You are on page 1of 10

Journal of Service Science and Management, 2011, 4, 476-485

doi:10.4236/jssm.2011.44054 Published Online December 2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jssm)

Brand Equity and Brand Loyalty in the Internet
Banking Context: FIMIX-PLS Market
Segmentation
Sandra Maria Correia Loureiro1, Francisco Javier Miranda2
1
Department of Economy, Management, and Industrial Engineering, University of Aveiro, Campus of Santiago Aveiro, Santiago,
Portugal; 2Departament of Business Management and Sociology, Univeristy of Extremadura, Economics and Business Faculty,
Badajoz, Spain.
E-mail: Sandra.loureiro@ua.pt, sandramloureiro@netcabo.pt, fmiranda@unex.es

Received September 21st, 2011; revised November 2nd, 2011; accepted November 22nd, 2011.

ABSTRACT
This research presents a model that integrates trust, online risks and benefits, brand awareness/associations, perceived
quality and explains how they impact on brand equity and brand loyalty in the context of internet banking. The research
model estimation uses the PLS approach and applies FIMIX-PLS to segment the sample. The research findings show
that the main difference characterizing the two uncovered customer segments lies in the place of residence. Thus, the
impact of online benefits on trust in the service provided is stronger for the first segment than for the second. For cus-
tomers of the second segment, confidence in the bank’s web site information leads to a better perception of service
quality and this is very important to ensure loyalty to the brand.

Keywords: Perceived Quality, trust, Brand Equity, Brand Loyalty, Finite Mixture Modeling

1. Introduction gies or SSTs.
Several studies have been devoted to understand the
Nowadays, the online service has grown in interest and
factors that encourage or discourage the adoption or ac-
adoption due to its convenience, ease of use, among other
ceptance of SST, perceived risk, and trust [1,5-8]. As far
features. According to Pikkarainen et al. [1], since the
as I know, little research exits on antecedents and conse-
middle of the last decade of the 20th Century, a radical quences of internet banking brand equity. Thus, the pur-
change has taken place in banking delivery channels to- pose of this study is to examine the impact of brand as-
wards using self-service channels such as online banking sociations/awareness, perceived quality, and internet ban-
services. Internet banking provides consumers with a set king trust on internet banking brand equity and also the
of information-related benefits that favors its adoption, impact of internet banking brand equity and perceived
including easy access, responsive systems, opportunity for quality on brand loyalty, using the PLS approach. The fi-
the user to control bank accounts at any time and place, and nite mixture partial least squares (FIMIX-PLS), propo-
access to personalized information content to make inve- sed by Hahn et al. [9] is also applied to segment the sa-
stment and finance decisions. Internet banking is also an mple. This approach combines a finite mixture procedure
easy way for the consumer to compare and contrast ser- with an expectation-maximization (EM)-algorithm spe-
vices [2,3]. cifically coping with the ordinary least squares (OLS)-
In this study we follow the definition proposed by Pik- based predictions of PLS and enables reliable identifica-
karainen et al. [1] to define internet banking: “an internet tion of distinctive customer segments, with their charac-
portal, through which customers can use different kinds teristic estimates for relationships of latent variables in
of banking services ranging from bill payment to making the structural model.
investments”. Thus, the focus is on technologies that cus-
tomers use without any interaction with, or assistance from,
2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
bank employees. According to Meuter et al. [4], these te- The concept of brand equity has been a field of interest to
chnologies can be summarized as self-service technolo- both firms and researchers for several years. There are

Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JSSM

based on two dimensions: H2: Perceived quality exercises a positive impact on brand awareness and brand image. banking brand equity.17]. Therefore. that the direct and indirect approaches are complementa. Thus. H4: Internet banking brand equity has a positive effect ry and should be used together. which leads to a favorable behavior an attempt is made to assess the value added by the brand towards the brand. Brand loyalty makes consumers brand equity is a reflection of the consumer and a mental purchase a brand routinely and resist switching to an- image of proposed values (brand identity). brand associations and awareness dely accepted is the Farquhar’s approach [10]. On the other hand. two different research approaches can be perceived: brands with higher levels of brand equity would generate a business (or financial) perspective and a consumer per. Specifically. the time of purchase. crease according to the degree that brand quality is per- lity. the consumer perspective can also be Brand awareness and associations are both positively divided in two ways: one based on consumer perceptions related to brand equity. recognize quality is more willing to consider this brand at rect measures of brand equity. perceived qua. Liu‘s [29] model empirically supported the argument that tions. such as awareness. H3: Brand awareness/association has a positive effect ces of brand equity [11. Brand Equity and Brand Loyalty in the Internet Banking Context: FIMIX-PLS Market Segmentation 477 several definitions of brand equity. quality. perceived quality. a buyer aware of a brand schemes that link brand equity with various consumer with favorable associations in her/his mind and able to response variables. and honesty. impact on perceived quality. Aaker [11] de. reliability. [27] demonstrated that the level of brand me. Although the idea that brand equity adds value brand preference and loyalty [28. De Chernatony [14] However. If the consumers recognize. depending on the extent that consu- claims that the basis of brand equity lays on brand know. Trust has been studied primarily in the context of rela- tribute levels.13]. on brand loyalty. of offering a value proposal represented by inted out that high brand equity is associated with high the brand. er customer brand preference was associated with greater spective is one which concerns us in particular. rk for creating brand equity. Later. higher levels of customer brand preference. the brand loyalty. brand loyalty could also be regarded as a po- defines it as a process. which de. whereas Agarwal and Rao [19] regard it as tionship marketing [31-33]. attributed preference based on objectively measured at. awareness. or for the consumer. Based on the ceptualize trust “as existing when one part has confi- above considerations Yoo and Donthu [20] developed a dence in an exchange partner’s reliability and integrity”.30.14]. brand loyalty. this can be a sign Aaker [11] and Keller [17] have provided conceptual of quality and commitment. ceived quality precedes brand loyalty [20]. Accord. willingness to continue using the service brand. multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. and brand associa. camera fines brand equity as added value for the company.g. would drive a consumer to choose the brand rather than fines it as the sum of assets that are associated with the other competing brands. Morgan and Hunt [33] con- an overall quality and choice intention. Aaker [11] identified terature. presentation. last definition to the context of online trust. One of the most wi. they reflect on personality attributes such as depen- equity is positively related to the extent to which brand dability. Yoon [36] also proposes Copyright © 2011 SciRes. H1: Brand awareness/association exercises a positive tions. Park and Srinivasan [18] consider brand equity as the H5: Perceived quality has a positive effect on internet difference between overall brand preference and multi. fulfillment. and are aware of the brand. ing to Myers [16]. brand. or color television sets). qui- and the other based on his/her attitudes and behaviour. the following hypotheses are proposed (see Fi- four major consumer-related bases of brand equity: brand gure 1): loyalty. for film. Bart et al. In general. High perceived quality the delivery. The approach based on the consumer per. Several researchers po- organization. mers are loyal to the brand. loyalty. As for the direct approach. Keller [17] argues on internet banking brand equity. JSSM . Keller [13] other brand. athletic shoes. [34] defined trust as a “psychological also suggested that a potential causal order may exist