See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/299372604

An Exploratory Analysis of Marketing Elements and Brand Equity in the

UAE FMCG Category

Article  in  Jindal Journal of Business Research · March 2016

DOI: 10.1177/2278682115593436

CITATION READS

1 3,749

3 authors:

Mohammad Shariq Bilal Mustafa Khan

ICFAI Business School (IBS) Gurgaon Aligarh Muslim University
4 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    40 PUBLICATIONS   185 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Aftab Haider Rizvi

Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Dubai UAE
14 PUBLICATIONS   60 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Thesis View project

Brand Equity View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bilal Mustafa Khan on 23 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article

An Exploratory Analysis of Marketing Jindal Journal of Business Research

3(1&2) 1–16
Elements and Brand Equity © 2014 O.P. Jindal Global University
SAGE Publications
in the UAE FMCG Category sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2278682115593436
http://jjbr.sagepub.com

Mohammad Shariq1
Bilal Mustafa Khan2
Aftab Haider Rizvi3

Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this research is to explore the relationship between the marketing elements,
brand equity (BE) dimensions and BE construct in the UAE fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG)
category with a view to strengthening the understanding of the relationship as postulated by Aaker
(1991) and validate the scales developed to test the constructs in previous studies.

Design/methodology/approach: Aaker (1991) proposed that the BE construct is built on brand

awareness, brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand associations, and other proprietary brand assets,
which in turn are built by managing the elements of marketing. A priori, it is postulated that there
are 10 constructs of which five are marketing elements (price, distribution intensity, advertising, price
promotions, and non-price promotions) and four BE dimensions (brand awareness, brand loyalty,
perceived quality, and brand associations) and a final construct—overall brand equity. Thirty-three
items were carefully selected from previous studies covering all the constructs. Data were collected
from 536 respondents using major brands to stimulate answers on a 5-point Likert scale question-
naire. Exploratory factor analysis was done to identify factors and rename them to be descriptive
of the factor. Scale reliability was conducted on the overall items and the individual factors and also
for the individual summated scales as per the factors.

Findings: The 33 items were factored into seven factors with the four marketing elements’ factors
(price, distribution, advertising, and promotions price and non-price factored into one) as per the a
priori assumptions. Items measuring BE and its dimensions were factored into three factors instead of
the theoretical five constructs. The BE factor encompasses the BE dimensions with brand awareness

1
  Associate Professor, Sinhgad Institute of Business Administration and Research (SIBAR), Kondhwa, Pune, India.
2
  Associate Professor, Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Management Studies and Research, Aligarh Muslim
University, Aligarh, India.
3
  Associate Professor, Department of Management Studies, Manipal University–Dubai Campus, Dubai International Academic
City, Dubai, UAE.

Corresponding author:
Mohammad Shariq, Associate Professor, Sinhgad Institute of Business Administration and Research (SIBAR), Kondhwa, Pune,
Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: mohammad_shariq@hotmail.com

Downloaded from brj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on April 11, 2016

2 Jindal Journal of Business Research 3(1&2)

with brand association (BABA) and brand image coming up as separate factors. Seven of the eight
factors also showed strong scale reliability.

Practical implications: This study suggests that the four marketing elements can be modeled and
measured based on the items selected. BE dimensions do not factor into the assumed dimensions but
the three dimensions that are factored can be renamed to be more representative and incorporated
into the model. Furthermore, these items can be used to construct measurement scales for the
identified constructs within the UAE and the larger Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region.

Originality/value: This study, being the first of its kind in the UAE, contributes to the general body
of knowledge on branding and marketing. The respondents covered are both Arabs and Asians, who
constitute the majority of the population in the region. The sample size is large and covers gender, age
groups, ethnic background, income group, and education level hence being highly representative of the
actual consumers. The constructs identified and the items tested can be used for further studies and
also used to construct measurement scales which can be used in practical business situations.

