An executive summary for

managers and executive Using free association to

readers can be found at the
end of this article examine the relationship
between the characteristics of
brand associations and brand
equity
Arthur Cheng-Hsui Chen
Department of Business Administration, National Yunlin University of
Science and Technology, Yunlin, Taiwan

Keywords Brand equity, Consumer behaviour

Abstract The purposes of this study are to identify the types of brand association and
examine the relationship between association characteristics and brand equity. Based on
a literature review, two types of brand association are identified. One is product
association including functional attribute association and non-functional attribute
association. The other is organizational association including corporate ability
association and corporate social responsibility association. An empirical study measures
the numbers of association, deriving from free association, and examines its differences
between three pairs of high and low equity brands. We found that the corporate social
responsibility association is almost absent across four high equity brands from subject's
free associations. Based on the other three contents of brand association, we use its total
number of association to identify the orientation of association for each brand. The
results are the same as that of using the favorable association. In addition, we also found
that the number of brand association and total association have a significant relationship
with brand equity. But the core of the brand association, instead of total association, is
the key factor of driving brand equity building. The greater the numbers of the core brand
association, the higher the brand equity. However, there is no significant difference for
the other brand associations between the high and low equity brands. Marketers should
develop the core association to position its brand strategy to create competitive
advantages.

Introduction
Brand equity Brand equity is defined as a set of assets (and liabilities) linked to a brand's
name and symbol that adds to (or subtracts from) the value provided by a
product or service to a firm and/or that firm's customers (Aaker, 1991). The
major assets can be grouped into five categories: brand loyalty, name
awareness, perceived quality, brand association, and other proprietary brand
assets such as patents, trademarks, and channel relationships (Aaker, 1991).
From a customer-based perspective, Keller (1993) defined brand equity as
the differential effects that brand knowledge has on consumer response to the
marketing of that brand. Brand knowledge is, in terms of an associative
network model, a network of nodes and links where the brand node memory
has a variety of associations or simple unique association linked to it.
Compared to three other assets of Aaker's ± brand awareness, brand loyalty,
and perceived quality, we think that brand association is the core asset for
building strong brand equity. Several reasons can be addressed. First, brand
awareness is a necessary asset but not sufficient for building strong brand
equity. For example, a brand could be well known because it has bad quality.
However, a strong brand must have higher awareness than a weak brand.

The research register for this journal is available at

http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 10 NO. 7 2001, pp. 439-451, # MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1061-0421 439
 Second, the other brand equity dimensions enhance brand loyalty. The
perceived quality, the associations, and the well-known name can provide
reasons to buy and affect user satisfaction, which result to brand loyalty.
However, brand loyalty is sometimes excluded from the conceptualization of
brand equity, because consumers may be in the habit of buying a particular
brand without really thinking much about why (Keller, 1998). Finally, the
perceived quality is one kind of brand association. The concept of brand
knowledge also focuses on the association network. We can see that brand
equity is supported in great part by the associations that consumers make
with a brand. Therefore, a deeper understanding of brand association
becomes more critical when building strong brands.
Memory network model Krishnan (1996) used a memory network model to identify various
association characteristics underlying consumer-based brand equity. An
empirical study measures association characteristics and examines
differences between high and low equity brands. The results show that high
equity brands, compared to brands with low equity, have a greater number of
associations and more net positive associations. However, what are the real
attributes of brand association? Are all associations relevant to the brand
equity? Aaker (1996) has expanded brand association, usually recognized as
product-related, to include organizational associations. Although
organizational associations, such as corporate image, have a long history in
the marketing literature, there is a surprising lack of evidence on how, when,
and what types of organizational associations affect product responses. Thus,
it is also important to understand how the information consumers associate
with a company affects their responses to the products and services offered
by that company. Therefore, the purposes of this study are to identify the
types of brand association and examine the relationship between association
characteristics and brand equity.