state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability among the dimensions of brand equity. ledge and its positive associations. brand equity will increase. On the basis of the review of the li- to the product [10.. high- spective [15]. indirect approach focuses on identifying potential sour. However. as well as other proprietary assets. [35] adopted this and associations precede perceived quality and that per. the hierar. The effect of Yoon [36] identify six factors (security assurance. over ti- Yoo et al. there are direct and indi. both internal and external to the tential outcome of brand equity. Hence. Thus. and technology) that fo- basis for consumer satisfaction [21-26]. Later. high quality on brand loyalty is well known since it is the search. brand equity will in- brand name. ckly recall. In turn. based on positive expectations of the intentions or be- chy of the effects model suggests that brand awareness haviors of another”. Keller [17] proposed a knowledge-based framewo. They Rousseau et al. For Kapferer [12]. The Chang and to the product or service is apparent in all these defini. ceived by consumers. rmally represent the essence of online trust and. are evident in the product (e.

users with a message explaining the need to understand zano et al. constructed for this study to explain the relationship a- On the strength of the above considerations.43].478 Brand Equity and Brand Loyalty in the Internet Banking Context: FIMIX-PLS Market Segmentation Perceived   Online   Quality Risks H7 H5 H8 H2 Internet  Internet  Banking  H1 H4 Banking  Brand  Trust Brand  Loyalty H6 Equity H9 H3 Online   Brand  Benefits Awareness/ association Figure 1. The data analysis relies on 496 completed on- Figure 1). in- awareness/association. Method affective and not a cognitive. The questionnaire. and brand loyalty. per- H6: Internet banking trust positively influences brand ceived quality. English and then translated into Portuguese. the follow- mong brand awareness/association. perceived benefits of online banking (such as easi. line banking services. the causal relational or. rding of the questionnaire were clear. Proposed conceptual model. analytical construct which can be a proxy for brand equity. After that. Copyright © 2011 SciRes. acts as a mechanism designed to reduce consumers’ per. Sample and Data Collection et al. site trust and satisfaction and suggests that online trust H9: Perceived benefits have a positive effect on inter- can exercise a positive effect on web site awareness. need for the purposes of information research. On the other hand. Trust municated similar information to all respondents [42. to a web site where users could fill out an online ques- ness to use and convenience) will help to build trust (see tionnaire. The H8: Internet banking trust exercises a negative effect overall response rate was 34%. In order to collect online banking users’ information. a research model was fluence on brand awareness in the health care context. [7] and Yousafzai et al. However. net banking trust. conducted during July of 2009. Kim 3. cluding the items of the latent variables and a section H7: Internet banking trust positively influences per. and lowers the perceived risk of facing we first required authorization from a large international a negative outcome of a transaction by reducing informa. [8] and states that high their (the users’) experience in the initial adoption of on- trust on internet banking reduces perceived risk. ted with the possibility that a bank might behave oppor. internet banking brand equity. and private bank operating in Portugal to express our tion complexity [41]. reduces consumers’ (personally interviewed) was used to ensure that the wo- transaction-specific uncertainty and related risks associa. that consumer awareness is a mediating variable in web on risk perceived by the e-banking consumer.1. tunistically [40]. More. In their seminal work Ambler [37] presents trust as an 3. The invitation letter also linked up over. JSSM . line questionnaires. [38] empirically found that trust had a positive in- Drawing from literature review. der between trust and perceived risk has not yet been the private bank helped to email invitation letters to its clarified. in- ing hypotheses are proposed (see Figure 1): ternet banking trust. with the socio-demographic variables was first devised in ceived quality. Back trans- Trust is largely associated with lower perceived risk lation was used to guarantee that the questionnaire com- and customers’ perceptions of security and privacy. This research follows the works of Aldás-Man. perceived quality. A pilot sample of twenty-three internet banking users ceived risk in internet shopping [39].