Keywords
Brand equity, brand equity dimensions, marketing mix elements, FMCG, UAE, factor analysis

Introduction
Brand equity (BE) is a key concept in brand management. Its definition and management is a subject of
various books, articles, and research. Its importance stems from it being an asset having value. Strong
brands imply that the consumers value the brand more than the other brands in the category and hence
are willing to buy more and pay more for them (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993). Being an asset, it is impor-
tant to understand the drivers of BE so that it can be built with more value. The valuation of a brand can
be done in financial terms and from the consumer perspective. The consumer-based BE (CBBE) is
reflected in the financial BE. The stronger the CBBE, the higher will be the financial value of the brand
(Kapferer, 2004; Keller, 1993). CBBE is a multidimensional concept comprising various constructs—
prominent among them being brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand awareness, and brand association
(BABA) (Aaker, 1991), brand awareness and brand image (Keller, 1993), brand awareness, reputation,
perceived brand personality, perceived brand values, reflected customer imagery, and brand preference
or attachment (Kapferer, 2004). The BE dimensions in turn are functions of marketing mix—product,
price, promotions, and placement. BE models have been conceptualized by leading brand thinkers,
prominent among them are Aaker (1991), Keller (1993), and Kapferer (1994). Conceptual models have
to be operationalized so as to have practical use. Yoo, Donthu & Lee (2000) first operationalized the
model followed by verification studies in other cultures and categories with varying results.
Fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) are defined as low value and high consumption product
category. It has been at the forefront of brand building. The category encompasses beverages, confec-
tionaries, cigarettes, shampoos, soaps, etc. Big brands built within the FMCG are Coke, Pepsi, Mars,
Cadbury, Marlboro, Dove, etc. These brands are key assets providing the company with continuing
growth and profits.
Brand equity is considered as an outcome of the marketing activities. The marketing activities are
mediated through BE dimensions. Various dimensions have been conceptualized by different brand
thinkers and some of them have been operationalized and studied from a quantitative perspective.

Downloaded from brj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on April 11, 2016

Shariq et al. 3

The purpose of this research is

• To test Aaker’s BE model (1991) for the underlying BE dimensions of loyalty, awareness, per-
ceived quality, and associations;
• The generazability of the scales developed in previous studies as applied in the current context.

The article will follow the steps given below:

• A literature review covering BE models, BE dimensions, and marketing elements—theory and

previous studies;
• Identifying key constructs and testing them in the UAE FMCG environment using items deve-
loped in previous studies using exploratory factor analysis and testing the model using structural
equation modeling; and
• Summarizing the findings, limitations, and recommendations for future research.

Brand Equity
At a fundamental level, marketers manage the four Ps—product, price, promotion, and placement—to
build their brands. The outcome of good brand building is a strong brand—which means high levels
of consumer repurchase at above average prices resulting in a strong and profitable cash flow for the
brand owner. BE is a comprehensive construct which subsumes the associations built by the brand with
the stakeholders resulting in higher sales and greater margins than it could without the brand name
(Leuthesser, 1988).
Brand equity can be deconstructed into a set of brand assets which are also referred to as the BE
dimensions (Aaker, 1991) or brand assets (Kapferer, 2004). These BE dimensions/assets are the medi-
ating constructs between the marketing activities and the overall brand equity as an outcome variable
(Yoo et al., 2000).
Brand equity has been defined as “added value with which a given brand endows a product” (Farquhar,
1989), associations, and behaviors on the part of a brand’s customers, channel members, and parent
corporation that permits the brand to earn greater volume or greater margins than it could without the
brand name (Leuthesser, 1988). Aaker (1991) defines BE as a set of assets, such as, name awareness,
loyal customers, perceived quality, and associations, that are linked to the brand (its name and symbol)
and add (or subtract) value to the product or service being offered. Furthermore, Aaker (1996b) proposed
10 BE measures for the four BE dimensions. In addition to the four BE dimensions, he proposed price
premium, satisfaction, leadership, brand personality, organizational associations, market share, and price
and distribution indices. Furthermore, Aaker (1996a) argued that BE is supported by the associations that
the consumers make with the brand which are in turn driven by the brand identity; thus, a key to building
strong brands is to develop and implement a brand identity. Keller (1993) conceptualized BE from the
perspective of the consumer calling it CBBE and defining it as “the differential effect of brand know-
ledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand.” He proposed “Brand Awareness” and “Brand
Image” as the two dimensions which impact BE. Further on, Keller (2001) proposed a CBBE pyramid
which had six components—salience, imagery, performance, judgments, feelings, and resonance—
referred to as “brand building blocks” with significant equity resulting only if brands reach the top of the
pyramid. Kapferer (2004) to clarify BE separates it into brand assets, brand strength, and brand value
where brand assets are learnt mental associations and affects, brand strength is a measure of the present

Downloaded from brj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on April 11, 2016

