The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2050-7003.htm

An empirical study of the dynamic Core and

supporting
relationships between the core and brand equity
dimensions
supporting brand equity
dimensions in higher education
Tulay Girard Received 23 April 2020
Revised 7 July 2020
Pennsylvania State University - Altoona, Pennsylvania, USA, and 11 July 2020
Musa Pinar Accepted 13 July 2020

Valparaiso University, Valparaiso, Indiana, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to use a holistic approach to empirically examine the direct and indirect
relationships of both core and supporting consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) dimensions from students’
perspectives and the underlying impact they have on building a robust university brand equity. It also tests
whether student perceptions of the importance of the brand equity constructs significantly differ based on
demographics.
Design/methodology/approach – The study adopts the core and supporting university brand equity
dimensions that have been tested for reliability and validity in prior research. Data were collected at a major
university in the USA. The study used judgment sampling to carefully select a targeted sample of various
colleges and class levels. A total of 439 useable surveys were collected.
Findings – The results of partial least squares–structural equation modeling reveal significant relationships
between both core and supporting brand equity dimensions. The core brand equity dimensions include brand
awareness, perceived quality, brand association, brand trust, learning environment, emotional environment,
university reputation and brand loyalty. The supporting brand equity dimensions include library services,
dining services, residence hall and physical facilities. Significant direct and/or indirect relationships were found
between the core and supporting CBBE dimensions. The demographic variables of gender, semester standing
and living arrangement also influence the importance of some of the core and supporting dimensions.
Practical implications – The results suggest that females, freshman and students living on-campus require
specific attention in higher education. For a better representation and understanding of the university student
population, we recommend that future studies use probability sampling and multiple universities for cross-
validation.
Originality/value – Using the brand ecosystem framework, this is the first comprehensive study testing the
relationships between both core and supporting CBBE dimensions in higher education. The study offers
valuable insights to university stakeholders for building a strong university brand. It also confirms that the
measures of the CBBE brand equity dimensions are valid and are applicable to other higher education
institutions.
Keywords University brand equity, Higher education, Branding university, Brand ecosystem
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
For centuries, brands have served as effective carriers of functional and symbolic information
about goods, services and experiences, allowing customers to efficiently associate personal
meaning to a company’s products (Oh et al., 2020). Recently, the concept of brand equity has
received vast attention because of the growing nature of competition in domestic and
international markets. Brand equity is a key intangible asset (Ambler et al., 2002) that arises
from past brand-building activities. Yoo et al. (2000) stated that understanding the
dimensions of brand equity and investing in its growth elevate competitive barriers and drive
Journal of Applied Research in
Higher Education
We are very grateful to the four reviewers for providing us with their valuable comments to improve our © Emerald Publishing Limited
2050-7003
paper. DOI 10.1108/JARHE-04-2020-0097
JARHE brand wealth. Because the concept of brand equity is the foundation of any branding
strategy, it has become the main focus of branding studies (Rosenbaum-Elliott et al., 2011).
Aaker (1991, p. 15) defined brand equity as “a set of assets and liabilities linked to a brand,
its name, and symbol, which adds or subtracts from the value provided by a product or
service to a firm and/or that firm’s customers.” Keller (1993, p. 8), who coined the term
consumer-based brand equity (CBBE), defined brand equity based on cognitive psychology
as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the
brand.” Oh et al. (2020) state that while there are several definitions of brand equity, the
common theme across the definition is that brand equity translates brand identification into
added value for the brand. A brand with strong equity is easily recognized and recalled, and
importantly, creates a distinction strong enough to generate favorable responses toward the
brand (Keller, 2013). The consensus is that the value of a brand ultimately resides in the minds
of consumers. Consequently, what consumers perceive as the value may differ from what the
brand owner intends to offer (Md Noor et al., 2019). While the brand equity literature has
identified various CBBE dimensions, the four dimensions of CBBE, brand associations, brand
awareness, perceived quality and brand loyalty, proposed by Aaker (1991) have served as the
foundation of the brand equity research.
CBBE focuses on consumers and represents positive business outcomes
(Chatzipanagiotou et al, 2016). Brand equity is generally accepted as a critical success
factor to differentiate companies and service providers from their competitors (Farjam and
Hongyi, 2015). Various service organizations, including universities, are developing
branding strategies to build stronger brands. Concerning the higher education institutions
(HEIs), branding of universities as a recent marketing tool aims to attract, engage and
retain students and position universities (Wilson and Elliot, 2016; Sultan and Wong, 2014).
A university brand reflects the university’s ability to fulfill students’ needs and creates
trust in its capacity to deliver the promised services (Nguyen et al. 2016). Empirical studies
indicate that, if successful, branding in higher education could improve university services
and attract and retain students (Watkins and Gonzenbach, 2013; Sultan and Wong, 2012,
2014). Even though there are some concerns about the marketization of education (Furedi,
2011; Newman and Jahdi, 2009), research suggests that more universities are following
corporate marketing strategies as means of ensuring their competitiveness and
sustainability (Bennett and Ali-Choudhury, 2009; Chapleo, 2015; Iqbal et al., 2012; Joseph
et al., 2012; Sultan and Wong, 2014). Respectively, university administrators have been
gradually realizing that relying only on external marketing and branding efforts are not
sufficient approaches for building strong university brands and brand equity (Pinar et al.,
2014). Universities as service organizations depend on their unique service properties to
differentiate themselves from the competition.
In recent years, various topics related to university branding and brand equity have
been addressed by different studies. These topics include: the effect of brand attachment
and its antecedents on commitment, satisfaction, trust and brand equity of HEIs (Dennis
et al., 2016); the multi-dimensionality aspect of the brand equity model in the higher
education market with two diverse country samples from the USA and Egypt (Mourad
et al., 2020); the impact of student satisfaction and perceived university image on student
continuous patronage of their universities (Ali and Ahmed, 2018); the university brand
through the perception of employees and faculty (Pringle and Naidoo, 2016); and the
influence of brand awareness and brand image on brand equity (Switała
et al., 2020). Some
of the studies covered other antecedents of brand equity including brand identity (Palmer
et al., 2016), brand meaning (Dean et al., 2016; Wilson and Elliot, 2016), brand image (Yuan
et al., 2016; Rauschnabel et al., 2016) and brand reputation (Plewa et al., 2016). However,
while these studies provide insights into understanding of the specific areas of university
branding, they do not capture the holistic effects of the core and supporting brand equity
dimensions suggested by Ng and Forbes (2009) and the direct and indirect relationships Core and
and interactions between the dimensions presented in the brand ecosystem (Pinar et al., supporting
2011). Comprehensive studies that have examined university branding holistically are still
insufficient (Black, 2008; Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana, 2007; Ng and Forbes, 2009;
brand equity
Whisman, 2009). Limited number of studies tried to understand university CBBE from the dimensions
perspective of students (Pinar et al., 2011; Khoshtaria et al., 2020; Tran et al., 2020) and
developed comprehensive measurement scales that included the core and supporting
dimensions (Pinar et al., 2014), as advocated by Ng and Forbes (2009).
Understanding the complexity of the university experience and the challenge of
differentiation, Ng and Forbes (2009) advanced a model to capture student university
experience that identified core and supporting academic value-creation dimensions. They
state that the core academic value-creation dimensions can only function with the supporting
value-creation dimensions. The core and supporting value-creating dimensions characterize
