Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/38112299
CITATIONS READS
23 15,035
1 author:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
"Marketing - from information to decision" (MID) International Conference - 11th Edition (26-27 Oct, 2018) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ovidiu Ioan Moisescu on 22 October 2015.
Abstract:
Brand awareness, as one of the fundamental dimensions of brand equity, is
often considered to be a prerequisite of consumers’ buying decision, as it
represents the main factor for including a brand in the consideration set.
Brand awareness can also influence consumers’ perceived risk assessment
and their confidence in the purchase decision, due to familiarity with the
brand and its characteristics. On the other hand, brand awareness can be
depicted into at least two facets – unaided (brand recall) and aided (brand
recognition) – each of the two facets having its more or less effective
influence on buying decision and perceived risk assessment. This paper tries
to reveal, on one hand, the importance of unaided brand awareness when it
comes to consumers’ buying decision and, on the other hand, the importance
of aided brand awareness when assessing the perceived risk associated with
the purchase. The analysis is conducted in a comparative manner,
considering the case of durable versus non-durable products, and with focus
on urban Romanian consumers.
Keywords: brand aided and unaided awareness, brand choice, perceived risk
104
conducted in order to generate a model The data collection had to be
capable to explain the combined and conceived in such a way so that
synergic influence of brand dimensions consumers could reveal their attitudes
on consumer behavior. regarding the analyzed product
Within this paper, the specific categories and corresponding brands,
objectives of the research were to as easily and correctly as possible.
reveal, on one hand, the importance of Therefore, the particular product
unaided brand awareness when it categories chosen for the research
comes to consumers’ buying decision consisted in tooth-paste, as being
and, on the other hand, the importance representative for non-durables, and
of aided brand awareness when television sets as being representative
assessing the perceived risk associated for durables, selected this way because
with the purchase, in a comparative they are different in usage duration, not
manner (the case of durable versus too technical and have a large rate of
non-durable products) and with focus on penetration into households usage
urban Romanian consumers. (thus, most of the respondents were
In order to meet the research able to express their attitudes towards
specific objectives, several particular those products).
indicators were used to measure brand In order to collect the needed data,
recall, brand choice share and the a questionnaire based survey was
perceived risk associated with the conducted among a representative
purchase of an unknown brand. sample of the investigated population.
Furthermore, the influence of The indicators designed in order to
brand unaided awareness level on reflect the necessary information for the
brand choice share and of brand aided study were computed as it follows:
awareness level on perceived risk • each respondent had to mention
assessment were statistically tested and the first three brands of tooth-paste and
analyzed, considering two particular television sets that came to his/her
product categories from durables and mind, finally unaided awareness of
non-durables market types, and taking each brand being reflected by the
into consideration several consumer percentage of respondents that recalled
demographic characteristics like age, that brand;
income level, education level and • each respondent had to mention
gender. the most recent purchased brand in
The needed information in order to each of the two selected product
study the above mentioned issues categories, each brand choice share
basically consisted in: being finally reflected by the percentage
• the consumers’ ability to retrieve of respondents that mentioned that
the brand when given the product brand as being the most recent
category (unaided brand awareness for purchased one;
each durable and non-durable brand), • each respondent had to evaluate
• the most recent purchased brand his/her perceived risk associated to
in each product category (brand choice buying a brand with no aided
share for each durable and non-durable awareness (when it came to buying a
brand), brand he/she had never heard of
• the perceived risk associated to before), both in the case of tooth-paste
buying a brand with no aided brand and television sets; the data collection
awareness (also considering each instrument was designed using a
product category) symmetric scale with six answering
• demographic characteristics (age, options from 1="Strongly disagree" to
income, education and gender). 6=“Strongly agree” (so that neutral
responses be avoided and either
105
positive or negative attitudes be answers. The interview operators
revealed) associated to the statement “I identified as trying to mislead the
consider buying a brand I have never research through providing non-valid
heard of before as being very risky”; questionnaires were fully verified.
finally, perceived risk assessment for At the end of the data collection
each brand was reflected through the process, from the total of 595 assumed
statistical mean of all answers completed interviews, only 551 were
considering that brand. validated, therefore, the research
The investigated population was having, considering a statistical
limited to the urban consumers of Cluj- confidence level of 95%, an estimation
Napoca, one of the largest cities of error of ±4,2%
Romania, although the intention of the ( e = 1,96 ⋅ 0,5 ⋅ 0,5 551 ),.
research was to analyze the urban
Romanian consumers as a whole.
Nevertheless, the research could Results
still be considered, with certain Analyzing the general situation,
limitations, as being representative for without considering specific product
the entire urban Romanian population categories or brands, according to the
as Cluj-Napoca is the second largest collected data, almost a third (29,67%)
higher education center of Romania of the investigated consumers associate
and, excepting the capital of the country a very high level of risk to buying a
(Bucharest), the second largest city of brand with no aided brand awareness,
Romania, representing almost 3% of the while the cumulative percent of those
Romanian urban population. who are more likely to confirm the fact
The questionnaire based that they consider buying a brand they
interviews were conducted “face-to- have never heard of as being very risky
face”, at the household’s residence of is nearly 60% (the consumers that
the respondents, by a group of 119 chose 4, 5 or 6 on the answering scale
students, each student completing a set represented 58,35% of the investigated
of five interviews. sample).