4 Jindal Journal of Business Research 3(1&2)

Table 1. Summary of Brand Equity Models Proposed by Aaker, Keller, and Kapferer

Comparison of the Brand Equity Approaches

Aaker Keller Kapferer
Brand Equity Dimensions (Assets) Brand Knowledge Brand Assets
• Brand Loyalty • Brand Awareness • Brand Awareness
• Brand Awareness • Brand Image • Brand Reputation
• Perceived Quality • Perceived Brand Personality
Brand Identity
• Brand Associations • Perceived Brand Values
• Other Proprietary brand assets • Salience/Awareness • Reflected Customer Imagery
• Brand Preference or attachment
Brand Identity System Brand Meaning
• Patents and rights
• Brand as a Product • Performance
Brand Strength
• Brand as Organization • Imagery
• Brand as Person • Market share
Brand Reponses
• Brand as Symbol • Market leadership
• Judgments • Market penetration
• Feelings • Share of requirements
Brand Relationships • Growth rate
• Loyalty rate
• Resonance • Price premium
• Percentage of products the trade cannot delist
Brand Value
• Net discounted cash flow attributable to the
brand after paying the cost of capital invested
to produce and run the business an the cost
of marketing
Source: Aaker (1991, 1996a), Keller (2003), and Kapferer (2004).

status of the brand—mostly behavioral (market share, leadership, loyalty, price premium), and brand
value is profit potential of the brand assets, mediated by brand market strength.
The following table (Table 1) summarizes the key takeaway from the three conceptual models as
proposed by Aaker, Keller, and Kapferer.

Marketing Elements and Brand Equity Dimensions

Marketing Elements
The American Marketing Association (AMA) defines marketing as “the process of planning and execut-
ing the conception, pricing, promotion, and distribution of ideas, goods, and services to create exchanges
that satisfy individual and organizational objectives.”
“Marketing facilitates the exchange process and the development of relationships by carefully
examining the needs and wants of consumers, developing a product or service that satisfies these needs,
offering it at certain price, making it available through a particular place or channel of distribution,
and developing a program of promotion or communication to create awareness and interest. These four

Downloaded from brj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on April 11, 2016

Shariq et al. 5

Table 2. Elements of Marketing Mix

Marketing Mix
Product Price Promotion Place
•   roduct variety
P •  L ist price •  S ales promotion •   hannels
C
•  Quality •  Discounts •  Advertising •  Coverage
•  Design •  Allowances •  Sales force •  Assortments
•  Features •  Payment period •  Public relations •  Locations
•  Brand Name •  Credit terms •  Direct marketing •  Inventory
•  Packaging •  Transport
•  Sizes
•  Services
•  Warranties
•  Returns
Source: Adapted from Kotler et al. (2009).

Ps—product, price, place (distribution), and promotions—are elements of the marketing mix. The basis
task of marketing is combining these four elements into a marketing program to facilitate the potential
for exchange with consumers’ in the marketplace” (Belch & Belch, 2003). McCarthy first classified
marketing activities as marketing-mix tools, into four broad kinds, product, price, promotion, and place
and called them the four Ps of marketing. The marketer’s task is to devise marketing activities and
assemble fully integrated marketing programs to create, communicate, and deliver value for consumers
(Kotler, Keller, Koshy, & Mithileshwar, 2009). Integration marketing is about mixing and matching
marketing activities to maximize their individual and collective effects. To achieve it, marketers need a
variety of different marketing activities that reinforce the brand promise (Kotler et al., 2009). Marketing-
mix variables are the drivers of BE (Herrmann et al., 2007).
The particular marketing variables under each P are shown in the Table 2.

Brand Equity Dimensions

After an extensive literature survey, 12 key BE dimensions have been identified. They are listed below—
the listing is based on the number of referenced work found in the literature survey done.

 1. Quality
 2. Associations
 3. Loyalty
 4. Awareness
 5. Image
 6. Personality
 7. Attitude
 8. Trust
 9. Satisfaction
10. Esteem
11. Attachment
12. Reputation

Downloaded from brj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on April 11, 2016

6 Jindal Journal of Business Research 3(1&2)

Parsimony requires measurers of BE to use the fewest necessary constructs. In other words, if BE
can be measured at all, then most of it should be explained by an n-dimensional vector where n is a small
number. Marketers, and their market research budgets, would be helped by n being as small as possible.
How many constructs do we need? (Ambler, 1997).
As a starting point, Aaker’s BE model was considered and scales used to measure the constructs were
taken from previous studies.
Aaker’s BE model proposes four dimensions. These are:

1. Brand loyalty
2. Brand awareness
3. Perceived quality
4. Brand associations

Brand Loyalty
Brand loyalty is a measure of the attachment that a customer has to a brand (Aaker, 1991). It reflects how
likely a customer will be to switch to another brand, especially when that brand makes a change, either
in price or in product features. It is often the core of a brand’s equity because if customers are indifferent
to the brand and, in fact, buy keeping in mind features, price, and convenience, with little concern to the
brand name, there is likely little equity. As brand loyalty increases, the vulnerability of the customer base
to competitive action is reduced.
It is one indicator of BE which is demonstrably linked to future profits, since brand loyalty directly
translates into future sales. Brand loyalty comes from use experience but could be influenced by the
other major dimensions of BE—awareness, associations, and perceived quality. However, it is not always
explained by these three factors. In many instances, it occurs quite independent of them and, in others,
the nature of relationship is unclear (Aaker, 1991).
For any business, it is expensive to gain a new customer and relatively inexpensive to keep the exist-
ing ones, especially when the existing customers are satisfied with—or even like—the brand. In many
markets, there is substantial inertia among customers even if there are very few switching costs and low
customer commitment to the existing brand. Thus, an installed customer base has the customer acquisi-
tion investment largely in its past. Further, at least some existing customer provides brand exposure and
reassurance to new customers. The loyalty of customer base reduces the vulnerability to competitive
action. Competitors may be discouraged from spending resources to attract satisfied customers. Further,
higher loyalty means greater trade leverage, since customers expect the brand to be always available
(Aaker, 1991).

Brand Awareness
Brand awareness is the ability of a potential buyer to recognize or recall that a brand is a member of a
certain product category. A link between product class and brand is involved. Brand awareness involves
a continuum ranging from an uncertain feeling that the brand is recognized to a belief that it is only in
the product class. This continuum can be represented by three very different levels of brand awareness.
The role of brand awareness in BE will depend upon the context and upon what level of awareness is
achieved (Aaker, 1991).

Downloaded from brj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on April 11, 2016

Shariq et al. 7

Brand awareness is related to the strength of the brand node or trace in memory, as reflected by con-
sumers’ ability to identify the brand under different conditions. In particular, brand name awareness
relates to the likelihood that a brand name will come to mind and the ease with which it does so. Brand
awareness consists of brand recognition and brand recall performance. Brand recognition relates to con-
sumers’ ability to confirm prior exposure to the brand when given the brand as a cue. In other words,
brand recognition requires that consumers correctly discriminate the brand as having been seen or heard
previously. Brand recall relates to consumers’ ability to retrieve the brand when given the product cate-
gory, the needs fulfilled by the category, or some other type of probe as a cue. In other words, brand
recall requires that consumers correctly generate the brand from memory. The relative importance of
brand recall and recognition depends on the extent to which consumers make decisions in the store
(where they potentially may be exposed to the brand) versus outside the store, among other factors.
Brand recognition may be more important to the extent that product decisions are made in the store
(Keller, 1993).
The equity of a brand is partly measured in terms of the awareness it evokes. The role of brand aware-
ness in BE depends on the level of awareness that is achieved. The higher the level of awareness, the
more dominant is the brand, which will increase the probability of the brand being considered in many
purchase situations. Therefore, raising the level of awareness increases the likelihood that the brand will
be in the consideration set which will influence consumers’ decision making (Nedungadi, 1990). Past
researches have shown that brand awareness is a dominant choice tactic among consumers (e.g., Cobb-
Walgren, Ruble, & Donthu, 1995; D’Souza & Rao, 1995; Reynolds, Gengler & Howard, 1995). If the
awareness of brands is high among consumers, it means the brand is familiar and reputable. Studies
show that consumers who recognize a brand name are more likely to buy that brand because familiar
products are normally preferred to those that are less familiar (Hoyer & Brown, 1990; Macdonald &
Sharp, 2000).

Perceived Quality
Aaker (1991) defines quality as “consumer’s perception of the overall quality or superiority of a product
or service with respect to its intended purpose, relative to alternatives.”
Quality from a consumer’s perspective is referred to as “perceived quality.” Quality, in the customer’s
context, is not technical but perceptions about the products, tangible and intangible, that the consumer
observes. Perceived quality can be defined as the customer’s perception of the overall quality or superi-
ority of a product or service with respect to its intended purpose, relative to alternatives. Perceived qual-
ity is, first, a perception by customers. It thus differs from several related concepts, such as, actual or
objective quality, product-based quality, and manufacturing quality. Perceived quality is an intangible,
overall feeling about a brand. However, it usually will be based on underlying dimensions which include
characteristics of the products to which the brand is attached, such as, reliability and performance. To
understand perceived quality, the identification and measurement of the underlying dimensions will be
useful, but the perceived quality itself is a summary, a global construct (Aaker, 1991). Perceived quality
has been shown to be associated with price premiums, price elasticities, brand usage, and, remarkably,
stock return. Further, it is highly associated with other key BE measures, including specific functional
benefit variables. Thus, perceived quality provides a surrogate variable for other more specific elements
of BE (Aaker, 1996b).