the brand ecosystem model proposed by Pinar et al. (2011) to build university brand and
brand equity. Although Pinar et al. (2014) developed and validated a measurement scale for
the core and supporting brand equity dimensions, and their scale has been utilized by recent
studies (Khoshtaria et al., 2020; Pinar et al., 2020), they did not examine the direct and indirect
relationships of both core and supporting CBBE dimensions concurrently. The study by
Pinar et al. (2020) included only the core brand equity dimensions but not the supporting
value-creation dimensions. To fill this void in the university branding literature, this study
uses a holistic approach to empirically examine the direct and indirect relationships of both of
the core and supporting CBBE dimensions from students’ perspectives. The findings from a
comprehensive CBBE model would be beneficial for university administrators in creating a
strong university brand and brand equity.
The brand ecosystem framework by Pinar et al. (2011) presents the core and supporting
brand equity dimensions that Ng and Forbes (2009) proposed to capture the student learning
experience in developing university brand and brand equity. Moreover, given the challenges
for differentiation of branding services organizations (Berry, 2000; Bitner, 1995; Zeithaml
et al., 1990, 2013) and the complex and dynamic relationships between the brand equity
dimensions (Chatzipanagiotou et al., 2016; Henderson et al., 1998), understanding and
capturing the relationships and interactions between the core and supporting CBBE
dimensions is essential for developing a holistic branding strategy for universities. This is
consistent with the notion that universities as complex systems of various sub-brands
(Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana, 2007) require complex endeavor of brand management
that considers several dimensions and employs a holistic perspective.
In this regard, this study makes critical contributions to branding and the university
brand equity literature. Utilizing the brand ecosystem framework suggested by Pinar et al.
(2011) and a multi-item measurement scale that was tested for validity and reliability for
each of the core and supporting dimensions of CBBE by Pinar et al. (2014), for the first time,
this study examines the direct and indirect complex influences between both of the core and
supporting brand equity dimensions incorporated in to a model for creating a strong
university brand and brand equity in higher education. The results of this study also
confirm the collective significance of the interactions of the core and supporting dimensions
in the brand ecosystem structure suggested in the literature (Ng and Forbes, 2009; Pinar
et al., 2011, 2014). This is consistent with the assertion by Chatzipanagiotou et al. (2016) that
most extant literature focuses on brand equity as a construct but fails to recognize the
complexity of understanding the CBBE in a brand ecosystem framework. Therefore, the
results of this study provide a holistic perspective for understanding the direct and indirect
relationships between the core and supporting brand equity dimensions, which will be
useful for developing strategies to create a strong university brand in the global higher
education arena.
JARHE 2. Literature review
2.1 Consumer-based brand equity
Beginning in the 1980s, the concept of brand equity started to receive noticeable attention.
Keller (2013) explained the concept as the value of a brand perceived by consumers that
affects how they respond to a brand over time. Keller (2013) further describes that CBBE
happens when consumers have high awareness of and familiarity with the brand and have
strong, favorable and unique associations for the brand. This supports the notions that CBBE
is based on the idea that the strength of a brand lies in the minds of consumers (Keller, 2013;
Leone et al., 2006). The brand equity generates a type of added value for products that help
with companies’ long-term interests and capabilities (Chen, 2008). Prior research (Aaker,
1996; Keller, 1993, 2013) explains that strong brands maintain consumer knowledge and
loyalty, in return, sustainable profitable customer relationships. Therefore, the strength of
brand equity has been considered as a key performance indicator (KPI) and a sign of
competitive advantage (Christodoulides et al., 2015; Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995). It also results
in long-term revenues, the ability of firms to command higher prices and the effectiveness of
marketing communications (Keller, 2013). The CBBE approach is the dominant perspective
and most preferred in marketing research because, as Cobb-Walgren et al. (1995) emphasize, if
a brand has no meaning or value to the consumer, it is ultimately meaningless to investors,
manufacturers or retailers. The brand equity literature indicates that there is a consensus that
brand equity is a complex and multidimensional construct that involves several dimensions
to measure the value attributed by the consumer to the brand (Aaker, 1991; Atilgan et al.,
2005; Keller, 1993; Pappu et al., 2005; Yoo and Donthu, 2001).
Although Aaker (1991) initially conceptualized brand equity as a multi-dimensional
concept, he did not operationalize a scale to measure brand equity. Several researchers have
developed and tested measures of CBBE dimensions (Christodoulides et al., 2006, 2015). The
dimensions of CBBE used by researchers include, but not limited to, brand awareness (Lasser
et al., 1995; Aaker, 1996; Kim and Kim, 2004; Kim et al., 2003; Netemeyer et al., 2004; Buil et al.,
2008; Tong and Hawley, 2009; Washburn and Plank, 2002), perceived quality (Aaker, 1991,
1996; Buil et al., 2008; Kim and Kim, 2004; Kim et al., 2003; Pappu et al., 2005, 2006; Yoo et al.,
2000; Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Tong and Hawley, 2009) brand association (Im et al., 2012; Keller,
1993; Netemeyer et al., 2004; Pappu et al., 2005; Yoo and Donthu, 2001), brand loyalty (Kim and
Kim, 2004; Yoo et al., 2000; Yoo and Donthu, 2001), overall brand equity as reputation (Buil
et al., 2008; Tong and Hawley, 2009), brand trust (Eakura and Mat, 2008; Christodoulides et al.,
2006; Elsharnouby, 2015; Liao and Wu, 2009; Perin et al., 2012; Sultan and Wong, 2019), brand
personality (Aaker, 1997), organizational association (Aaker, 1996; Buil et al., 2008). Several
studies have also included other dimensions such as the physical environment of the product
or service being offered (Ali-Choudhury et al., 2009; Pinar et al., 2014; Rajh and Dosen, 2009),
physical characteristics of the product (Sheng and Teo, 2012) and the country of origin
(Pappu et al., 2006; Yasin et al., 2007).
Concerning the four brand equity dimensions originally conceptualized by Aaker (1991),
brand awareness is defined as “the ability of a potential buyer to recognize or recall that a
brand is a member of a certain product category” (Aaker, 1991, p. 61). Brand associations refer
to “anything linked in memory to a brand” (Aaker, 1991, p. 109). According to Keller (1993),
brand associations are informational nodes that are linked to the brand node in the memory
that includes brand knowledge as the combination of brand awareness and image. Perceived
quality is “the consumer’s judgment about a product’s overall excellence or superiority”
(Zeithaml, 1988, p. 3). Perceived quality can create value for the brand by influencing product
purchases (Kumar et al., 2009). Brand loyalty is “the attachment that a customer has to a
brand” (Aaker, 1991, p. 39). Once established, brand loyalty provides the opportunity to apply
price premiums, creates a barrier to entry for competitor firms, reduces marketing costs and
protects the brand from competitor actions (Reichheld, 1996).
2.2 Branding in higher education Core and
Recently, several studies have been conducted to address a variety of topics related to supporting
university branding and brand equity. A study by Kaushal and Ali (2019) found that
university reputation had both direct and indirect effects through satisfaction on student-
brand equity
loyalty behavior. Their study also revealed that students’ age, seniority and provision of dimensions
financial assistance in the form of scholarships were found to be affecting satisfaction–
loyalty relationships to various degrees. Mourad et al. (2020) empirically tested the multi-
dimensionality aspect of the BE model that included brand awareness and brand image using
samples from two diverse countries – the USA (a developed market) and Egypt (an emerging
market). Their results indicated that quality of education, social image and job market
success should be the main pillars of any strategic marketing plan in HEIs that are seeking to
maintain or improve their brand equity. Based on their findings, Mourad et al. (2020) point out
that determinants of the brand equity (BE) model reported in the literature may vary
depending on the HE industry maturity and the country and cultural contexts.
A study by Retamosa et al. (2020) examined disciplinary differences in brand equity
dimensions of service quality, loyalty, community, brand personality, shared values and
brand trust across three degrees (major areas) of business, nursing and engineering. Based on
the responses from university students at a multi-campus Spanish public university, they
found that students showed different levels of satisfaction and loyalty depending on the