Each statement of the questionnaire (2) was recorded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly dis. We gathered questionnaires from t-value for multi-group comparison test (2) (m = segment almost all the regions of Portugal regions.5% the PLS estimates was also analyzed. ctive analytical tool to test interactions by reducing type Composite reliability was used to analyze the reliabi- II error [46]. Internet banking trust was Sp   xSE Segment 1  2 xSE 2Segment 2  measured using four items adapted from Bart et al. not covariance fit like cova. Equation 1). Moreover.5. using the following expression of 26 and 45 year old. (2006). JSSM . R2. Zeithaml   m  12  N  1 2  et al.8 [53]. structural paths calculated by PLS with the samples of les. brand Spx m n loyalty. the The Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach was employed structural model is appraised.5 parametric analysis was employed to determine if the 56 . structs (AVE) was at least 0.75: 2.55: 12.45: 31. fit (GoF) measures PLS (Cross validated PLS GoF) (see bitants of the Portugal. Gender Age GoF  communality . The measures demonstrated convergent validity as the Geisser’s Q2 measure. The criterion used to assess limited between values of 0 and 1 as overall goodness of discriminant validity was the square root of AVE.e.9% Female: 32. First. Then. PLS is based on an iterative com.R2). In terms of advantages. perceived quality. riance structure models developed by Karl Jöreskog (or Table 2 indicates that all constructs are reliable since the LISREL program developed by Jöreskog and Sörborn).   m  n  2   m  n  2  Online benefits and online risks were adapted from For- sythe et al.3. Variable and Measurement t  Segment 1   Segment 2   1 1 Brand awareness/associations.5% plied to segment the sample based on the estimated sco- Male: 67. Nevertheless. PLS models are based on pre. and the The adequacy of the measures is assessed by evalua- Bootstrap technique. which can be used to evaluate the average variance of manifest variables extracted by con- predictive power of the model. The majority of respondents (71. rcent of the variance in the observed variable is explained rameter estimates. Tenenhaus et al. from Lisbon and Oporto. 3. Finally. more exacting measurement than Cronbach’s alpha [52].1% Following the analysis of the structural model. 0. ting the reliability of the individual items and the dis- bination of principal components analysis and regression. Brand Equity and Brand Loyalty in the Internet Banking Context: FIMIX-PLS Market Segmentation 479 Table 1. the adequacy of the measures is assessed by evaluating the reliability of the individual measures and 3.5%) were between the two segments.17]. For each segment 66 . that measure reflective constructs approximate or exceed ings in the context of a specified model and. The parametric test uses the path coefficients and the standard errors of the As Table 1 shows. which Copyright © 2011 SciRes. composite reliability values exceed the threshold of 0. [26] and Keller [13. Item reliability and aims to explain the variance of the constructs in the is assessed by examining the loading of the measures on model [45]. [48] pro.35: 40. as an indicator of and even the strictest one of 0. a 46 . This indicates that more than 50 pe- enables researchers to avoid biased and inconsistent pa.25: 7. All the loadings of scales estimates all path coefficients and individual item load.5% res for latent variables [49]. to estimate structural paths coefficients. as a result. through a t-test.707 (see Table 2).0% nite mixture partial least squares (FIMIX-PLS) was ap- 36 . the fi- 26 . by the construct [51]. Q2.65: 5. though mostly 1 sample size and n = segment 2 sample size).7 Besides the variance explained (i.4% the model was estimated once more and the precision of >75: 0. PLS simultaneously their corresponding construct.6% segments were statistically different. how well PLS has met its objective [47]and Stone. indicative that more vari- pose the geometric mean of the average communality ance was explained than unexplained in the variables asso- (outer mode) and the average R2 (inner model) that is ciated with a given construct. lity of the constructs since this has been regarded as a diction-oriented measures. [35]. 5 = strongly agree). Data Analysis the discriminant validity of the constructs [50]. most of the respondents were ma. it has proved to be an effe.   tionalized on the basis of Yoo & Donthu [27]. criminant validity of the constructs [50]. The PLS model is analyzed and interpreted in two agree.2. R 2 (1) 18 . and internet banking brand equity were opera. The demographic profile of the interviewed inha. stages.