Downloaded from brj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on April 11, 2016

8 Jindal Journal of Business Research 3(1&2)

Figure 1. Basic Brand Equity Formation Model

Source: Yoo et al. (2000).

Brand Associations
A brand association is anything “linked” in memory to a brand. The association not only exists but also
has a level of strength. A link to a brand will be stronger when it is based on many experiences or expo-
sures to communications, rather than a few. It will also be stronger when it is supported by a network of
other links. It is formed as a result of the consumer’s brand belief, which can be created by the marketer,
formed by the consumer himself through direct experience with the product, and/or formed by the con-
sumer through inferences based on existing associations. Product attributes, intangibles, customer ben-
efits, use/application, user/customer, celebrity/person, lifestyle/personality, product class, competitors,
and country/geographic area are the various associations (Aaker, 1991).

Conceptual Framework
A basic BE creation model can be illustrated diagrammatically as shown in Figure 1.
The management of these marketing elements results in the formation of BE which is mediated
through BE dimensions. Aaker (1991) proposed that BE is composed of five constructs—brand loyalty,
brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations, and other proprietary brand assets. Keller (1993)
proposes that CBBE occurs when the consumer is familiar with the brand and holds some favorable,
strong, and unique brand associations in memory encapsulated in two constructs—brand awareness and
brand image. Kapferer (2004) connects the consumer and financial approaches by using three constructs
in a linear relationship—brand assets (these are sources of influence of the brand (awareness/saliency,
image, etc.) which show up in brand strength which is the BE outcome and is captured by behavioral
competitive indicators: market share, market leadership, loyalty rates, and price premium which are then
reflected in brand value which is the ability of the brands to delivers profits. Yoo et al. (2000) and Yoo &
Donthu (2002) operationalized Aaker’s model where a scale of items were tested and validated for the
various constructs.
Thirty-three items were selected from Yoo et al. (2000) study representing the five marketing ele-
ments, four BE dimensions and one overall BE measure.

Selection of Constructs and Measurement Items

Five marketing elements—price, distribution, non-price promotion, price promotions, and advertising—
were selected from the marketing elements available to manage. The BE constructs were taken from
Aaker’s model—brand awareness, brand loyalty, brand associations, perceived quality and overall BE.
A total of 33 measurement items were selected to measure these constructs. The scales used were

Downloaded from brj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on April 11, 2016

Shariq et al. 9

initially developed by Yoo et al. (2000) and Yoo & Donthu (2001), (and subsequently used in as is or
adapted by Rajh (2005), Atilgan, Aksoy, and Akinci (2005), Pappu, Quester, and Cooksey (2005), Yasin,
Noor & Mohammed (2007), Buil, de Chernatomy, and Eva (2008), and Tong and Hawley (2009).

Questionnaire and Data Collection

A questionnaire was designed for data collection. A 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly
agree) was used. For data stimulation, 15 food and beverages brands were selected to stimulate data
collection. The brands were number 1 or 2 in their categories. As the target segment covered all age
and ethnic groups, the brands were selected in a manner to appeal to them. The questionnaire had three
parts—selection of the brand, questions, and personal data collection. The respondents were asked to first
select a brand and with that brand in mind, answer the questions on a 5-point Likert scale. The data col-
lection followed a convenience sampling method following a sampling table designed on a quota basis.
The questionnaire was first developed in English. It was translated in Arabic by a market research
professional and tested with two native Arabic-speaking marketing managers. The English questionnaire
was translated back to Arabic and checked for robustness. Data from Asians were collected in English
and from the local Emiratis and expat Arabs, data were collected using the Arabic questionnaire.