degree course they were taking. Retamosa et al. (2020) suggested that a specific
communication strategy for each degree could be a more efficient way of increasing the
global perception of the university image. In a qualitative study, Saurombe et al. (2017)
identified six themes that should form the core of a higher educational brand for academic
staff. These themes included reputation and image, organizational culture and identity,
strategic vision, corporate social responsibility and work and surrounding environment.
Saurombe et al. (2017) indicated that their findings could assist higher education management
to create a compelling organizational brand and work environment to attract and retain
talented academic staff members. They also suggested that a more robust brand draws talent
into the institution and rallies greater resources.
A study by Sultan and Wong (2019) established a relationship between experience-centric
brand performance and brand image, and the antecedents and consequences of this
relationship. In addition, they found that student satisfaction and trust were demonstrated to
mediate the relationship between perceived service quality, brand performance, brand image
and behavioral intention in a higher education context. However, their study revealed no
moderating effects of gender or mode of study on the model, confirming that the model is
invariant across these variables. Sultan and Wong (2019) stated that their model emphasized
the importance of experience-centric service quality attributes and how they affected
university branding strategies for sustained positive intentions. Their results also
demonstrated that the relationship between perceived service quality and behavioral
intentions was mediated by student satisfaction, student trust, UniBrand performance and
UniBrand image.
Eldegwy et al. (2018) conducted a study to integrate branding and higher education
literature to conceptualize, develop and empirically examine a model of university social
augmenters’ brand equity. Based on a sample of undergraduate students enrolled in private
universities, they found that university social augmenters’ reputation, coach-to-student
interactions and student-to-student interactions influence students’ satisfaction with social
augmenters. Their results also suggested that students satisfied with university social
augmenters were more likely to exhibit outcomes of brand equity – namely, brand
identification, willingness to recommend and willingness to incur an additional premium cost.
Eldegwy et al. (2018) stated that university social augmenters were found to have strong
brand equity manifestations, which might hold the potential to differentiate university
JARHE brands in an industry dominated by experience and credence. Additionally, Palmer et al.
(2016, p. 2) pointed out that “higher education brands typically comprise complex bundles of
benefits, most notably academic and social benefits, such that the distinction between these
two brand dimensions may be complex, with some students seeing the primary benefit of
higher education as a process of socialization.”
Elsharnouby (2015) explored what constitutes students’ satisfaction with university
experience and examined the influence of overall satisfaction with the university experience
on students’ co-creation behavior – namely, participation behavior and citizenship behavior.
His results showed that perceived university reputation and perceived faculty competency
were the key influential dimensions in determining students’ satisfaction with university
experience. Elsharnouby (2015) stated that their findings also provided empirical support to
the direct role of student satisfaction for enabling student participation and citizenship
behavior. To understand the antecedents of student loyalty in the Brazilian context, a study
by Perin et al. (2012) found that students’ trust in their HEI had a positive impact on their
commitment and loyalty; students’ commitment to their HEI had a positive impact on
their loyalty; and students’ perception of service quality had a positive impact on their
commitment and trust. Their findings also suggested that student loyalty to the HEI was
indirectly influenced by perceived quality. Ushantha and Kumara (2016) conducted a study to
address the service quality of a higher education institute in Sri Lanka from the students’
perspective. Using the HEdPERF scale to measure the service quality perceptions of higher
education, they found that only access and nonacademic dimensions have significant
contributions to the service quality perceptions in higher education context.
To gain insights about the role of employees for creating brand meaning, Dean et al. (2016)
investigated the employees who co-create brand meaning at HEIs through their brand
experiences and social interactions with management, colleagues and customers. Their
findings showed the critical role of brand co-creation in guiding employees’ delivery of the
brand promise. Similarly, Dollinger et al. (2018) presented the conceptual model of value co-
creation in higher education using a lens of co-creation cultivated through business and
marketing literature. They defined value co-creation as the process of students’ feedback,
opinions and other resources such as their intellectual capabilities and personalities,
integrated alongside institutional resources, which they argue, could offer mutual value to
both students and institutions. Their conceptual model included the key components of value
co-creation, co-production and value-in-use as well as the links to the anticipated benefits of
value co-creation. Consistent with the co-creation perspectives, Saurombe et al. (2017)
indicated that academic staff members had a crucial role in the success of HEIs. They claimed
that it was imperative to cultivate an appealing organizational brand that would attract them
to HEIs as an employer of choice.
Focusing on university marketing directors’ perspectives for university brand
components, Ali-Choudhury et al. (2009) identified dimensions of a university’s educational
identity, the institution’s location, the employability of its graduates, its visual imagery and
its general “ambience,” reputation, sports and social facilities, learning environment, courses
offered and community links. These dimensions are in line with the core and supporting
university brand equity dimensions of other studies (Ng and Forbes, 2009; Pinar et al., 2011,
2014), as well as with the importance of experience-centric service quality attributes for
university branding strategies (Sultan and Wong, 2019). Furthermore, the results of a study
by Mirzaei et al. (2016) showed that students in healthy universities mainly associated
themselves with university-related experiences, while in unhealthy universities, students
associated themselves with the city and country-related experiences. Their findings indicated
that healthy universities (or strong brands) seemed to focus on students’ learning experiences
that are related to academic and support services, which were advocated in prior research (Ng
and Forbes, 2009; Pinar et al., 2011, 2014).
2.3 Measuring university brand equity Core and
While some of the earlier literature emphasized a narrow focus on marketing and brand supporting
management in higher education, several studies have focused on a broader perspective,
stressing the importance of interactions between people (faculty, students, staff, community)
brand equity
and processes in the marketing of services (Cowell, 1982; Ivy, 2008; Nicholls et al., 1995). dimensions
Emphasizing the complexity of the students’ university experience, Ng and Forbes (2009)
proposed a framework to explain university experience, especially the learning experience,
and the importance of physical evidence and service delivery processes that are co-created,
unstructured, emergent, uncertain and interactive. The co-creating nature of university
experience has also received more attention in recent literature (Dean et al., 2016).
Ng and Forbes (2009) stated that the students’ learning experience has become the key
element in core value-creation for university branding. Therefore, learning experience and
student emotions are crucial to be included as part of the core value creation of CBBE
dimensions. Furthermore, Pinar et al. (2011) suggested that the core value-creation
dimensions be the focus of the university brand ecosystem framework to build university
brands and brand equity where teaching and research comprise the core value-creation
activities that provide students with positive learning experiences. In a follow-up study, Pinar
et al. (2014) developed and validated a scale that measured university brand equity through
five core (brand awareness, perceived quality, university reputation, emotional environment
and brand loyalty) and four supporting (library services, student living, career development
and physical facilities) dimensions. They examined the level of importance of each dimension;
however, they neither tested the relationships between the dimensions of brand equity nor the
impact of the dimensions on creating a strong brand and brand equity.
Emphasizing the importance of trust in delivering an effective learning experience, Ng
and Forbes (2009) also noted that students did not always hold the same academic, personal,
vocational goals and social orientation regarding the university experience. In that respect,