Literature review and hypotheses

Brand associations
Value of a brand name Aaker (1991) asserted that the underlying value of a brand name often is the
set of associations ± its meaning to people. Associations represent the basis
for purchase decisions and for brand loyalty. Keller (1993) defined brand
associations as the other informational nodes linked to the brand node in
memory and contained the meaning of the brand for consumers. Krishnan
(1996) argued that associations could be used as a general term to represent a
link between any two nodes, which suggests an association in the consumer's
mind. Associations come in all forms and may reflect characteristics of the
product or aspects independent of the product itself. There are a variety of
ways brand associations can provide value. Among the ways in which
associations create value to the firm and its customers are: helping to
process/retrieve information, differentiating the brand, generating a reason to
buy, creating positive attitudes/feelings, and providing a basis for extension.
Keller (1993) pointed out that the favorability, strength, and uniqueness of
brand associations are the dimensions distinguishing brand knowledge that
play an important role in determining the differential response that makes up
brand equity, especially in high involvement decision settings.

Type of brand association

Aaker (1991) categorized brand associations into 11 types:
(1) product attributes;
(2) intangibles;

440 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 10 NO. 7 2001

 (3) customer benefits;
(4) relative price;
(5) use/application;
(6) user/customer;
(7) celebrity/person;
(8) life-style/personality;
(9) product class;
(10) competitors; and
(11) country/geographic area.
Brand association Biel (1992) argued that brand association (brand image) could result from
corporate image, product image and user image. Each of these three images
can be divided into two types of association. One is the perception of
utilitarian and functional attributes, like speed or ease to operate. The other is
related to soft or emotional attributes, like providing fantasy or being
exciting, innovative, or trustworthy. Farquhar and Herr (1993) suggest that
the types of brand association include product category, usage situation,
product attribute, and customer benefits.
Keller (1993) asserted that brand associations could be classified into three
major categories of increasing scope: attributes, benefits, and attitudes.
Attributes are those descriptive features that characterize a product or
service, what a consumer thinks the product or service is or has and what is
involved with its purchase or consumption. Attributes can be categorized
into product-related attributes, and non-product-related attributes such as
price, user and usage imagery, or brand personality. Benefits are the personal
values consumers attach to product or service attributes ± that is, what
consumers think the product or service can do for them. Benefits can be
further distinguished into three categories ± functional, experiential, and
symbolic benefits. Brand attitudes are defined as consumers' overall
evaluations of a brand. Brand identity is made up of these different types of
brand associations, which can vary according to their favorability, strength,
and uniqueness. According to the marketing instrument developing
paradigm, Chen (1996) developed a measurement scale to measure
customer-based brand equity. The scale instrument basically reflects the
notion of brand association. Five variables were generated, which are
perceived quality, functional features, symbolic association, emotional
association, and innovation.
Corporate image Keller and Aaker (1995) conducted an experiment to explore the impact of
corporate image on the customer acceptance of a corporate brand extension.
Four different corporate images (innovative, environmentally conscious,
community minded or neutral) were created for corporations given neutral
names (e.g. Meridian). The brands were baked goods, personal care products,
dairy products, and over-the-counter drugs. The results indicated that
innovation was the only corporate image dimension that enhanced the
perceived fit of a corporate brand extension and the evaluation of the product
attributes. Moreover, an innovative corporate image had a substantial
positive impact upon corporate credibility, making the firm appear to be
more expert, more attractive, and more trustworthy.
A representative few of the most prevalent and useful organizational
associations, identified by Aaker (1996), are society/community orientation,

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 10 NO. 7 2001 441


Arguments in the literature
perceived quality, innovation, concern for customers, presence and success,
and local vs global. Brown and Dacin (1997) examined the effects of two
general types of corporate associations on product response. One effect
focuses on the company's capability for producing products, that is,
corporate ability (CA) associations. The other effect focuses on the
company's perceived social responsibility, that is, corporate social
responsibility (CSR) associations. The results demonstrated that:
. what consumers know about a company can influence their beliefs and
attitudes toward new products manufactured by that company; and
. CA and CSR associations may have different effects upon consumer
responses to products.
The above analysis is summarized in Table I.
Based on above literature, we found that the arguments of Farquhar and Herr
(1993) and Keller (1993) focus mostly on product association. Aaker (1991)
and Chen (1996) focused on product association, but covered corporate
ability association. However, the arguments of Keller and Aaker (1995),
Aaker (1996), and Brown and Dacin (1997) emphasize on organizational
association. Biel (1992) pointed out that brand image could result from
corporate and product images. Based on these literatures, brand association
can be categorized into product associations and organizational associations.
In practice, the different branding strategy mostly creates different brand
associations. US companies typically advertise the benefits and images
provided by their individual brands. Therefore, it creates more associations