Respondents Profile
The profile of the respondents is shown in Table 3. A total of 596 valid questionnaires were used for data
analysis. The study collected data on gender, ethnicity, education, age, monthly household income, and

Table 3. Description of the Respondents

Item Description Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 283 47%
Female 313 53%
Ethnicity Arabs 251 42%
Asians 328 55%
Others 17 3%
Education Secondary (Completed School) 124 21%
Graduate (Bachelor’s degree) 369 62%
Master (Post graduate) and above 103 17%
Age 18 to 24 years 127 21%
25 to 35 years 220 37%
36 to 45 years 191 32%
46 to 55 years 55 9%
56 to 65 years 3 1%
(Table 3 continued)

Downloaded from brj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on April 11, 2016

10 Jindal Journal of Business Research 3(1&2)

(Table 3 continued)

Item Description Frequency Percentage

Monthly HH Income Less than AED 10,000 78 13%
AED 10,001 to 15,000 94 16%
AED 15,001 to 20,000 131 22%
AED 20,001 to 30,000 115 19%
AED 30,000 and above 89 15%
Do not desire to share 89 15%
Marital Status Single 241 40%
Married 355 60%
n = 596
Source: Authors’ own.

marital status. The gender split was 47 percent males and 53 percent females. In ethnicity, 42 percent
were Arabs and 55 percent were Asians—which is representative of the demographics in UAE. There is
fair representation across education, age, monthly household income, and marital status.

Exploratory Factor Analysis and Scale Reliability

Factor analysis is a general name denoting a class of procedures primarily used for data reduction and
summarization (Malhotra, 2007). Hair et al. (2006) defines factor analysis as an interdependence tech-
nique whose primary purpose is to define the underlying structure among the variables in the analysis.
Factor analysis provides the tools for analyzing the structure of the interrelationships (correlations)
among a large number of variables by defining sets of variables that are highly intercorrelated known
as factors.
An exploratory factor analysis was conducted using SPSS 18. Factor analysis of the 33 items pro-
duced seven factors—four marketing elements and three BE. The four marketing elements’ factors
showed up as high price, distribution intensity, promotions (with all three items of price promotion
being negative), and advertising. Items measuring the BE constructs produced three factors. One is the
BE measure, second BABA and a third factor renamed brand image. Two items were dropped, as their
presence in the factor did not follow theoretical considerations (Table 6).
The extraction method used was principal component analysis and the rotation method used was
varimax.
Table 4 shows the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy. The value is 0.878 which is
good given that the minimum acceptable value is 0.6. This implies that the data set is good for factor
analysis.
Hair et al. (2006) recommends a minimum of 0.60 of Cronbach’s alpha in exploratory research.
Scale reliability was done using SPSS. Cronbach’s alpha for the full scale is 0.727, well above the
minimum of 0.60. The individual factors were also tested for reliability as summated scales and had
scale reliability above the recommended minimum of 0.6 except for brand image. The promotions

Downloaded from brj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on April 11, 2016

Shariq et al. 11

Table 4. KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .880

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 6112.159
df 435
Sig. .000
Source: Authors’ own.

Table 5. Scale Reliability – Cronbach’s Alpha

No Factor Items Cronbach’s Alpha

1 Price  3 0.68
2 Advertising  3 0.72
3 Distribution Intensity  3 0.62
4 Price Promotions  3 0.85
5 Non-Price Promotions  3 0.86
6 BABA  4 0.65
7 Brand Image  3 0.58
8 Brand Equity  8 0.81
9 Full Scale 30 0.73
Source: Authors’ own.

factors were separated into two—price promotions and non-price promotions—as price promotions
are negative in value. Also, theoretically price promotions are assumed to contribute negatively to BE.
The values are summarized in Table 5.
Brand image at 0.58 was considered for the study as this is an exploratory study and also the items
to measure this construct are only three.

Proposed Model
Based on the findings of the exploratory factor analysis, the following model is proposed (Figure 2).
The marketing elements impact the mediating variables of brand awareness with brand association
and brand image which in turn impact BE. Marketing elements also would have a direct relation
with BE. BE would be reflected in high brand value as a financial output and would also be reflected
in higher market share, price premium, year-over-year (yoy) growth, and percentage of products that
the trade cannot delist (Kapferer, 2004).
The above model was tested for fit indices using Lisrel 8.8. The findings are summarized in Table 7.
The model shows acceptable fit indices. The root mean square residual (RMR) does not show a good
fit which could be due to low Cronbach’s alpha value, difference in the perception of selected brands,
or due to possible difference in the meaning of the questionnaire in different languages.