Ballester and Aleman (2001) suggested that brand trust played a key role in generating
customers’ commitment. Moreover, Tsiotsou (2013) found a significant relationship between
fan trust and loyalty for sports team brands, which confirmed the importance of trust as a
construct in building and enduring brand equity. Black (2008) also explained the important
role of the faculty, staff and administrators as trust agents in delivery of universities’ brand
promises. He asserted that a university brand was typically associated with its academic
reputation, which should be considered as one of the key drivers of educational brand equity.
Additionally, as people become emotional, their feelings impact their decisions (Berry, 2000;
Shalom and Hino, 2016), marketers aim to create emotional bonds between customers and
brands.
Rosenbaum-Elliott et al. (2011) pointed out the importance of emotions in choosing brands
and evaluating and forming opinions about them. They indicated that emotion is a critical
part of the consumer evaluation of brands and in customer satisfaction (Yu and Dean, 2001;
Phillips and Baumgartner, 2002), judgment (Pham et al., 2001) and behavioral intentions
(Ladhari, 2007). In this regard, emphasizing the importance of emotions in branding, Berry
(2000) expressed that strong brands constantly made emotional connections with their
targeted customers. Emphasizing differences in brand emotions across generations, Gobe
(2001) suggested that marketers target different generations by differentiating their
emotional branding strategies.
A recent study by Pinar et al. (2020) tested only the direct and indirect relationships
between the core value-creation university CBBE dimensions of brand awareness, perceived
quality, emotional environment, university reputation, brand association, brand trust and
learning environment for a major Turkish university. As they proposed, their results of the
SmartPLS-SEM (Smart partial least squares–structural equation modeling) model found
significant direct and indirect relationships between the brand equity dimensions of brand
JARHE awareness, perceived quality, brand association, learning environment, emotional
environment, brand trust, brand loyalty and university reputation. The brand equity
dimensions individually and/or collectively influenced the students’ university learning
experiences. However, they suggested that, in addition to the core brand equity dimensions,
future studies should include supporting brand equity dimensions (Ng and Forbes, 2009;
Pinar et al., 2014) to have a holistic understanding of the direct and indirect significant
interactions of the university CBBE dimensions. Similarly, adapting the measurements for
core and supporting university CBBE dimensions (except for the emotional environment
dimension) from Pinar et al. (2014), Khoshtaria et al. (2020) conducted four focus groups to
examine significant influences of the core and supporting dimensions on university
reputation in Georgian (the country) higher education. Although Khoshtaria et al. (2020)
tested, verified and confirmed the high reliability of the measurements that they adopted
from Pinar et al. (2014), they did not assess the direct and indirect interactive effects of the core
and supporting CBBE dimensions on the overall brand equity.
The above extant branding literature and the CBBE research on higher education provide
some insights about the measures of CBBE for university branding. This study utilizes the
eight core and four supporting dimensions of CBBE for university branding and their
measurements developed by Pinar et al. (2014, 2020). The core dimensions are brand
awareness, brand association, perceived quality and brand loyalty that were proposed by
Aaker (1991, 1996). In addition, learning environment (Ng and Forbes, 2009; Pinar et al., 2011,
2014), emotional environment (Berry, 2000; Shalom and Hino, 2016; Rosenbaum-Elliott et al.,
2011; Ng and Forbes, 2009), brand trust (Black, 2008; Ng and Forbes, 2009; Ballester and
Aleman, 2001; Tsiotsou, 2013) and university reputation (Black, 2008; Pinar et al., 2011, 2014)
are included as the core value-creation brand equity dimensions that are critical for creating a
strong university brand and brand equity.
As indicated before, the core dimensions are value-creation activities that are related to
student learning experience (Pinar et al., 2011). Surrounding the core value-creation
activities are the supporting value-creation activities that are essential for proper
functioning of the core value-creation activities (Ng and Forbes, 2009), which include sports,
student life and community activities (Pinar et al., 2011). These supporting activities are in
line with those identified in a study by Ali-Choudhury et al. (2009). The supporting
dimensions as part of the university brand ecosystem (Pinar et al. 2011) may enhance or
hinder the students’ core service experience. Hence, along with the core brand equity
dimensions, the study also included the supporting activities of library services, dining
halls and services, dormitories/residence halls and physical facilities in measuring
university CBBE developed by Pinar et al. (2014). While the supporting activities may not
be sufficient for delivering a desired level of university experience, Ng and Forbes (2009)
argued that the core academic services could not be delivered effectively without the
accompanying supporting services. The core and supporting classifications of university
activities are consistent with the core and supporting associations of (educational) services
identified in other studies (Gr€onroos, 2007; Kimpakorn and Torquer, 2010). In fact,
Kimpakorn and Torquer (2010) stated that supporting activities help to differentiate and
add value to services.
The brand ecosystem framework is consistent with the framework proposed by
Chatzipanagiotou et al. (2016), which explains the complex nature of university CBBE,
where interrelationships between the core and supporting activities take place dynamically
in the brand equity creation process as associative networks (Henderson et al., 1998). In
today’s global competitive marketplace, HEIs, regardless of their size and/or origins, must
develop a deeper understanding of the effects of both core and supporting dimensions. The
core and supporting constructs are believed to be the most relevant for creating
university CBBE.
2.4 Study objectives and hypotheses Core and
To holistically understand university brand equity, this study examines the direct and supporting
indirect relationships between the core value-creation dimensions of brand awareness, brand
association, perceived quality, learning environment, emotional environment/brand
brand equity
emotions, brand trust, university reputation and brand loyalty (H1a). It also examines the dimensions
direct and indirect relationships between the supporting brand equity dimensions and the
core brand equity dimensions (H1b), and the direct relationships between the supporting
brand equity dimensions and brand loyalty (H1c). The supporting dimensions include library
services, residence halls, dining services and physical facilities from the perspective of
students. This study also examines whether the student perceptions of the core and
supporting brand equity dimensions significantly differ by gender, student living
arrangement and class standing (H2).
Figure 1 presents a conceptual framework for CBBE of university branding that includes
core and supporting brand equity dimensions and their proposed relationships between the
dimensions. The conceptualization presented in Figure 1 incorporates the core and
supporting dimensions suggested by Ng and Forbes (2009) and those presented in the
brand ecosystem framework by Pinar et al. (2011, 2020) to understand the direct and/or
indirect interactions between the CBBE dimensions that would lead to providing positive
student learning experience. The relationships presented in Figure 1 suggest that the
supporting brand equity dimensions could influence the brand loyalty directly, and also
indirectly through the core brand equity dimensions.
Related to the relationships of the brand equity dimensions, Bauer et al. (2008) suggested
that “Keller’s (1993, p. 221) brand association model should be extended to causalties between
the constructs.” Their assertion is consistent with the university brand ecosystem framework
proposed by Pinar et al. (2011). This assertion is also supported by the finding of a study by
Pinar et al. (2020) who, using SmartPLS–SEM, confirmed direct and indirect multi directional
relationships of the core brand equity dimensions for a Turkish university. In addition, the
results of a SmartPLS–SEM analysis by Girard et al. (2016) revealed the multi-directional
direct and indirect relationships between the CBBE dimensions of private label brands. Their
findings confirmed the assertion made by Bauer et al. (2008) of the causal relationships of the
brand equity constructs to holistically capture the complex, multi-directional relationships
between the CBBE dimensions. The results of a network analysis by Henderson et al. (2002)
identified brand associations as associative networks and assessing changes in brand
associations, indicating the multi directional relationships of the brand equity dimensions.
Based on the above literature review and conceptual framework in Figure 1, this study
investigated and tested the following hypotheses:

Figure 1.
Framework for
consumer-based brand
equity for university
branding
JARHE H1a. There will be significant and positive direct and indirect relationships between the
supporting brand equity dimensions and the core brand equity dimensions.
H1b. There will be significant and positive direct and indirect relationships between the
core value-creation university CBBE dimensions.
H1c. There will be significant and positive direct and indirect relationships between the
supporting brand equity dimensions and brand loyalty.
H2. Student perceptions of the core and supporting dimensions will significantly differ
by gender, living arrangement and class standing.

3. Methodology
3.1 Measurement scales and survey instrument
The survey instrument was adopted from Pinar et al. (2014) who developed, tested and
validated the CBBE measurements for higher education identifying the core and supporting
CBBE dimensions in the literature (Ng and Forbes, 2009; Pinar et al., 2011). The eight core
brand equity scale measures included are brand awareness, perceived quality, brand loyalty,
university reputation, emotional environment (Pinar et al., 2014, 2020), learning environment,
brand association and brand trust (Pinar et al., 2020). The supporting brand equity scale
measures included library services, student living (i.e. dining services, residence hall),
physical facilities (Pinar et al., 2014) and career development (Pinar et al., 2014). The scale
measures were pretested with 75 students (target population) to ensure that the scale items
are clear and convey the intended meaning. The pretests improved the survey questions and
established the face validity of the dimensions (Narver and Slater, 1990; Churchill and
Iacobucci, 2005). The final survey of this study included the eight core CBBE dimensions of
brand awareness (five items), perceived quality (six items), brand association (four items),
brand trust (four items), learning environment (five items), emotional environment (four
items), university reputation (seven items) and brand loyalty (five items). The supporting
dimensions included were library services (six items), dining services (six items), residence
hall (i.e. student life variables in Pinar et al., 2014) (five items) and physical facilities (five
items) (Figure 1, Table A1). A seven-point importance scale (1 5 very unimportant to
7 5 very important) was used to measure the scale items. The survey also included
demographics questions, including age, gender, class standing, college and residing on or off
campus.