Product associations Organizational associations

Functional Non-functional Corporate social
Literature attribute attribute Corporate ability responsibility
Aaker (1991) Product attributes Intangibles Country/geographic
area
Customer Customer benefits
benefits
Product class Relative price
Use/application
User/customer
Celebrity/person
Lift-style/
personality
Biel (1992) Functional Soft or emotional Functional Soft or emotional
product attributes attributes corporate attributes attributes
Farquhar and Product category Usage situation
Herr (1993) Product attribute Customer benefits
Customer
benefits
Keller and Innovativeness Environmentally
Aaker (1995) conscious
Community minded
Aaker (1996) Perceived quality Society/community
Innovation orientation
Presence and Concern for
success customer
Local vs global
Chen (1996) Perceived quality Symbolic Innovativeness
Functional Emotional
feature
Brown and Corporate ability Corporate social
Dacin (1997) responsibility

Table I. Types of brand associations

442 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 10 NO. 7 2001

 on product itself. However, most of the Japanese and other East Asian firms
are more likely to use corporate advertising that stresses the benefits the
company brings to its consumers and society at large, which result in the
creation of organizational associations. For example, the most brand-driven
company, Procter & Gamble (P&G), has adjusted its advertising in Taiwan
and other East Asian countries in the past three years (they have done so in
Japan for many years). At the end of each commercial for a P&G brand, the
corporate name and logo of P&G appears, in order to persuade consumers of
the values and benefits provided by relying on the products of a large
consumer goods manufacturer. Recently, the other international company ±
Unilever ± has done the same thing. This indicates that the creation of brand
association not only depends on product association, but also relies more on
organizational association.
Categorizing brand Therefore, based on literature review and practical branding strategy, we
association suggest categorizing brand association into two types ± product associations
and organizational associations. Product associations could be divided into
functional attribute associations (e.g. product attribute, perceived quality,
and functional benefits) and non-functional attribute associations (symbolic
association, emotional association, price/value, user/usage situation).
Organizational associations could be grouped into corporate ability
associations and corporate social responsibility associations, which is
basically in line with the argument of Brown and Dacin (1997). Corporate
ability associations are those associations related to the company's expertise
in producing and delivering its outputs, i.e. the expertise of employees,
superiority of internal research and development, and the resulting
technological innovation, manufacturing expertise, customer orientation,
industry leadership, and so on. Corporate social responsibility associations
reflect the organization's status and activities with respect to its perceived
societal obligations, which are often unrelated to the company's abilities in
producing goods and services. Usually, a company will focus on
environmental friendliness, community involvement, cultural activity
sponsorship, or increase its visibility in support of social causes through
cause-related marketing and so on. This brand association model is shown in
Figure 1.

Figure 1. The brand association model

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 10 NO. 7 2001 443

 Hypotheses
Empirical study In light of the literature review and the creation of a brand association model,
an empirical study will be used to answer the research questions. It is a test
of the confirmation of the brand association model. The association
properties identified will form the basis of customer-based brand equity.
Based on the argument of Keller (1993), the use of frequency of favorable
associations may be better than that of using the frequency of total
association to identify the orientation type of brand association. On the other
hand, measuring these association characteristics and comparing them
between high and low equity brands may provide a means for exploring
differences in customer-based brand equity. Krishnan (1996) found that there
was a strong correlation between the frequency of total association and brand
equity. But we expect that the brand association is the key for building brand
equity instead of total association. Therefore, the greater the numbers of
brand associations, the higher the brand equity. However, it is not necessary
to have all kinds of brand association at the same time. Each brand should
have its unique association as its core association to build competitive
advantage. Thus, we expect that the strong relationship will be built between
the core brand association and brand equity. However, there will be no
significant difference for the other brand associations between the high and
low equity brands. The three hypotheses listed below will be tested and
addressed.
H1. To identify the orientation type of brand association, using the frequency
of favorable associations will be deemed better than that of using the
frequency of total association.
H2. The greater the number of brand associations, the higher the brand
equity.
H3. The greater the numbers of the core brand association, the higher the
brand equity.