90 0.6 0.60 R1: I feel lack of confidence in the web site 0.93 0.925 I prefer to sign products in web site x BE3: If there is a bank with an online service as good as x.900 I prefer the x Online Benefits 4.1 0. (r) indicates reversed scoring.8 0.69 BAW1: I can recognize x among other competing brands 0.830 B4: I sign products easily 0.796 Online Risks 2.87 0.909 Internet Banking Brand Equity 3.00 1.6 1. a indicates item eliminated.480 Brand Equity and Brand Loyalty in the Internet Banking Context: FIMIX-PLS Market Segmentation Table 2. x indicates a brand name. 0.88 0.4 0. 0. JSSM .769 R2: I may not get the product I want 0.876 even if they are identical BE2: Even if another bank has the same characteristics as x.722 R4: There may be some technical failure 0. Construct LV Index Values Item Loading Composite reliability AVE* Brand Awareness/associations 4.82 T1: I have more confidence in this web site than other sites I have visited a T2: My overall trust in this site is high 0.843 B3: I can sign products online without going to the agency 0.4 0.90 0. 0.788 R6: It’s too complicated sign products 0.000 L1: I consider myself to be loyal to x Internet Banking Trust 3.864 T3: My overall believability of the information on this site is high 0.903 Q2: The visual design of web site x has a quality extremely high 0.93 0.895 BAW3: I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of x 0.1 0. Measurement results.940 T4: My overall confidence in the recommendations on this site is high 0. (r) a Perceived Quality 3.876 B2: I can sign products whenever I want 0.851 BAW2: I am aware of x 0.81 BE1: I sign products in web site x instead of any other bank.736 BAW4: I have difficulty in imagining x in my mind.00 1.867 Brand Loyalty 3.780 * AVE Average Variance Extracted.782 R5: It’s difficult to get information about the product 0.78 Q1: The quality of web site services provided by x is extremely high 0.70 B1: I can sign products at home 0.769 R3: I may sign something by accident 0. Copyright © 2011 SciRes.

78 0. perceived quality and brand loyalty is higher for the se- tes for each parameter in the PLS model. guese regions.00 should be greater than the correlation between the con.> internet banking brand equity.71 0.> perceived quality. Table 5 shows the reness to the brand.24 0.0 All path coefficients of the global model are signify- cant at a level of 0. The final step involves the analysis of each segment.50 0. ce to the perceived online benefits. 500 gments either. except for the structural pa- Smart PLS 2. propriate for customer segmentation purposes.88 0. that the place of residence is the principal difference that tional segment has only a small size.90 1.8 3074.51 0.> internet banking brand on the estimated scores for latent variables.37 0.13 3231.51 –0.90 Brand Awareness/associations 1.19 0.7.00 0.27 1.37 0.46 Internet Banking Trust 0.46 Perceived Quality 0. Correlations of constructs Internet Brand Online Internet Banking Brand Perceived Online Construct Banking Awareness/associations Benefits Brand Equity Loyalty Quality Risks Trust AVE1/2 0. perceived quality .83 BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion) evaluation [45].71 0.00 –0.4 232.5020 Copyright © 2011 SciRes. to equity is also not significant for the first and second se- estimate the precision of the PLS estimates.00 –0. gth of the relationship between internet banking trust and nal data set [52.3 that all measures satisfy the relevant criteria for model 3007.68 –0.67 –0.19 –0. Discriminant validity analysis. marginal portion of heterogeneity in the overall set of da. Model selection. vant evaluation criteria considerably decrease in the en.001 or 0.7689 0. using socio-demographic variables.67 0.46 0. ship between brand awareness/associations and internet struct and other constructs in the model [51].> brand loyalty. the relationship between The Blindfolding technique was used to calculate the brand awareness/associations and internet banking brand Q2 and a nonparametric approach.05.37 1. So.71 1.84 0. The first segment represents 79% of the contributes to improving the favorable associations/awa- sample and the second segment 21%.45].00 0. Trust significantly ri probability. the online risks seems to be weaker for the second segment relations in the model have predictive relevance.14 –0. The perceived bene- fits have a strong and positive implication on internet rding to the segment membership’s maximum a posterio- banking trust and reducing online risk. These customers ascribe special importan- Next. Moreover.46 1.20 0. all outcomes for segment-spe- cific path model estimations were tested with regard to K=2 K=3 K=4 reliability and discriminant validity. results were computed for two.7 257. Table 3 banking brand equity.6189 0. The analysis reveals suing numbers of segments (see Table 4) and each addi. JSSM .59 0. than for the first one.6 3257.37 –0. the stren- was obtained by sampling with replacement of the origi.71 –0. apart from the relation. Brand Equity and Brand Loyalty in the Internet Banking Context: FIMIX-PLS Market Segmentation 481 Table 3. observations are assigned to each segment acco.63 1. inner model relationships. and four classes. Over two thirds of all our observations are well assi.24 –0. mple.00 0.52 0.68 Online Risks –0.63 –0. three. The strength of the relationship between samples sets were created in order to obtain 500 estima.51 0. the largest of the sa- ta. The analysis showed AIC (Akaike’s Information Criterion) 2903.00 0.51 Online Benefits 0. However. which explains a characterizes the two uncovered customer segments. the two segments dis- In the next analytical step. brand awareness/association .83 0.0 was applied to segment the sample based ths: brand awareness/association .56 Internet Banking Brand Equity 0. the FIMIX-PLS module of play significant differences.56 0.59 0. ported.14 0. Customers from the first segment. All rele.50 0. perceived quality . As all values of Q2 are positive. and The results reveal that the choice of two segments is ap.00 0. As shown in Table 5.5 3046. called Bootstrap.20 0.27 0. global model and FIMIX-PLS results for two latent seg- ments. live mainly in Oporto (the second largest city in gned to one of the two classes with a probability of more Portugal) and other inner northern and southern Portu- than 0.37 1.52 Brand Loyalty 0. the H3 hypothesis is not sup- shows that all variables have discriminant validity. Thus.37 0. Before evaluating goodness-of-fit measures and Table 4. CAIC (Consistent AIC) 3007. FIMIX-PLS equity. Each sample cond segment than for the first one. EN (Normed Entropy Statistic) 0.

