommunication

and mobile services, marketers now have a new dimension to target their customers and build

their brands; that new dimension is the location. Mobile advertising can now target customers

according to their current location highlighting products and services nearby. Taking the public

sector and governmental institutions as an example; governments worldwide started what is

called Gov2.0, an approach that aims to allow citizens to engage and interact with their local

government authorities about their requests, pain areas and needs over the social networks

through the internet and mobile devices. Crowed Sourcing; is a new approach that empowers


citizens to act as a source of information to report traffic incidents and weather conditions for

other citizens to learn about in real-time. Government authorities buying such software solutions

are keen to build their own government brands through integrating these new e-services with

popular social networks and mobile applications. On the other hand, citizens receiving the actual

services can also help software vendors in defining these e-services features before its actual

launch through interacting with software vendors’ social media channels.

Brand and Price Premium

Strong brands command more than 7% price premium to its owners. Most customers

would be willing to pay 20 to 25 percent price premium to their favorite brand before switching

to a competitive one. In some categories, an increase of 5% in the number of loyal customers can

sustain 95% more profitability over that customer’s lifetime. From a bottom-line cost saving

aspect, it requires seven to ten times the cost to gain a new customer than it takes to keep an

existing loyal customer.26 In products or services categories that have personal and emotional

involvement such as drinks, the willingness to pay premium becomes even higher. In a survey

conducted in 2006; 56 percent of men and 77 percent of women in the United Kingdom found to

be still willing to buy famous beverage brands and consider them in a higher image over private

label products.27 Looking at this from a situational aspect, brand-loyal customers are willing to

pay an average of 15.4 percent more than the expected price when not rushed and 37 percent

when rushed. Although this percentage found to be different according to product category; for

example; in High Definition TVs the average premium is nearer to 8.8 percent when not rushed

and 19.1 percent when rushed.28 In the competition between national brands and private labels,

regression analysis conducted in 2003 predicted a 37 percent price premium for the United States


national brands over store brands that offer the same quality.29 In another research conducted in

2010, national famous brands in the United States faced an increasing challenge by the growing

sales of private labels. Consumers saw the value of price premium which they are willing to pay

for a product or service quality, was justified mostly by marketing aspects such as advertising,

packaging, price promotion, and innovation. Consumers take the decision to pay that premium

according to their level of involvement with the product or services as well as the brand’s

quality-price tradeoff.30

Brand’s Contribution to a Firm’s Value

Having an average of Rolls Royce and Harley-Davidson brands value compared to total

organizations market value (6 percent and 15 percent respectively), a brand can contribute to a

firm’s market capitalization by nearly 11 percent.31 An increase of 10 percent in brand fame or

awareness can cause a 20 percent increase in market share according to a research made in

2005.32 However, the numbers mentioned here should not be fixed by any means. Brand value in

many cases exceeded fixed asset values by far. For example; in 1988, Philip Moms Co., acquired

Kraft Foods for $12.9 billion, including $11.6 billion for intangibles represented mostly by its

brand value.33 In mergers and acquisitions, brands stand for a significant but disproportionate

value in the overall transaction depending on how acquirers are planning to leverage them. The

value will also have a positive correlation with the acquirer’s marketing capabilities and portfolio

diversity, and a negative correlation when the acquirer follows a synergetic acquisition

strategy.34 In the industry of hospitality and leisure services, hotel brand names were found to

have a strong impact on a hotel’s market value for upper upscale, upscale, and midscale

categories but not for luxury and economy hotels.35 From a stock market perspective, brands


contribute to a companies’ market value; one third of this contribution goes to increasing current

earning, while the other two-thirds help increasing price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio which represents

investors’ expectation.36 One quantitative way to measure brand’s contribution to total value is

the BrandAsset Valuator Model which assesses the brand based on four of its distinctive

characteristics; energetic differentiation, relevance, esteem and knowledge.37 Another approach

introduced by Trademark & Licensing Associates Inc (TLA) is to measure brand value for a

company by scoring it against 20 factors that include; growth curve, lifecycle position,

recognition, extensions, and others. Same approach suggests that in case of valuating the same

brand for a potential buyer, value should be multiplied by a multiplier that represents similar

brands sales book value.38

Branding and Cost of Sales

Looking at the financial relationship between branding and the cost of sales from a short-

term perspective, we will find that branding increases the cost of sales by adding advertising,

packaging, customer service, and other marketing expenses. Looking at the issue from a strategic

perspective, correct approaches to build strong brands will defiantly decrease the cost of sales by

lowering long-term marketing, recruitment, sourcing, production, and inventory expenses. An

example that supports this argument is that the Chinese Original Equipment Manufacturers

(OEMs) proved to be as profitable as branded-products sellers through lowering cost of sales by

having the most competitive low cost of labor and eliminating branding and marketing expenses.

However, same Chinese companies selling for same markets saw building new competitive and

higher-quality branded products to customers will not only increase their market share, but will

also attract a whole new segment of consumers.39 In terms of brand building in emerging


markets, successful entry and branding strategies can significantly decrease the cost of sales.