Research design
Free association procedure Associations are measured in industry and consumer research in a number of
ways. Aaker (1991) categorizes these measurements as direct methods that
scale various brand perceptions and indirect methods, which infer meanings
on consumer response. Since this study is focusing on understanding brand
associations from the consumer's perspective, the indirect approach was
used. In order to identify the typology of brand association derived from this
study, and examine the relationship between association characteristics and
brand equity, a free association procedure was used. Three brands, which
would be familiar and relevant to both males and females in the student
sample, were chosen as high equity brands for this study. Besides the
familiarity and relevance to the subjects, the other important criterion for
choosing the object was its branding strategy should use corporate branding.
Therefore, we selected three product categories including PC, printer, and
athletic shoes. The three brands were Acer, HP, and Nike. An additional
three brands, in contrast to the above three brands in the same product
category, were chosen as low equity brands. These brands were Twinhead,
Epson, and Jump. In printer product category, the Taiwan market is almost
occupied by three brands ± HP, Epson, and Canon. It is difficult to find a
well-known brand with low equity and also meet the criteria of using
corporate branding strategy. Therefore, a comparable Epson brand was
chosen as a kind of control group. Premium price was used to measure brand
equity by adopting an experimental design. Subjects were asked to describe

444 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 10 NO. 7 2001

 their perception of the brand/product value first. Then, outside of the
products' brand name, what is the perceived value? The difference due to
brand name (premium price) is the customer-based brand equity (Keller,
1993; Crimmins, 1992). In the free association, subjects were asked to write
down whatever came to mind when they thought of the brand in question.
Finally, favorable associations for a brand are those associations that are
desirable to consumers. Therefore, subjects were asked to rank the most three
preferred associations by order. Study participants were recruited from a
university in Taiwan and were offered course credit for their participation.

Results analysis
We first explored the brand equity comparisons for each product category
between high and low equity brands. Then we examined the contents of
brand association for those high equity brands based on free association.
Finally, the difference between the high equity brands and low equity brands
on the association measures were examined.
High and low equity brands In order to compare the difference of brand equity between high and low
equity brands, T-test comparisons were used to test for statistical differences.
Perceived price premium between the brand product and an unbranded
product was used to measure brand equity. The result indicates that the brand
equity of Acer is significantly higher than that of Twinhead (US$324 vs
US$160, t = 5.464 p < 0.001). The brand equity of Nike is also significantly
higher than of Jump (US$39 vs US$15, t = 7.208, p < 0.001). However, there
is no significant difference between HP and Epson (US$110 vs US$96,
t = 1.643, p > 0.05). Because of the difficulty of choosing a well-known
brand with lower brand equity to compare with HP, as we mentioned above,
the non-significant differences in brand equity between HP and Epson were
predictable.
Regarding the free association contents, the responses were categorized into
five types of associations: functional attribute, non-functional attribute,
corporate ability, corporate social responsibility, and neutral association. The
number of each kind of association for each subject was then coded. Table II
shows the frequency and percentage of associations for each high equity
brand.
Corporate social It was very surprising that the corporate social responsibility association was
responsibility nearly absent across the three brands. Only four subjects out of a total of 200
samples mentioned this kind of association. In fact, those companies spend
great sums of money each year on corporate advertising, corporate
philanthropy, sponsorships, and cause-related marketing. For example, HP
spent more than one million dollars per year in Taiwan to sponsor a lot of
computer equipments for school, following its worldwide image-building
program of business citizenship. This indicates that the outcomes of social
responsibility action results are difficult to ascertain. In terms of total
association frequency, we can see that most of the HP brand associations
were focused on functional attributes (60), followed by non-functional
attributes (37) and corporate ability (31). The Nike brand associations
resulted mostly from product associations, particularly non-functional (138)
and functional attributes (68). The number of corporate ability associations
was relatively low (14). However, the Acer brand associations were more
organizational association oriented, primarily corporate ability association
(64), followed by non-functional (49) and functional attributes (34). In sum,
we can conclude that the core associations of Acer, HP and Nike are