3.2 Data collection

Data were collected at a university located in the Midwestern USA. Because students are the
focus of the marketing and branding strategies of universities, they are the direct receivers of
the educational services (Ng and Forbes, 2009; Pinar et al., 2011); thus, the target population
for recruitment (Ivy, 2008). In addition, when building a university brand, it is essential that
universities have a deep understanding of the key educational needs of students and their
perceptions of the value of core and supporting activities as part of their offerings. Because
students are the only reason for the existence of colleges and universities, they are the target
population for this study and the sampling frame. Because of privacy concerns, obtaining a
complete list of students at universities is difficult. Therefore, a judgment sampling approach
was used. Oppenheim (1992) states that although judgment sampling limits the
generalization of the research findings, it does provide useful information and a high
response rate because researchers select a sample that is interested in the research topic and
hence motivated to answer the questionnaire.
 Given the above concerns with sampling, and to achieve a representative sample to test Core and
the hypotheses, the judgment (i.e. purposive) sampling method aimed for 450 respondents supporting
that included freshmen, sophomore, junior- and senior-level students from 30 classes of
different sizes and various colleges comprising business, engineering, nursing and arts and
brand equity
sciences. The respondents were selected from a single university, which is consistent with dimensions
other university branding studies (DeShields et al., 2005; Helgesen and Nesset, 2007; Jillapalli
and Jillapalli, 2014; Sultan and Wong, 2012; Sung and Yang, 2008). Thirty classes were
selected with the purpose of having respondents (students) who were representative of each
class level. To ensure that the survey was completed as intended, three senior students were
recruited and trained to administer the surveys. Each student administrator read the
instructions on the survey, distributed them and collected the completed surveys. To
eliminate respondent overlap, students were instructed not to participate in the survey twice.
The senior students conducted the surveys in a professional manner and were compensated
for their efforts. A total of 439 surveys were completed properly, which allowed the findings
to have a 95% confidence level, with 4% margin of error.

3.3 Sample characteristics

The respondent profiles indicated that 53% were male and 47% were female. As intended, the
student class standing was equally dispersed. The student distribution by college indicates
that 28% were in business, 37% were in arts and sciences, 16% were in engineering, about
3% were in nursing and the rest of the respondents revealed either undecided or double
majors. About 66% resided on-campus, while 34% resided off-campus. The average age was
approximately 21 years old.

4. Analyses and results

4.1 Measurement model
The interdependent direct and/or indirect interactions between the core and supporting
activities were examined as part of the brand ecosystem framework in creating a desired
university experience for students (Ng and Forbes, 2009: Pinar and Trapp, 2008; Pinar et al.
2011). To test the relationships between the CBBE dimensions, both reflective measurement
and structural path models were evaluated using PLS–SEM in SmartPLS 3. Assessment of
the PLS reflective measurement model (Figure 2) revealed and confirmed the proposed eight
core value-creation dimensions, which included brand awareness, perceived quality, brand
associations, brand trust, learning environment, emotional environment, university
reputation and brand loyalty. The model also revealed and confirmed four supporting
value-creation constructs, which included residence hall, dining services, library services and
physical facilities. Appendix presents the brand equity dimensions and items included in the
analysis.
The Fornell and Larcker (1981) procedure was followed to test the discriminant and
convergent validity of the measurement model. The item loadings of each factor exceeded the
recommended minimum level of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2010). The construct Cronbach’s alphas were
above 0.80, and composite reliability values were between 0.88 and 0.96. Both values
exceeded the recommended minimum level of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2010), displaying the internal
reliability and convergent validity of the items in all 12 CBBE dimensions (Table 1). The
square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) in Table 1 for each construct was above
the inter-construct correlations, which proves discriminant validity between all constructs.
Furthermore, the authors examined the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations to
assess whether the constructs were measured discriminately (i.e. perfectly reliable with no
error), and the HTMT values ranged between 0.41 and 0.82, scoring below the conservative
threshold value of 0.85, which confirms empirically distinct constructs (Henseler et al., 2015).
JARHE

Figure 2.
Path coefficients of the
core and supporting
university CBBE
constructs
 AVE CR R2 CA BA BAW BL BT DS EE LE LS PQ PF RS UR