6011 0. one of the several ty- king trust.5807 0.6042 0. ***p < 0.9585* Internet Banking Trust  Online Risks –0.6274 R2 Online Risks 0. JSSM .482 Brand Equity and Brand Loyalty in the Internet Banking Context: FIMIX-PLS Market Segmentation Table 5. brand awareness/associations and internet banking brand equity (H3 hypothesis) is consistent with the empirical 4.5. Capella and Alford’s study [54]. and to quickly recall proach enabled us to identify two segments of customers the symbol or logo of the brand significantly contributes that result in heterogeneity within the inner model. but positive brand attitude.7550 NS Online benefits  Internet Banking Trust 0.5556*** 0.2159 0.01. brand. For customers living mainly in Lisbon. equity.0954* Internet Banking Trust  Perceived quality 0.5124 R2 Perceived quality 0. For for the brand.5797*** 0.3361 0. these customers the perceived quality is very important The positive albeit not significant relationship between to be loyal to the brand.0782 2 R Internet Banking Trust 0.4616*** 0.4010*** 2.5618 0.5223*** 0.5379 0.4334*** 0.2687* 0. perceived quality trust in the service provided is stronger in the first seg- of internet banking services is a good predictor of inter. terogeneity in PLS path modeling of brand awareness/ mers. ment than in the second.5488 2 R Brand Loyalty 0.1700 NS Brand Awareness/associations  Perceived Quality 0.3288 NS Internet Banking Trust  Brand Awareness/associations 0. code the brand name in the customer’s mind and enables The findings prompt us to state that managers should him/her to recall and recognize such a name or. However. ternet banking brand equity.3985*** 0. internet banking trust. con- to the positive and favorable associations that most clo. At the aggregate level. and brand awareness/asso. and brand loyalty.6365*** –0. Internet banking trust has a positive effect on per. tions and information on the bank web site contributes to brand loyalty can be seen as an outcome of internet ban. reduce the perceptions of online risks. at least.0152* Internet Banking Brand Equity  Brand Loyalty 0. yalty. FIMIX-PLS Structural Paths Global K=1 K=2 t[mgp] Brand Awareness/associations  Internet Banking Brand Equity 0.4820*** –0.1405 R2 Internet Banking Brand Equity 0. NS = not significant. Global model and disaggregate results for two latent segments.2323 0.4646*** –0.2465* Segment sizes 1. perceived quality. to be aware of. **p < 0.5082 * p < 0. perceived quality.6307*** 0.4251*** –0.2055 R2 Awareness/associations 0. This to the improvement of the perceived quality. on enhanced brand equity. in- ceived quality and brand awareness/associations.3748*** 4.2636* 0.5588 0. Confidence in the recommenda- net banking brand equity and brand loyalty. be attentive to the quality of web sites services and their to improve the favorable associations/awareness of the visual design.4025*** 5. associations. conscious of the need to improve on them. led us to observe that the impact of online benefits on ternet banking brand equity.5281 0.7945 0.1339 NS Perceived Quality  Brand Loyalty 0.3089 0. especially where the first segment customers are The visual design of the web site should be in accordance concerned.5080*** 0.1521 NS 0. Limitations and Future evidence of Faircloth.2796** –3. Therefore.0475* Perceived Quality  Internet Banking Brand Equity 0. Customers from the second segment live mainly in sely correlate with the identity and positioning desired Lisbon (the capital and the largest Portuguese city). pes of brand association [17]. This ap- bility to recognize.1619 NS 0.5557*** 0.3218 0.2580 0.001.1620 GoF 0.3683*** –1.5718*** 0. only has an indirect effect ciations on internet banking brand equity and brand lo.0000 0. Conclusions.2071NS 0. Research They found that brand image directly influences brand This research tests the differential effects of internet ban.4617*** 0.5277*** –1. The a. online benefits positively This study also provides an application of the finite affect internet banking trust. T[mgp] = t-value for multi-group comparison test (see expression 2). mixture partial least squares (FIMIX-PLS) to capture he- gative effect on risk perceived by the e-banking consu. but not in. whereas trust exercises a ne.5782 0. It also helps to en- king brand equity.5673*** 0. fidence in the bank’s web site information leads to a bet- Copyright © 2011 SciRes.