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 10 NO. 7 2001 445

 Non- Corporate
Functional functional Corporate social Neutral
Brand Frequency attribute attribute ability responsibility association
Acer 1 13 (19.1) 11 (16.2) 19 (27.9) 1 (1.50 8 (11.8)
(n = 68) 2 5 (7.4) 11 (16.20) 10 (14.7) 1 (1.5) 13 (19.1)
3 2 (2.9) 2 (2.9) 7 (10.3) 0 (0) 12 (17.6)
4 0 (0) 1 (1.5) 1 (1.5) 0 (0) 7 (10.3)
5 1 (1.5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 6 (8.8)
6 0 (0) 1 (1.5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 14 (20.6)
Total 34 49 64 3 212
HP 1 17 (28.8) 19 (32.2) 16 (27.1) 0 (0) 7 (12.0)
(n = 58) 2 4 (6.8) 5 (8.5) 1 (1.7) 0 (0) 9 (15.3)
3 7 (11.9) 1 (1.7) 1 (1.7) 0 (0) 11 (18.6)
4 2 (3.4) 0 (0) 1 (1.7) 0 (0) 9 (15.3)
5 0 (0) 1 (1.7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 6 (10.2)
6 1 (1.7) 0 (0) 1 (1.7) 0 (0) 5 (8.5)
Total 60 37 31 0 154
Nike 1 20 (27.0) 16 (21.6) 6 (8.1) 1 (1.4) 12 (16.2)
(n = 74) 2 9 (12.2) 17 (23.0) 4 (5.4) 1 (1.4) 12 (16.2)
3 1 (1.4) 5 (6.8) 0 (0) 0 8 (10.8)
4 3 (4.1) 6 (8.1) 0 (0) 0 6 (8.1)
5 3 (4.1) 5 (6.80) 0 (0) 0 9 (12.2)
6 0 (0) 4 (5.5) 0 (0) 0 17 (23.1)
Total 68 138 14 3 231
Note: Percentages of total sample are in parentheses

Table II. Frequency of brand association for each brand

corporate ability association, functional attribute association, and

Preferred association result
non-functional association respectively.
In the above analysis, the total frequency of brand associations was utilized
to examine the brand association orientation. However, as Keller (1993)
mentioned, associations differ according to how favorably they are
evaluated. Not all associations for a brand are equally important. Therefore,
we asked subjects to choose three associations from a list of free
associations, as the most preferred in order. We then categorized and coded
the brand associations by type. The objective was to use the brand
association favorability to check the brand association orientation, compared
with the above analysis. In order to calculate the brand association
favorability for each brand, we gave 3 points for the most preferred, 2 points
for the second most preferred and 1 point for the third most preferred. The
preferred scores were then sum weighted. Table III shows the results.
Overall, the analysis of the result for using preferred association to check the
brand association orientation type was basically in line with using total
frequency in Table II. We can see that the most preferred brand association
for Acer originated from a corporate ability association (total weighted
preference score is 77, vs 41 and 42 from functional attribute and
non-functional attribute associations respectively). The highest total weighted
preference score for HP originated from a functional attribute association (75
versus 21 and 33 in others). Nike confirmed that it is a more non-functional
attribute oriented brand (122 vs 79 and 4 in others). This result was basically
in line with using total frequency. Therefore, H1 was not supported.
In the following, the differences between the brands in the association
measures are examined. Each type of brand association measure was
analyzed separately for differences between the high and low equity brands.

446 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 10 NO. 7 2001

 Functional Non-functional Corporate
Brand Preference attribute attribute ability
Acer The first 9 6 16
(n = 68) The second 4 7 10
The third 6 5 9
Weighted totala 41 42 77
HP The first 13 2 5
(n = 58) The second 13 4 7
The third 10 7 4
Weighted totala 75 21 33
Nike The first 12 22 0
(n = 74) The second 15 18 1
The third 13 20 2
Weighted totala 79 122 4
Note: aWeight total = the first 6 3 + the second 6 2 + the third 6 1