Brand association 0.64 0.88 0.55 0.81 0.80þ

Brand awareness 0.60 0.88 0.32 0.83 0.49 0.77
Brand loyalty 0.71 0.93 0.53 0.90 0.54 0.53 0.84
Brand trust 0.74 0.92 0.68 0.88 0.56 0.43 0.64 0.86
Dining services 0.74 0.94 0.48 0.93 0.54 0.38 0.42 0.58 0.86
Emotional environment 0.82 0.95 0.63 0.92 0.51 0.40 0.54 0.67 0.65 0.90
Learning environment 0.74 0.93 0.46 0.91 0.58 0.52 0.66 0.74 0.51 0.66 0.86
Library services 0.76 0.95 —* 0.94 0.50 0.42 0.43 0.59 0.70 0.62 0.52 0.87
Perceived quality 0.82 0.96 0.55 0.96 0.50 0.45 0.52 0.71 0.57 0.59 0.68 0.50 0.91
Physical facilities 0.58 0.88 0.53 0.82 0.71 0.49 0.51 0.64 0.67 0.61 0.66 0.64 0.64 0.76
Residence hall 0.69 0.92 0.54 0.89 0.53 0.39 0.43 0.45 0.73 0.64 0.38 0.58 0.43 0.62 0.83
University reputation 0.71 0.94 0.61 0.93 0.61 0.53 0.61 0.65 0.52 0.59 0.73 0.45 0.60 0.65 0.46 0.84
Note(s): *Exogenous construct; AVE: average variance extracted; CR: composite reliability; CA: Cronbach’s alpha
þ Square root of AVE for the construct (diagonal in bold). Below diagonal are the inter-construct (latent variable) correlations
supporting
dimensions
Core and
brand equity

measures for
Reliability and
construct validity
Table 1.

university branding
equity dimensions
JARHE The R2 (correlation of multiple determination) values of the endogenous variables ranged
from 0.32 (brand awareness) to 0.68 (brand trust), indicating high predictive accuracy of the
constructs (Hair et al., 2014). The bootstrapping with no sign change option revealed 31
significant inner model path coefficients at the p < 0.01 level and three significant path
coefficients at p < 0.05 (Table 1).

4.2 Path model and hypothesis testing

A bootstrapping procedure assessed the significance level of the relationships in the path
model. The PLS algorithm converged in six iterations. Figure 2 confirms the model in Figure 1
with regard to the positive signs and the role of the supporting dimensions in supporting the
core value-creation dimensions in building brand loyalty (H1a). The results in Figure 2
suggest that the significance of the relationships between the core and supporting
dimensions are interdependent and dynamic, meaning that the variances explained in the
dependent variable (brand loyalty) stem from how important the students perceived them at
the time when the data were collected at their university. The significant and positive direct
and indirect relationships between the supporting and core value-creation constructs provide
support for H1a. Significant and positive direct and indirect relationships were also found
between the core value-creation constructs and brand loyalty as the dependent endogenous
construct, which provides support for H1b. Although none of the supporting constructs
showed direct relationships with brand loyalty, as presented in Figure 2, they had indirect
relationships with brand loyalty through the core value-creation dimensions, providing
partial support for H1c. This finding supports the premise that supporting dimensions alone
are not adequate to build brand loyalty, but their dynamic interactions with the core value-
creation dimensions interdependently build loyalty and in turn a strong university brand
equity. These findings provide empirical support for the conceptualization of the core and
supporting value-creation dimensions by Ng and Forbes (2009) and the brand ecosystem
framework by Pinar et al. (2011) in efforts to build a strong university brand.
The highest significant path coefficients were found between the supporting dimensions
(library services, dining services, residence hall and physical facilities) of CBBE (Figure 2,
Table 2). Library services had the highest predictive power on dining services (β 5 0.70,
t 5 18.4, p < 0.01). This implies students who value library services also value dining services.
Similarly, dining services had the second highest predictive power on the importance of
residence hall (β 5 0.63, t 5 15.9, p < 0.01), indicating that students who think the dining
experience is important also value the residence hall experience (taken together, student life).
Physical facilities had the third highest predictive power on the importance of the learning
environment, a core factor (β 5 0.56, t 5 6.8, p < 0.01). Learning environment (β 5 0.56, t 5 8.2,
p < 0.01), physical facilities (β 5 0.17, t 5 3.5, p < 0.01), brand associations (β 5 0.15, t 5 3.3,
p < 0.01) and brand awareness (β 5 0.13, t 5 3.5, p < 0.01), all had a significant positive
relationship with university reputation. Library services had a significant relationship with
residence hall (β 5 0.14, t 5 2.9, p < 0.01) and learning environment (β 5 0.16, t 5 2.4, p < 0.01).
This implies that students who placed importance on physical facilities also placed
importance on the learning environment.
The importance of physical facilities (β 5 0.44, t 5 5.7, p < 0.01), residence hall (β 5 0.15,
t 5 2.4, p < 0.01), learning environment (β 5 0.17, t 5 2.9, p < 0.01) and brand awareness
(β 5 0.13, t 5 3.1, p < 0.01) had a significant relationship with the importance of brand
associations. Learning environment (β 5 0.43, t 5 7.0, p < 0.01), dining services (β 5 0.22,
t 5 3.5, p < 0.01) and physical facilities (β 5 0.21, t 5 3.5, p < 0.01) had a significant
relationship with perceived quality. Learning environment (β 5 0.42, t 5 7.3, p < 0.01),
residence hall (β 5 0.37, t 5 6.5, p < 0.01) and library services (β 5 0.19, t 5 4.0, p < 0.01) had a
significant relationship with emotional environment. Learning environment (β 5 0.37, t 5 6.2,
 Mean SD PQ LE BT EE UR BL BA BAW PF DS RH
Core and
supporting
Perceived 6.35 0.98 1 brand equity
quality
Learning 6.18 0.99 0.43 1 dimensions
environment
Brand trust 6.12 1.05 0.29 0.28 1
Emotional 6.11 1.04 0.42 0.15 1
environment
University 6.08 1.00 0.46 0.12 1
reputation
Brand 5.72 1.07 0.26 0.29 1
loyalty
Brand 5.52 1.12 0.17 0.15 0.12 1
association
Brand 5.10 1.10 0.37 0.13 0.20 0.13 1
awareness
Physical 5.78 1.00 0.21 0.56 0.17 0.44 0.14 1
facilities
Dining 5.71 1.18 0.22 0.30 1
services
Table 2.
Residence 5.53 1.17 0.37 0.15 0.16 0.22 0.63 1
Means, standard
hall deviations and path
Library 5.70 1.15 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.31 0.70 0.14 coefficients (β) of
services university CBBE
Note(s): Scale: 1 5 very unimportant to 7 5 very important dimensions