14. 33. 4. [7] J. No. and Man- 96-108. Johnson. that lead them to spend much time on the route between [10] P. pp. L. PLS Approach. 29. Roundtree and M. J.” Kogan Page. Vol.2002. Banking: An Integration of TAM and TPB with Per- Vol. 54. menting Successful Self-Service Technologies. and to London. Joseph. and Customer Copyright © 2011 SciRes. keting. G. The differences encountered may be related to lifestyle. Sonja and R. Myers. 8. Vol. 16. lity of Brand Knowledge. [23] C. 1989. 1-22. Ravi. Meuter.18024 [20] Y. M. L. doi:10. Huber.2307/1251871 S. Vol. 143-154. R. Value of a Brand Name. 483-504. where one does not anticipate a significant behavior [14] C. Jr. 2007. Bitner. improve the items used in the variables [13] K. pp. 237-247. its Extendibility. 243-269. 595-600. 64.” Inter- Scale. Faullant.” Butter- worth-Heinemann. which is very important [8] Yousafzai. doi:10.11.006 ects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses.2008. Leslie de. L. Farquhar. [19] M. pp. 57. 672-695.” Schmalenbach Business Review. Oxford. such as dissatisfaction factors. pp.-K. Vol. 1.” The Service Industries Journal. ceived Risk and Perceived Benefit. 1996.” Online Information Review. Kevin Lane. Vol. JSSM .. 21. pp. “From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation: difference.1080/02642060902719958 the frequency of recourse to internet banking. Boonghee and N. 2. “Managing Brand Equity. No. often and critically the online services. pp. pp. “Strategic Brand Management: Creating considers it is also important to introduce variables like and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term. 7. “A Survey-Based Me- tive Commitment and Trust in Technology. pp.” The Aca.1086/346254 gal. Vol. 2002. The author [12] J. K. New York. 3. 2008. “Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensiona- Finally.” Internet Research. “Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the research is required to understand and to explain the fin. 3. Vol. Vol. “Factors Influencing the Adoption of Internet tion Processes in Retail Settings. Kapferer.1002/dir. 2000. doi:10. pp. Value. 2005. Aldás-Manzano. Meuter. doi:10.1108/10610420510601012 Vol. 591-605. H.3. 271-288. 2008. D.1108/14684520910985675 “Assessing the Effects of Quality. counters. Vol. “Evaluating Service Encounters: The Eff- 141. Pikkarainen. Sanz-Blas. Ostrom and M. Quester and R. grasp differences even in a small country such as Portu.-N. Brand Equity and Brand Loyalty in the Internet Banking Context: FIMIX-PLS Market Segmentation 483 ter perception of service quality.1108/10610420310463126 demy of Management Executive. Lee. 29. No. “Consumer Acceptance of a Multidimensioanl Consumer-Based Brand Equity Internet Banking: The Influence of Internet Trust. 52.1108/02652320810913855 [21] R. L. 1981. Ruiz-Mafé and doi:10. J. Ostrom. 2002. Bitner.” Journal of Retailing. 26. tomers (living in the big Lisbon) tend to have a lifestyle No. 57. Karjaluoto and S.-C. Foxall.” Marketing Re- home and work (and reverse). doi:10. 4. Hult. Future research should also examine other nega. 2003. Vol. No. 5. J. Brady.” Journal of Marketing Research. 2009. Cooksey. 1991. Oliver. “Achieving Customer Value from Ele. [16] C. 69-82. “Imple. 4. since cus- tomers from the second segment live mainly in Lisbon [9] Hahn. pp. 24-33. pp. P.” Journal of Business Research. Carsten. “Conceptualizing. G. 54. David. pp. doi:10. No.1016/j. A. Donthu. 2003. pp. Tero. R. A. Vol.” Journal of Marketing. L. Strategically Building and Sustaining Brands. national Journal of Bank Marketing. No. K.” The Free Press. doi:10. doi:10. These cus. Tomas and M. pp. 3. A. Herrmann and F. Srinivasan. Vol. 14. Rao. doi:10.” Electronic Com- merce Research and Applications. communication or commitment. pp. 2-22. of the Technology Acceptance Model. doi:10. S. further [11] A. No. 2004. REFERENCES [15] Pappu. 25-48. A.2307/3152199 [4] M. 2001. Pallister and G. C. Vol. 3. 1994. No. pp. “Capturing Customer Heterogeneity Using a Finite Mixture (the capital and the largest Portuguese city). doi:10. L. 1-14.2307/1252054 ctronic Channels through Identity Commitment.” Journal of thod of Measuring and Understanding Brand Equity and Interactive Marketing. Shumaila.” Journal of Marketing. the FIMIX-PLS methods could prove to be ve. Vol. pp.” Journal of Consumer Re- ry interesting in the case of managerial practices as it can search. K. [17] K. 7.1509/jmkg. “Managing Brand Equity: A Look at the doi:10. Dimensional Role of Trust in Internet Banking Adop- tion. tive constructs. “Multi- in ensuring loyalty to the brand.20091 No. pp. nagement. “Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfac- [6] M. Chan Su and V.” Journal of Product & Brand “Consumer Acceptance of Online Banking: An Extension Management. 224-235. Lassala-Navarré. 4. 39-51. 31.” tomer Satisfaction with Technology-Based Service En- Marketing Letters.elerap. “Con- sumer-Based Brand Equity: Improving the Measure- [1] P. 1998. Measuring. 1990. No. [22] M. doi:10. M. Calcula- [18] P. “Self-service Technologies: Understanding Cus- son of Consumer-Based Measures of Brand Equity. dings.1108/10662240410542652 Impact of Attributes.1016/S0148-2963(99)00098-3 pp.64. 2003. C. Johnson. ment-Empirical Evidence. Vol. so they tend to adopt more search. 1. Pahnila.50. No. J. Vol.1007/BF00435740 50-64. However. 130. 4.5465/AME. No.” Journal of Product and Brand Ma- [2] M. W. doi:10. Agarwal and V. Kevin Lane. “Key Drivers of Internet Banking Services Use. Vol. “An Empirical Compari- Bitner.8951333 aging Customer-Based Brand Equity. J. H. and credibility. 12. No. “Developing and Validating [5] G. 2009. 3.” Journal of Mar- [3] D. doi:10. 1993.