Table III. Frequency analysis of the most preferred brand associations

Brand related and neutral
associations
t-test comparisons between brands within each product category were used to
test for statistical differences. The results are shown in Table IV.
Based on free association, we categorized the total associations into
brand-related and neutral associations. Because corporate social
responsibility was nearly absent, we only used the other three brand-related
associations ± functional attribute, non-functional attribute, and corporate
ability associations to perform the comparisons. In terms of total
associations, the average numbers of associations for higher equity brands ±
Acer and Nike ± were significantly higher than the contrast brands ±
Twinhead and Jump, respectively 5.79 vs 3.67 p < 0.001 and 6.31 vs 4.24
p < 0.001. The same situation occurred in the brand association for both Acer
and Nike: 2.21 vs 0.41 for Acer and Twinhead, p < 0.01; 3.04 vs 0.95 for
Nike and Jump, p < 0.001. However, in terms of neutral association, there
was no significant difference between the high and low equity brands. Based
on these results, we can conclude that brand-related associations, instead of
total associations, are the key driving factors in building strong brands.
Therefore, H2 was supported.
Comparisons of the specific brand-related association content are examined
next. In Nike vs Jump, the average number of non-functional attribute
associations for Nike was significantly higher than that of Jump (1.93 vs

Non-
Functional functional Corporate Brand Neutral Total
Brand attribute attribute ability association association association
Acer (n = 68) 0.50 (0.94) 0.72 (1.16) 0.94 (1.08) 2.21 (2.17) 3.35 (2.44) 5.79 (3.08)
Twinhead (n = 51) 0.14 (0.40) 0.20 (0.53) 0.01 (0.27) 0.41 (0.90) 3.25 (2.15) 3.67 (2.09)
t-value 2.859** 3.305** 6.341** 6.514** 0.232 4.481***
HP (n = 58) 1.03 (1.34) 0.64 (0.93) 0.57 (1.26) 2.24 (2.48) 2.72 (2.28) 4.97 (2.55)
Epson (n = 37) 0.70 (1.15) 0.54 (0.65) 0.27 (0.51) 1.51 (1.74) 3.00 (2.08) 4.51 (1.80)
t-value 1.285 0.600 1.613 1.678 ± 0.607 1.009
Nike (n = 74) 0.92 (1.31) 1.93 (1.99) 0.19 (0.51) 3.04 (2.92) 3.27 (2.42) 6.31 (2.64)
Jump (n = 38) 0.57 (0.99) 0.35 (0.68) 0.003 (0.160) 0.95 (1.35) 3.30 (2.32) 4.24 (2.03)
t-value 1.578 6.165*** 2.469*** 5.166*** ± 0.057 4.588**
Notes: The numbers represent the mean number of brand associations. Standard deviations are in
parentheses. *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001

Table IV. Comparisons of the average number of brand associations and brand
equity

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 10 NO. 7 2001 447

 0.35, p < 0.001). However, the difference in functional attribute associations
was not significant (0.92 vs 0.57, p > 0.05). This is probably because Nike is
not a functional attribute oriented brand but a non-functional attribute
oriented brand. Corporate ability associations were not mentioned due to a
significantly low average number of associations (019 vs 0.003). In Acer vs
Twinhead, the average number of associations for Acer was significantly
higher than that of Twinhead across all three kinds of brand associations. In
particular, the difference in corporate ability association was very significant
(0.94 vs 0.01, p < 0.001). This is consistent with the key type of Acer's brand
and association orientation. However, regarding HP vs Epson, the
association numbers were not significantly different across all kinds of
associations. This may be due to equivalent brand equity. In sum, the greater
the number of the core brand associations, the higher the brand equity.
Therefore, H3 was supported.