Multinationals can successfully develop new markets targeting price-cautious segments in

international emerging markets by acquiring local competitors with their local production

facilities and distribution channels. Firms will also localize branding and marketing activities. By

adopting this strategy, organizations can lower cost of sales by saving production, inventory,

labor, distribution, and marketing expenses. On the other hand, multinationals chose to integrate

their local new acquisitions into the parent company through extending main corporate functions

and allocating expenses, eventually had to raise their products prices due to a higher cost of

sales.40 Organizations can also decrease research and development, production and marketing

costs by extending their successful brands into new related products or services that do not

represent significant new features or innovation. Introducing brand extensions should achieve

marketing economies of scale and significantly decrease cost of sales. Companies can also lower

cost of sales by choosing to build new online brands where physical assets, labor and inventory

costs are minimal.

Brand Value in Balance Sheet

Brand valuation debates began in the United Kingdom in the early 1980s; it was

described as the major accounting controversy for the last twenty years. The motive behind this

debate was the inaccurate and far from reality corporate valuation approaches, neglecting the

value of brands where it was simply lost money for mergers and acquisitions as it was missing

from book values and balance sheets. British corporates claimed to capitalize brands value and

separate it from good will assets in balance sheets. Another reason was that senior executives

wished to improve their balance sheets and managerial decisions. Companies such as Reckitt &


Colma and Grand Metropolitan began to put their own and acquired brands in balance sheets for

their real value.41 The approach began to spread to other European and capitalistic countries such

as Hong Kong and Australia. In the United States where intangible assets in balance sheets

practice was lagging behind, we find that brand value for major US global companies is missed

from their book value. PepsiCo had a tangible book value of $6.5 billion, where it was worth

$86.8 billion in market value in 2004. After subtracting other intangible assets, corporate brand

value was estimated to be at $75 billion on its own.42 Recommendations were made to the US

Securities and Exchange Commission to change accounting practices forcing companies to

recognize intangible assets as the tangible ones.43 In early 1990s, American companies started to

study the possibilities to valuate brands.44 Brand attributes found to match accounting criteria

that defines an asset,45 but having brands as intangible assets that are separate from good will

represented a challenge. Image advertising for example can have a positive contribution to other

products and can raise employees’ morale, so it becomes difficult to determine which part of

expenses contributed to which value. The issue remains a challenge in both internally-developed

and acquired brands. In 1997, the Accounting Standards Board in the U.K. passed Financial

Reporting Standard where it put conditions for separating acquired intangible assets such as

brands from good will. These conditions included; financial benefits must be derived by the

intangible, these benefits must be controlled by the company, and must be measurable in

quantitative reliability.46

Concluding Thoughts

For consumers, the definition is simple. A brand at its basics is a value-cost equation. Consumers

will only pay for brand price premiums when they perceive a tangible value by doing so. For

organizations and marketers, branding is a more complicated issue. Branding is a strategic


decision that needs to be taken very carefully. First, organizations need to ask the question

whether to brand or not. Investing in building brands can be an incorrect approach for

organizations targeting cost leadership, for example. It is also a wrong practice to build a new

brand that competes with another successful one, or a new brand that doesn’t align with an

organizations’ core vision, mission, or personality. On the other hand, successful brand building

is a must for an organization to differentiate itself from competition and survive in any open

market with enough competition. With the increasing momentum about branding and the

technological advancement in its communication tools, building brands today is harder than ever.

World strong brands are getting stronger every day, making it harder on competitors to build new

brands and convince consumers to switch to them. Organizations still need to look at branding

decisions from a more strategic perspective to avoid unnecessary operational decisions that

underestimate or overestimate branding activities. With the increasing competition and rapid

technological changes, today’s brands must be agile, focused, and integrated with all other

business aspects. It must respond in fast and innovative approaches to environmental changes.

Today’s brands should be built around customers and must add a true value. Some of the main

challenges for brand builders today remain in the internal strategic alignment between

organization business units and the ability to accurately measure brand value and expenses.


End Notes

1 International School of Management. (2010, December). Understanding the Brand's Powerful

New Role. Paris, France, 1.



3 Stern, B. B. (2006). What Does Brand Mean? Historical-Analysis Method and Construct

Definition. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 221. Retrieved from

EBSCOhost.





6 Stern, B. B. (2006). What Does Brand Mean? Historical-Analysis Method and Construct

Definition. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 221. Retrieved from

EBSCOhost.

7 Wikipedia. Wikipedia/Brand. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand

8 Wikipedia. Wikipedia/Brand Community. Retrieved from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_community

9 Schultz, Don E. (2002). Who Owns the Brand?. Marketing Management, 11(5), p8, 2p, 1c.


New Role. Paris, France, 10-12.