Downloaded from brj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on April 11, 2016

 Table 6. Exploratory Factor Analysis

Rotated Component Matrix

Component
Var. Brand Brand
No. Code Item Promotions Strength BABA Distribution Advertising Price Image
 1 V1 PP1 There are too many price offers/discounts on this brand –0.828
 2 V2 PP2 There are frequent price discounts on this brand –0.824
 3 V3 NPP1 Non-price promotions like premium or prize draws for 0.806
are frequently offered on this brand.
 4 V4 NPP2 Prizes such as trips, raffles, scratch cards and free gifts 0.796
are frequently offered on this brand
 5 V5 NPP3 Many times non-price promotions like premium or 0.795
prize draw for this brand are presented
 6 V6 PP3 Price offers/discounts are frequently offered on –0.791
this brand
 7 V7 BE1 If there is another brand as good as this brand, I prefer 0.758
to buy this brand
 8 V8 BE2 If I had to choose among brands - I would choose this 0.712
brand
 9 V9 BE3 I would buy this brand rather than any other brand even 0.700
if they are the same
10 V10 BE4 I consider myself to be loyal to this brand 0.651

Downloaded from brj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on April 11, 2016

11 V11 BE5 Even if another brand has same features as this brand, 0.647
I would prefer to buy this brand.
12 V12 BE6 If there is another brand as good as this, I prefer to buy 0.561
the new brand.
13 V13 BE7 The products of this brand are of consistent quality 0.538
14 V14 BE8 This brand has a unique brand image compared to other 0.324
brands
15 V15 AD1 The ad campaigns for this brand are seen frequently 0.729
 Rotated Component Matrix
Component
Var. Brand Brand
No. Code Item Promotions Strength BABA Distribution Advertising Price Image
16 V16 AD2 This brand is advertised a lot 0.729
17 V17 AD3 I like the advertisements for this brand 0.697
18 V18 PR1 The price of this brand is high. 0.795
19 V19 PR2 This brand is expensive 0.762
20 V20 PR3 The price of this brand is low. R 0.741
21 V21 BABA1 This brand would be my first choice when considering 0.357 0.663
this product category
22 V22 BABA2 This brand if of high quality 0.655 0.309
23 V23 BABA4 I can quickly quickly recall the symbol or logo of this 0.549
brand
24 V24 BABA3 When I think of this product category, this brand is 0.306 0.537
among the first brand that comes to my mind
25 V25 DI2 This brand is available in more stores than competing 0.706
brands
26 V26 DI1 This brand is distributed through as many stores as 0.688

Downloaded from brj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on April 11, 2016

possible
27 V27 DI3 This brand is available in most of the retail outlets 0.685
28 V28 BI3 This brand has a personality 0.683
29 V29 BI1 This brand offers very good quality products 0.322 0.680
30 V30 BI2 I am aware of this brand 0.652
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 7 iterations.
Source: Authors’ own.
14 Jindal Journal of Business Research 3(1&2)

Figure 2. A Conceptual Framework of Creating Brand Equity

Source: Authors’ own.

Discussion

Findings
The purpose of this research is to explore empirically marketing elements and BE dimensions in the
UAE FMCG category using Aaker’s model as a starting point. Whereas the marketing elements’ meas-
ures were robust, the scales did not measure the BE dimensions as proposed by Aaker.
The factorization of the BE items did not meet the a priori assumptions but an eight-item scale to
measure BE comes up. Also, the scale is multidimensional and measures the various components of BE
as proposed by Aaker. This scale can be used to measure BE in the region among all segments of the
consumer. As a next step, the findings can be compared for the various brands and respondent segments

Table 7. Goodness-of-fit Statistics of the Measurement Model

Fit Measure Reco. Values Values from the Model Comment

Normal Theory Weighted Least Squares Chi-Square 916.80
df 377
Chi-square(X )/df
2
#  3.00 2.43 Fit
Goodness of Fit (GFI) $  0.9 0.91 Fit
Adjusted Goodness of Fit (AGFI) $  0.80 0.89 Fit
Normed Fit Index (NFI) $  0.90 0.93 Fit

Downloaded from brj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on April 11, 2016

Shariq et al. 15

Fit Measure Reco. Values Values from the Model Comment

Comparative Fit Index (CFI) $  0.90 0.96 Fit
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) #  0.10 0.049 Fit
Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) $  0.09 0.044 Not Fit
Source: Authors’ own.