Conclusions and implications

Brand association model The objective of this study is to develop and confirm a model of brand
associations and to explore the relationship between the brand association
characteristics and brand equity. Based on the literature review, a brand
association model with two types of brand associations was developed. The
first is product association, including functional attribute association and
non-functional attribute association. The second is organizational
association, including corporate ability association and corporate social
responsibility association. An empirical study measured the numbers of
associations, derived from a free association list, and examined the
differences between high and low equity brands. We found that the corporate
social responsibility association was nearly absent from our subject's free
associations. Based on the other three brand association contents, we used
the total number of associations to identify the association orientation for
each brand. The results are the same as that using the weighted sum score for
preferred associations. In addition, we also found that the number of total
associations had a significant relationship with brand equity, consistent with
Krishnan's (1996) findings. However, when we separated the total number of
associations into brand and neutral associations, only the number of brand
association had a significant relationship with brand equity. Furthermore,
there is significant difference between high and low equity brands for the
core association (that determines the brand orientation) but not for the rest of
the associations. This provides valuable findings for the research of brand
association and brand equity.
Managerial implications Several managerial implications can be addressed. First, although the
building of corporate social responsibility association was highlighted by
some scholars (Brown and Dacin, 1997), we found that corporate social
responsibility associations are difficult to retrieve from the consumer's
memory. Therefore, marketers must try hard to learn how to build this kind
of association, which can be easily linked with the brand, into the
consumer's memory. Second, the creation of a brand-related association is an
important factor in building strong brands. Typically, increasing the number
of associations makes it easier to access the particular brand node from the
memory since these associations offer multiple pathways to the same brand
node. The key is the association content, brand-related association or neutral
association. We found that the numbers of neutral associations were the same
between high and low equity brands. However, these numbers were
significantly different for brand-related associations. Therefore, we suggest
that marketing managers should increase the building of brand-related

448 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 10 NO. 7 2001

 associations via advertising and minimize neutral associations in the
consumers' memory. Finally, in light of the brand-related associations,
marketing managers must choose one kind of association to position each
brand. A unique brand association would increase its brand equity and build
a competitive advantage.
Opportunities for further Because this study represents a preliminary foray into the integration of
research brand association, it possesses several limitations and opportunities for
further research. First, the product categories chosen here are computer
products and sports gear, and the subjects are students. Therefore, these
results may not be generalizable to other product categories and other
populations. The impact of other product categories and target market can be
explored in future research. Second, Nike has faced a lot of negative
publicity in the USA. However, the Nike brand did not elicit unfavorable
corporate social responsibility association in this study. This may be because
the sample is based in Taiwan, not in the USA. Therefore, the results may
not be replicable across countries. Finally, the brand association model can
be tested further by using other research designs, or by applying the four
types of brand associations to examine the different effects on brand equity
building or the effects of brand extendibility. The interaction effects of the
different types of associations can also be explored. For example, what might
be the impacts of low corporate ability associations and high non-functional
product attribute associations on the brand equity?

References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Biel, A.L. (1992), ``How brand image drives brand equity'', Journal of Advertising Research,
November/December, p. 9.
Brown, J.T. and Dacin, P.A. (1997), ``The company and the product: corporate associations
and consumer product responses'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, January, pp. 68-84.
Chen, A.C-H. (1996), ``The measurement and building of customer-based brand equity'', PhD
dissertation, National Chengchi University in Taiwan.
Crimmins, J.C. (1992), ``Better measurement and management of brand value'', Journal of
Advertising Research, July/August, pp. 11-19.
Farquhar, P.H. and Herr, P.M. (1993), ``The dual structure of brand associations'', Brand
Equity & Advertising, pp. 263-77.
Keller, K.L. (1993), ``Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing consumer-based brand
equity'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Keller, K.L. and Aaker, D.A. (1995), ``Managing the corporate brand: the effects of corporate
images and corporate brand extensions'', Research Paper No. 1216, Stanford University
Graduate School of Business.
Krishnan, H.S. (1996), ``Characteristics of memory associations: a consumer-based brand equity
perspective'', International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13, pp. 389-405.
&