The sampling method used for the This finding is compatible with the
survey consisted in a mixture of general assumption that most of the
classical probabilistic and non- consumers would prefer buying brands
probabilistic methods. Firstly, the that are familiar to them, brands which
population was geographically clustered they have heard of (aided brand
considering the 474 postal areas of awareness).
Cluj-Napoca. Afterwards, 119 clusters Furthermore, the perceived risk
were extracted through systematic associated to buying a brand with no
random sampling. The 119 clusters aided awareness (an unknown brand)
(postal areas) were assigned to the 119 was measured using the previously
interview operators (one cluster to each described six option scale, taking into
operator), and each operator had to consideration potential significant
complete five questionnaire based differences between product categories
interviews on the basis of an itinerary – durables versus non-durables (Figure
sampling method (5 consumers from 1).
different households, located into five In order to identify any statistically
consecutive buildings from the assigned significant differences between durables
cluster – postal area). The data and non-durables in the perceived risk,
collected was afterwards verified and both parametric Student (T) and non-
validated by contacting (via phone parametric Mann-Whitney (Z) tests were
and/or email) a random sample of run considering the following
respondents in order to confirm his/her hypothesis:
106
H1: The perceived risk associated awareness varies between durables
to buying a brand with no aided and non-durables.
The tests’ results (T=–2,633 with starting from the following statistical
p=0,009; Z=–2,712 with p=0,007) hypothesis:
confirmed the hypothesis with a H1: The perceived risk associated
confidence level of 99% and, therefore, to buying a brand with no aided
the perceived risk associated to buying awareness varies among age /
a brand with no aided awareness could education / income / gender categories.
be considered significantly higher in the According to the tests’ results (see
case of durables (Mean=4,07) than in Table 1), the hypothesis was rejected
the case of non-durables (Mean=3,79). with a confidence level of 95% and,
Furthermore, using the same tests therefore, it was statistically proven that
as before and the parametric Anova (F) the perceived risk associated to buying
and non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis (H) a brand with no aided awareness could
tests, potential significant differences in
be considered similarly high, no matter
the perceived risk among demographic the age, education, income or gender of
market segments were investigated, consumers.
Table 1
Perceived risk associated to buying a brand with no aided awareness in
relation to consumers’ demographics
Non-durables Durables
F=1,490 (p=0,204>0,05) F=0,195 (p=0,941>0,05)
Age
H=5,213 (p=0,266>0,05) H=0,521 (p=0,971>0,05)
F=1,080 (p=0,370>0,05) F=0,723 (p=0,606>0,05)
Education
H=5,090 (p=0,405>0,05) H=2,708 (p=0,745>0,05)
F=1,713 (p=0,146>0,05) F=1,086 (p=0,363>0,05)
Income
H=7,082 (p=0,132>0,05) H=4,830 (p=0,305>0,05)
T=-0,596 (p=0,551>0,05) T=-0,530 (p=0,596>0,05)
Gender
Z=-0,601 (p=0,548>0,05) Z=-0,351 (p=0,726>0,05)
107
In order to investigate the order to test the relation, the null
importance of unaided brand awareness hypothesis of “no relation” was rejected
in consumers’ buying decision, bivariate depending on the value of the statistical
regression models were tested (linear indicator p, with a statistical confidence
Y=a+b·X, logarithmic Y=a+b·ln(X) and level of 95% if p<0,05, or with a
exponential Y=a·eb·X) with the statistical confidence level of 99% if
independent variable (predictor) p<0,01), then the intensity of the
represented by unaided awareness, and relation was evaluated, according to the
the dependent (predicted) variable tested model (considering the bivariate
represented by choice share: correlation coefficient R and the
H1: Brand choice share is determination coefficient R2, indicating
positively correlated with brand unaided the proportion of the dependent
awareness, both in the case of durables variable’s variation explained by the
and non-durables. predictor’s variation), and, finally, the
In order to analyze the above regression coefficients were determined
described relation and to select the according to the tested model, along
most appropriate model to explain the with an appropriate mathematical
relation, the existence of a relation function to reflect the relation (Figure 2).
between variables was firstly tested (in
REFERENCES
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand
Name, The Free Press, New York.
Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York.
Aaker, D.A. (1996), “Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets”,
California Management Review, 38(3).
109
Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality”, Journal of Marketing
Research, 34(3).
Farquhar, P.H. (1989), “Managing Brand Equity”, Journal of Marketing Research, 1.
Farquhar, P.H. (2000), “Brand Waves: Building Momentum Throughout the
Ownership Cycle”, Journal of Marketing Management, 9(3).
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based
Brand Equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.57 (1).
Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and
Managing Brand Equity, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Keller, K.L. (2001), “Building Customer-Based Brand Equity”, Journal of Marketing
Management, 11(3).
Keller, K.L. (2003), “Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge”,
Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1).
Laurent, G., Kapferer, J.-N., Roussel, F. (1995) “The Underlying Structure of Brand
Awareness Scores”, Marketing Science, 14(3).
Mitchell, V-W. (1992), "Understanding Consumers’ Behaviour: Can Perceived Risk
Theory Help?", Journal of Management Decision, 30(3).
110
View publication stats