ASSIGNMENT

Research
NAME:
MUHAMMAD USMAN
ROLL NO:
MCOF18M009
CLASS:
M.COM (Regular)
SMESTER:
2nd
TOPIC:
Research paper

PRESENTED TO:
Sir Shahzad Hassan
DEPT:
Noon Business School

UNIVERSITY OF SARGIDHA
 Topic
How to build Brand Equity and its impact on customer relationship management
performance

Yonggui Wang
Department of Marketing, Business School, Nanjing University , China
Jay A.Kandampully
The Ohio State University, USA
Hing-Po Lo
Department of Management Sciences, City University of Hong Kong , Hong Kong
Guicheng She
Macau University of Science and Technology, China

Introduction
This paper describe the role of Brand equity and Corporate reputation in
Customer relationship management in a large stock broking companies and a
Bank in Tianjin of China. It shows the direct or indirect relationship between
Brand equity, Corporate reputation and Customer relationship management
(CRM). It also describe the dual role of corporate reputation in proposed
relationship. It Shows the importance of intangibles such as Corporate reputation,
Brand equity and Customer relationship management. In recent years the
importance of these factors increase rapidly and Managers have recognized the
signifcance of these factors to attract and retain the customers.
Many scholars argue that brand equity corporate reputation should be viewed as
a strategic asset of a firm because brand names (such as Coke, Pepsi and Nike)
add value to a product or service through their effects may positive or negtive on
the purchasing and non-purchasing beheviors of customers. However, most of the
researches in this area has assumed that brand equity always leads to superior
Customer Relationship Management performance.
In fact, more and more firms operating in China nowadays recognize the
significance of corporate reputation, brand equity and CRM. Most of the Chinese
consumrs willing to keep a relationship with a supplier that is backd by solid
reputation.
The paper is organized as follows Introduction as we discussed above next is the
theoretical background, conceptual framework and developng of hypothises. The
following section descrbes the methodology of the study which is based on a
questionnaire survey of customers of two large stock broking companies and a
bank in China. Correlation analyses are conducted and next is conclusions or
Results.

Conceptual Framework

Brand Awareness

Precieved Quality

Brand Equity
Brand satisfaction

Brand loyalty
 Corporate

Reputation

Brand Equity CRM Performance

Explanation:
Antecedents of Brand Equity

1. Brand awareness
2. Precieved quality
3. Brand satisfaction
4. Brand loyalty

 Antecedents have direct relationship with Brand equity

 Brand awareness direct(positive or negative) relationship with Brand equity
 Brand equity influence CRM performance directly
 Brand equity can also effect corporate reputation
 Brand equity have direct or indirect impact on CRM performance
 Corporate reputation play moderating role in direct impact of brand equity on CRM
performance.

Hypotheses:

H 1: Brand equity has a positive effect on CRM performance.

H 2: Brand equity positively correlates with corporate reputation.

H 3: Corporate reputation positively influences CRM performance.

H 4: Corporate reputation moderates the relationship between brand equity and CRM
performance.

H5 a: Brand loyalty has a direct and positive effect on brand equity.

H5 b: Brand awareness / association has a direct effect (negative or positive) on brand equity.
H5 c: Perceived quality has a direct and positive effect on brand equity.
H5 d: Brand satisfaction has a direct and positive effect on brand equity.

METHODOLOGY
1. Sampling
Population:
Here the population for this research is the customers of large stock broking company and
a Bank in Tianjin. These customers must have at least one transaction with the selected
companies within past three months.
Sample Size:
To get sample size we select the 500 customers through sampling technique
Sampling Technique:
Stratified sampling was used, and a total of 500 customers were chosen randomly from the
firms ’ databases of active customers who have at least one transaction with selected
companies within past three months.
2. Data collection
 A mail survey is conducted to collect data
 A finalized copy of questionnaire was sent to each of these selected customers.
(who were promised small gifts in return for their valid responses).
 Likert-type of scale were used to assess the items The descriptors ranged from ‘
strongly disagree ’ (represented by ‘ 1 ’ ) to ‘ strongly agree ’ (represented by ‘ 7 ’
).
 After some days 291 questionaire had been returned ( consider it early response)
  Telephone calls were then made to those whose questionnaires had not been
returned. After Twenty days 113 questionnaires had been returned (termed as late
responses)
 After some days 404 questionaire were collected and 397 were consider as valid
and used for analysis.

3. Data Analysis:
For data analysis data entered in SPSS and there are at least two estimation techniques for
SEM. The first is maximum likelihood (ML) covariance structural analysis. The other is PLS
variance analysis. Although the PLS method is not as popular as the ML method it does provde
a way to avoid problms of improper solutions and factor indeterminacy as well as the violations
of distrbutional assumptions that can be associated with the ML method.

Conclusion
Table 1: Correlation Matrix and Square Root of AVE (Average Variance Extracted)

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 7
1. Brand equity 5.01 0.91 0.86
2. Brand awareness 4.69 0.78 0.53 0.88
3. Precieved quality 5.13 0.86 0.28 0.37 0.43 0.42 0.88
4. Brand loyalty 5.21 0.21 0.83 0.61 0.41 0.86 0.66
5. Corporate reputation 5.37 1.02 0.55 0.32 0.35 0.31 0.36 0.66
6. CRM performance 4.81 0.87 0.62 0.36 0.28 0.58 0.49 0.87 0.42

To estimate parameters in the main-effects model, a bootstrapping method of sampling with

replacement was used. Standard errors were computed on the basis of 500 bootstrapping runs
’ . The results (see Figure 2 ) indicated that the R sequar of CRM performance in the main-
effects model was 0.54.Hypothesis 1, hypothesis 2 and hypothesis 3 were all supported, with
the PLS graph path coeffi cients being, respectively, 0.34 ( t= 4.19); 0.26 ( t = 3.71) and 0.21 ( t
2.93). This implies that corporate reputation does mediate the effect of brand equity on CRM
performance. To investigate this further, another model (without the mediating role of
corporate reputation) was developed with the relationship between corporate reputation and
brand equity ignored (ie, with corporate reputation posited as an exogenous variable that infl
uences CRM performance directly, and with brand equity posited as infl uencing CRM
performance directly). Under this model, the R sequar of CRM performance decreased signifi
cantly to 0.48. Therefore, the authors are confi dent in asserting a mediating role of corporate
reputation between brand equity and CRM performance.
Hypotheses 5a, 5b and 5d were all supported and that, taken together, they can explain 67
percent of the variance of brand equity. The PLS graph path coeffi cients were, respectively,
0.41 (t=4.37); 0.25 ( t=2.83) and 0.18 ( t= 2.05). These are all statistically signifi cant, and they
imply that brand loyalty, brand awareness / association and brand satisfaction are the key
antecedents of brand equity.
However in this study we found that the precieved quality has no significant influence on
overall Brand equity. A possible explanation is that perceived quality plays little role in the
enhancement of brand equity because all investigated fi rms provide products and services of a
similar (if not the same) type and quality as their major competitors in China

After examining the direct effects, the authors began to test the moderating effect (hypothesis
4). In doing so, the moderating variable was then included and run the regression analyses. The
R sequar of CRM performance in the interaction model was about 0.61. The overall effect size
was found to be about 0.18.
The existence of a moderating effect of corporate reputation on the relationship between
brand equity and CRM performance was confi rmed, with a path coeffi cient of 0.20 ( t= 2.83).
Hypothesis 4 is thus strongly supported.
REFERENCES