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 10 NO. 7 2001 449

 This summary has been
provided to allow managers
and executives a rapid
appreciation of the content
of this article. Those with a
particular interest in the
topic covered may then read
the article in toto to take
advantage of the more
comprehensive description
of the research undertaken
and its results to get the full
benefit of the material
present
450
Executive summary and implications for managers and
executives
Brands, corporate image and social responsibility
Brand equity, like so many commonly used terms in marketing, has become
rather vague. We drop it into conversations and litter our strategy documents
with the concept without even a passing thought that the listener or reader
might want to understand what exactly we mean by brand equity.
So we turn to our textbooks and seek out a definition ± ``. . . a set of assets
(and liabilities) linked to a brand's name and symbol that adds to (or
subtracts from) the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or
that firm's customers''. Not exactly straightforward and nor especially
applicable. As many questions are begged as are answered. We're still not
entirely sure what we're supposed to be doing with the concept and how it
might help us to sell more products and make bigger profits.
Next we break down the elements of brand equity ± loyalty, awareness,
quality, brand associations and the proprietary brand assets such as a
trademark. But, we then notice (or in this case Chen notices for us) that the
most important elements in this equity are brand associations. The other
elements of equity depend to a large extent on what the consumer associates
with our brand. We have, at last, arrived at the branding main course. As
Chen puts it ``. . . brand equity is supported in great part by the associations
that consumers make with a brand''.
And we can influence these brand associations ± in many ways this is the
whole point of brand marketing. But first we should categorise and assess
the different types of association.
Corporate and product associations
Chen divides brand associations into two main types ± product associations
and organisational associations. Every brand ± to a greater or lesser extent
± has both types of association. And, as Chen observes, the more
associations the consumer has for our brand the greater his/her ability to
recall the brand ± and its attributes ± from memory.
But separating the brand associations into product and organisational
associations doesn't take us far enough. In the case of product associations,
Chen segments again to distinguish between functional associations
(attributes, features, benefits and quality) and non-functional associations
(emotions, symbols, value and usage). This distinction is important ± we read
else where in this issue of JPBM (BeleÂn del RõÂo et al.) how functional and
non-functional elements of the brand interact to create the overall brand
image. The management of both sets of association is needed for successful
brand marketing.
In the case of organisational associations, Chen separates issues of
corporate ability (expertise, research and development, innovation and
experience) from issues of corporate social responsibility (environmental
responsibility, community links and cultural references). Corporate ability is
the first responsibility of the firm ± people want to know that we're good at
making what we sell. Indeed advertisers often seek to make links to another
of the firm's brands through phrases such as ``from the makers of X''.
Since brand equity (the value of the brand to the firm or to the consumer)
depends to a large extent on the right set of associations, a firm should set
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 10 NO. 7 2001
 out to build sets of positive associations from the four areas identified by
Chen (product, image, ability and social responsibility).

Social responsibility as part of brand equity

Chen finds little or no resonance for corporate social responsibility (CSR)
among respondents to his study. People seem unimpressed or unconcerned
with the ``good works'' done by a firm. Indeed, some consumers can be
downright cynical about such activities. This doesn't give firms carte
blanche for unethical behaviour but it does question the branding value of
corporate social responsibility.
We should also note that, for a few firms, acts of positive CSR represent a
major element defining the brand ± we've all read about the approach
adopted by businesses like the Body Shop or Ben & Jerry's. So the use of
CSR as a strategic branding tool is valid and, in my view at least, firms
should get some credit for acting ethically.
However, you're running a business not a charity, which means that your
first responsibility is to secure and sustain a return of investment. Marketers
should be concerned with how benefits relate to costs. Beyond ethical
behaviour, CSR can prove an expensive luxury ± it only makes sense where it
actually contributes to the value of the business (or in this case, the brand). If
CSR doesn't generate brand associations then it makes no sense as part of a
brand strategy.

Corporate image and the brand strategy

Chen notes that the big champions of classical brand strategies (Procter &
Gamble and Unilever) have taken to incorporating corporate insignia into
advertising shown in Asia. This decision recognises the significance of
confidence in the maker to brand choice in those countries. Clearly, there is
some need for brand marketers to reconsider the way in which corporate
image impacts on brand value.
In some cases, the brand and the company are not distinct ± the corporate
brand has always dominated. But most fast-moving goods brands remain
product-only brands. Firms need to research whether including corporate
branding alongside product branding enhances the value of the brand by
generating additional positive associations. As with other aspects of brand
strategy, our primary concern is the strengthening of brand equity.
It is likely that the increased attention to corporate behaviour and business
issues will make corporate branding more relevant. However, the firm will
need to ensure that the direction of the message conforms to other strategies,
or else the inclusion of corporate references could result in negatives rather
than positives.

(A preÂcis of the article ``Using free association to examine the relationship

between the characteristics of brand associations and brand equity''.
Supplied by Marketing Consultants for MCB University Press.)

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 10 NO. 7 2001 451