11 Davis, Scott M. & Dunn, Michael (2002). Building the Brand-Driven Business: Operationalize

Your Brand to Drive Profitable Growth. San Francisco, CA: Bass, Jossy.

12 Casson, A. (2008). SUCCESSFUL CORPORATE BRANDING STARTS WITH THE

EMPLOYEE. HR Professional, 25(2), 55. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

13 Roberts, K. (1998). Worst of times is best of times to build brands. Advertising Age, 69(28),

26. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

14 Gao, Paul., Woetzel, Jonathan R., and Wu, Yibing. (2003). Can Chinese Brands Make it

Abroad?. The McKinsey Quarterly, (4), 2.

15 Schultz, Don E. (2002). Who Owns the Brand?. Marketing Management, 11(5), p8, 2p, 1c.



17 Brand even during a recession. (2009). Competitive Advantage (Douglas), 1. Retrieved from

EBSCOhost.



19 Villanueva, J., Yoo, S., & Hanssens, D. (2008). The Impact of Marketing-Induced Versus

Word-of-Mouth Customer Acquisition on Customer Equity Growth. Journal of

Marketing Research (JMR), 45(1), 48-59. doi:10.1509/jmkr.45.1.48

20 Samson, A. (2006). Understanding the buzz that matters: negative vs. positive word of mouth.

International Journal of Market Research, 48(6), 647-657. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

21 Karpinski, R. (2005). Word-of-mouth marketing gets people buzzing. B to B, 90(7), 3-62.

Retrieved from EBSCOhost.


22 Davis, Scott M. & Dunn, Michael (2002). Building the Brand-Driven Business: Operationalize

Your Brand to Drive Profitable Growth. San Francisco, CA: Bass, Jossy.

23 Kumar, V. V., Petersen, J., & Leone, R. P. (2007). How Valuable Is Word of Mouth?.

Harvard Business Review, 85(10), 139-146. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

24 Rowley, J. (2004). Online Branding. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 28(2), 131-138.

25 Rowley, J. (2004). Online Branding. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 28(2), 131-138.



27 Famous Brands still attracting a premium. (2006). MarketWatch: Drinks, 5(3), 17. Retrieved

from EBSCOhost.

28 Jensen, M., & Drozdenko, R. (2008). The changing price of brand loyalty under perceived

time pressure. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17(2), 115-120.

doi:10.1108/10610420810864720

29 Apelbaum, E., & Gerstner, E. (2003). The effects of expert quality evaluations versus brand

name on price premiums. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 12(3), 154.


30 Steenkamp, J., Van Heerde, H., & Geyskens, I. (2010). What Makes Consumers Willing to

Pay a Price Premium for National Brands over Private Labels?. Journal of Marketing

Research (JMR), 47(6), 1011-1024. doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.6.1011




32 Sampson, J. (2005). How much is fame worth to the bottom line?. Market Leader, (31), 20.


33 Farquhar, P. H., Han, J. Y., & Ijiri, Y. (1992). Brands on the Balance Sheet. Marketing

Management, 1(1), 16-22. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

34 Bahadir, S., Bharadwaj, S., & Srivastava, R. (2008). Financial Value of Brands in Mergers and

Acquisitions: Is Value in the Eye of the Beholder?. Journal of Marketing, 72(6), 49-64.

doi:10.1509/jmkg.72.6.49

35 O'Neill, J. W. (2007). Brands and Value. Lodging Hospitality, 63(5), 19. Retrieved from

EBSCOhost.

36 Gerzema, J., Lebar, E., & Rivers, A. (2009). Measuring the Contributions of Brand to

Shareholder Value (and How to Maintain or Increase Them). Journal of Applied

Corporate Finance, 21(4), 79. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6622.2009.00251.x

37 Gerzema, J., Lebar, E., & Rivers, A. (2009). Measuring the Contributions of Brand to

Shareholder Value (and How to Maintain or Increase Them). Journal of Applied

Corporate Finance, 21(4), 80. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6622.2009.00251.x

38 Lefton, T., & Anson, W. (1996). How much is your brand worth?. Brandweek, 37(5), 43.


39 Gao, Paul., Woetzel, Jonathan R., and Wu, Yibing. (2003). Can Chinese Brands Make it

Abroad?. The McKinsey Quarterly, (4), 4.

40 de Abreu Filho, G., Calicchio, N., & Lunardini, F. (2003). Brand building in emerging

markets. McKinsey Quarterly, (2), 6-9. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.




42 Fluke, C., & Badenhausen, K. (2004). POWER BRANDS. Forbes, 173(8), 59-62. Retrieved

from EBSCOhost.



44 Fluke, C., & Badenhausen, K. (2004). POWER BRANDS. Forbes, 173(8), 59-62. Retrieved

from EBSCOhost.



46 Cravens, K. S., & Guilding, C. (2001). Brand value accounting: an international comparison of

perceived managerial implications. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing &

Taxation, 10(2), 197. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

running head: prin ciples behind bra revenue by sustaining customer loyalty, ... building such...

Documents