to see if there are differences and to explain them. Also, further research can be done to segregate the BE
dimensions into separate constructs.
The marketing-mix elements are distinct and these scales can also be used to construct a marketing-
mix evaluation scale which can be used in the real-world context to test the brand and identify its
strengths and weaknesses vis-à-vis the marketing mix so that appropriate action can be taken by the
marketing team. As a next step, the relation between the marketing-mix elements and the overall BE
construct can be evaluated using structural equation modeling.
Two BE dimension constructs that came in as factors were brand awareness with brand association
and brand image. BABA did not show up as two distinct constructs but as a combination. A takeaway is
that marketers should build brand awareness with strong associations. Hence, defining the brand—what
it means, what it stands for should be articulated clearly as a brand platform so that the appropriate asso-
ciations can be built which are conveyed through the awareness programs.
The proposed model then has the five marketing elements, two BE dimensions and overall BE.
A linear relationship is proposed between the three parts. Also, there would be a relationship between
the marketing-mix elements and BE. The model showed acceptable model fit indices.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

This study is limited because it focused only on category and considered the dimensions as postulated by
Aaker. Also, a limited number of marketing elements were considered for this study. Consequently, it can
be extended to studying more dimensions, categories, and marketing elements.
The current data can be further analyzed for subsets of ethnic groups and brands for differences and
commonalities and explanations drafted for the same.

References
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York, NY: The Free Press.
——— (1996a). Building strong brands. New York, NY: The Free Press.
——— (1996b). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Review, 38(3),
102–120.
Ambler, T. (1997). How much of brand equity is explained by trust. Management Decision, 35(4), 283–292.
Atilgan, E., Aksoy, S., & Akinci, S. (2005). Determinants of the brand equity: A verification approach in the beverage
industry in Turkey. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23(2/3), 237.
Belch, G.E., & Belch, M.A. (2003). Advertising and Promotion (6th ed.). New Delhi, India: Tata McGraw-Hill.
Buil, I., de Chernatomy, L., & Eva, M. (2008). A cross-national validation of the consumer-based brand equity
scale. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17(6), 384–392.
Cobb-Walgren, C., Ruble, C. A., & Donthu, N. (1995). Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase intent. Journal
of Advertising, 24(3), 25–40.

Downloaded from brj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on April 11, 2016

 16 Jindal Journal of Business Research 3(1&2)

D’Souza, G., & Rao, R.C. (1995). Can Repeating an Advertisement More Frequently Than the Competition Affect
Brand Preference in a Mature Market? Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 32–42.
Farquhar, P. H. (1989). Managing brand equity. Marketing Research, 1(3), September, 24–33, 10.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. New Delhi,
India: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Shao Alan, T., & Bao, Y. (2007). Building Brand Equity via Product Quality. Total Quality
Management, 18(5), 531–544.
Hoyer, W.D., & Brown, S.P. (1990). Effects of Brand Awareness on Choice for a Common, Repeat-Purchase Product.
Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 41–48.
Kapferer, J.-N. (2004). The new strategic brand management. New Delhi: Kogan Page.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing,
57(1), January, 1–22.
——— (2001). Building customer-based brand equity. Marketing Management, July/August, 15–19.
——— (2003). Strategic brand management (2nd ed.). India: Pearson.
Kotler, P., Keller, K., Koshy, A., & Mithileshwar, J. (2009). Marketing management—A South Asian perspective.
Delhi: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Leuthesser, Lance. (1988) Defining, measuring and managing brand equity: A conference summary. Report No.
88–104. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Macdonald, E.K., & Sharp, B.M. (2000). Brand Awareness Effects on Consumer Decision Making for a Common,
Repeat Purchase Product: A Replication. Journal of Business Research, 48(1), 5–15.
Malhotra, N.K. (2007). Marketing Research – An Applied Orientation (5th ed.). New Delhi, India: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Nedungadi, P. (1990). Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice without Altering Brand
Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 263–276.
Pappu, R., Quester, P., & Cooksey, R. W. (2005). Consumer-based brand equity: Improving the measurement—
empirical evidence. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(3), 143–154.
Rajh, E. (2005). The effects of marketing mix elements on brand equity. Economic Trends and Economic Policy,
102, 30–59.
Reynolds, T.J., Gengler, C.E., & Howard, D.J. (1995). A means-end analysis of brand persuasion through advertis-
ing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(3), 257–266.
Tong, X., & Hawley, J. M. (2009). Measuring customer-based brand equity: Empirical evidence from the sportswear
market in China. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 18(4), 262–271.
Yasin, N.M., Noor, M.N., & Mohamad, O. (2007). Does image of country-of-origin matter to brand equity? Journal
of Product & Brand Management,16(1), 38–48.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale.
Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1–14.
——— (2002). Testing cross-cultural invariance of the brand equity creation process. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 11(6), 380–398.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 195–211.

Downloaded from brj.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on April 11, 2016

View publication stats