28. Shumaila. 2. No.0 (beta). Marketing. “An Examination of the Business Research. A. Sultan and G. Copyright © 2011 SciRes. 2.” Computational Statistics & Data Drivers and the Role of Online Trust the Same for All Analysis. 69.1016/S0166-4972(03)00130-5 havioural Consequences of Service Quality. L. pp. 1995. 2008. Vinzi. 25-40. [44] F. Y. “A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: Electronic Shopping on the World Wide Web. 2. 20.2.2307/1252129 59-88.1287/isre..4. 2000. Vol. 1. [25] A. F. [37] A. G. pp. Jarvenpaa and P. No. Least Squares (PLS) Approach to Causal Modeling. pp. 76. T.484 Brand Equity and Brand Loyalty in the Internet Banking Context: FIMIX-PLS Market Segmentation Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioural Intentions in Ser.189. “A Proposed finement and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL Scale. Tim.” Academy of Management Review.” Journal of Retailing. Vol. “The Be. No. Chin. tegic Management Research: A Review of Four Recent doi:10.1108/00251749710169666 [51] E. H. 2. 1.1002/dir. 2.” Journal Erlbaum Associates Publisher. A. doi:10.16018 Empirical Study. No. Gardner. “Brand doi:10. Smart PLS 2.189. 393-404. “The Partial [34] D.” Information Systems Research.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2<195::AID-S Trust?” Management Decision. 2000. Vol. Vol. Parasuraman.10008 Studies. M. pp. 13. “Re. Journal of Retailing. Zeller. doi:10. 20-38. S. K.” Journal of [43] S.14. doi:10. 61. 6-21. 4. “Use of Partial Least Squares (PLS) in Stra- Marketing. Vol. pp.2307/1252308 [47] B. [40] Y. Hess. D. Vol. Kang. Chatelin and C.” Modern Methods for [31] P. D.” Model of E-Trust for Electronic Banking. In: G. C. Shankar and R. Zeithaml. pp. Cobb-Walgren.” Technovation.69. 1998. Rousseau. 2005.1998. Vol.” [42] R. 1997. Shankar.” Academy of Man- doi:10.. Web Sites and Consumers? A Large-Scale Exploratory doi:10. 2005. C Mayer. Vol. pp. 55-75.” Journal of Interactive [50] J. Brand Preference. “Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Re- Journal of Academy of Marketing Science. “A Par- [32] G. Theory of Relationship Marketing.1287/isre. 195-211. 2002. pp. R.1016/S0022-4359(00)00028-2 [39] S. J. doi:10. Vol. Vol. pp. 295-336. dents of Service Expectations.” Journal of [29] H. J. “An Inte- Marketing. 159-205. pp. Vol. “Brand Equity in Hospital Marketing. C. 439-448. Newsted. pp. L. Ennew.” Journal of Marketing. pp. “Methodological and Theoretical Issues and Advertising. “Consumer Reactions to [24] F. No. 35.” Strategic Management Journal. “Reliability and Validity [38] K.2307/258792 Selected Marketing Mix Elements and Brand Equity. Vol. Schoorman. S. Uma. Lawrence Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships. H. doi:10. www. Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic Mail Emotion/ Adoption Study.” Journal of [41] R. 1992. JSSM .3. doi:10. 1687-1706.” for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Marketing Letters. 24.2. [35] B. Yoon. Ringle.14. Burt and C. Michel. Morgan and S. A. Todd. doi:10.” Journal of Marketing. Technology Studies. Assessment. Claes. Vol. Donald. Wende and W. N.smartpls. 1997. B. [28] C. S. L. Hoon.8490519 vice Industries. 1998. 47-63. L. W.2307/1251829 [46] W. 2. No. search. Hamburg. B. S. V. 185-216. “How Much of Brand Equity is Explained by doi:10. New Jersey. Parasuraman. 20. Vol. pp.2307/1251929 agement Review. Vol. on Brand Preference and Purchase Intentions in the Ser.926617 [48] T.1080/02642060902793557 and Risks of Online Shopping.” Interna- The Swedish Experience. Thompson and C. tional Journal of Electronic Commerce. 420-450. doi:10. Vol. 6. A. pp.20061 Journal. Berry and V. Dong.1177/135910457000100301 Equity. L. Brislin. 3. L. A. pp.133 [49] C. F. No. 58. 1979.de. 1999. 35-51. Ruble and N.” The Services Industries doi:10. M. 2003. 189-217. Vol. R. K. 56. pp. Marcolin and P. Hulland.2005. velopment of a Scale to Measure the Perceived Benefits doi:10. 133-152. doi:10. 2005. Marcoulides. 4. No.2-Z 283-292. Urban. Vol. pp. Davis and F. 193-218. Chin. 285-309. 29. 11. No. 16. MJ13>3. R. K. 3. [26] V. Lee.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1983. M. “The Commitment-Trust No. Yakov. 2002. D. [27] Y. Vol. 2. of Business Research. 4. 2009. E. Jong and S. pp. V. 3. “Are the “PLS Path Modeling. C. Gwynne and C. London. [45] W. Berry and A. 1997. No.” Journal vice Environments. pp. pp.” The Service Industries Journal. pp. of Marketing. Advancements in Cross-Cultural Research. pp.” Journal of Marketing. Alexander. 195.1002/dir. Vol. No. “De- 12. Vol.1057/palgrave. Cannon. and Purchase Intent. M. Foxall. A. Ed. Vol. Per- “Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View of sonal Computer Adoption and Use as an Illustration. 1991. pp. 709-734. Liu.” Journal of Interactive [30] J. 1995.-J. Doney and J. Carmines and R. pp. H. L. 23. grative Model of Organizational Trust. pp. “The Impact of Brand Equity International Business Studies.-M. 61-73. 1997. 60.jibs. Donthu. 75-82. “The Partial Least Squares Approach to doi:10. Sandra. 847-860. Hunt. A. 1995. Liu.5465/AMR. 22. Chang and Y. 2003.1509/jmkg. Camerer. 48. pp. W. Inc. 1996. J. 4. 2006. 2. Donthu and S. H. doi:10. 1997. Kang.16018 Vol. 14. 2. Lauro. Higgins.1080/714005102 Structural Equation Modeling. pp. Devlin. 20. 117-131. No.CO.” Trust. K. No. 31-46. M. W. 1970. 23. [36] S.” Sage Publications. 67. Shannon and L. Y.1177/0092070300282002 No. Vol. “Antece. “Dimensions and Levels of tial Least Squares Latent Variable Modelling Approach Trust: Implications for Commitment to a Relationship. P. Zeithaml. Vol. No.204. “An Examination of doi:10. Boonghee. Pallister and G. [33] R. No. Bitkin. L. “The Antecedents and Consequences of Trust in Online Purchase Decisions. 8. doi:10. No. 14.

B. Alford.” Effect of Brand Attitude and Brand Image on Brand Eq- Journal of Marketing Research. uity. 1978. JSSM .” 2nd Edition. Copyright © 2011 SciRes. 61-75. C. New York. L. Nunnally. M. “The with Unobservables Variables and Measurement Error. L. Capella and B. Larcker. Claes and D. 39-50. F. pp. Vol. pp.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. “Psychometric Theory. 28. Brand Equity and Brand Loyalty in the Internet Banking Context: FIMIX-PLS Market Segmentation 485 [52] F. McGraw-Hill. 1981. 2001. [53] J. “Evaluating Structural Models [54] J. Faircloth.