p < 0.01), residence hall (β 5 0.16, t 5 2.9, p < 0.01) and physical facilities (β 5 0.14, t 5 2.3,
p < 0.05) had a significant relationship with brand awareness. The importance of library
services (β 5 0.31, t 5 5.3, p < 0.01), dining services (β 5 0.30, t 5 3.5, p < 0.01) and residence
hall (β 5 0.22, t 5 2.8, p < 0.01) also had a significant relationship with the importance of
physical facilities. Perceived quality (β 5 0.29, t 5 4.2, p < 0.01), learning environment
(β 5 0.28, t 5 5.2, p < 0.01), library services (β 5 0.16, t 5 3.0, p < 0.01), emotional environment
(β 5 0.15, t 5 2.9, p < 0.01) and university reputation (β 5 0.12, t 5 2.5, p < 0.05) had a
significant influence on brand trust. Brand trust (β 5 0.29, t 5 5.1, p < 0.01), learning
environment (β 5 0.26, t 5 4.4, p < 0.01), brand awareness (β 5 0.20, t 5 4.2, p < 0.01) and
brand associations (β 5 0.12, t 5 2.3, p < 0.05) had a significant influence on brand loyalty.
Examination of the mean values of the eight core dimensions in Table 2 revealed that
perceived quality had the highest importance, followed by learning environment, brand trust,
emotional environment, university reputation, brand loyalty, brand awareness and brand
associations. Similarly, the mean values for the supporting dimensions show that students
perceive physical facilities as the most important supporting factor in creating a strong
university brand, followed by dining services, library services and residence hall. On a seven-
point importance scale, all of the core and supporting dimensions ranged between important
(5.10) and very important (6.35). The results also revealed that the mean values of core
dimensions are generally higher than those of the supporting dimensions, except for brand
awareness. This result indicates the generally higher levels of importance of the core
dimensions in creating a strong university brand.
To test H2, the core and supporting brand equity dimensions were compared by student
gender, and living arrangement through independent sample t-tests and class standing using
a one-way ANOVA. The perceptions of male and female students significantly differed for
two core dimensions – emotional environment (t 5 2.86, p < 0.01) and learning environment
JARHE (t 5 2.62, p < 0.01), and all four supporting dimensions – dining services (t 5 2.63,
p < 0.01); library services (t 5 4.31, p < 0.01), residence hall (t 5 3.49, p < 0.01) and physical
facilities (t 5 1.96, p < 0.05). In each case, female students have significantly higher
perceptions of importance than those of male students (Table 3). Concerning the living
arrangement (on- or off-campus living), only two of the supporting CBBE dimensions,
residence hall (t 5 2.7, p < 0.01) and dining services (t 5 3.4, p < 0.01), were significantly more
important to students who lived on-campus than those lived off-campus (Table 4). The living
arrangement did not significantly make a difference in the perceptions of the importance of
the core brand equity dimensions. Cohen’s d test calculated in SPSS indicated that the
measure of the effect sizes (i.e. standardized mean differences) was between small
(approximately 0.20) and moderate (approximately 0.50) (Tables 3 and 4). Although
Cohen’s effect size descriptions may be helpful as a starting point, caution must be taken
when interpreting Cohen’s d test. Depending on the field of study such as behavioral science,
a small to medium effect size may be considered significant (Cohen, 1988).
One-way ANOVA analyses with Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) tests
revealed significant effects of student class standing on the core dimensions of brand loyalty,
emotional environment, learning environment and perceived quality at the p < 0.05 level, and
brand trust at p < 0.01 level. The pairwise comparisons in Table 5 show that the significant
differences resulted from the more importance freshman students consistently placed on
these dimensions than the students of higher-class standing. This finding points out the
importance of paying special attention to freshman students.
For supporting dimensions, the importance of library services was significantly higher for
the freshman students than students of higher-class standing at the p < 0.01 level. Based on
the pairwise comparisons, residence hall and dining services were significantly more
important to freshman students than students at junior and senior levels at the p < 0.05 level.

N Gender Mean SD Cohen’s d

Emotional environment 231 Male 5.98 1.08 0.271

206 Female 6.26 0.98
Learning environment 233 Male 6.06 1.05 0.247
206 Female 6.31 0.91
Library services 231 Male 5.48 1.12 0.41
206 Female 5.95 1.15
Residence hall 231 Male 5.34 1.20 0.329
206 Female 5.73 1.11
Dining services 230 Male 5.57 1.18 0.25
206 Female 5.87 1.17
Table 3. Physical facilities 229 Male 5.69 1.03 0.188
Comparisons of mean 205 Female 5.88 0.98
difference by gender Note(s): Scale: 1 5 very unimportant and 7 5 very important

N Living Mean SD Cohen’s d

Residence hall 287 On-campus 5.63 1.13 0.270

Table 4. 150 Off-campus 5.32 1.20
Comparisons of mean Dining services 285 On-campus 5.85 1.12 0.349
differences by living 151 Off-campus 5.44 1.25
arrangement Note(s): Scale: 1 5 very unimportant and 7 5 very important
 1. Freshman 2. Sophomore 3. Junior 4. Senior
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD df F-sig. Mean comparisons

Core dimensions
Brand awareness 5.30 1.06 5.06 1.14 5.01 1.12 5.03 1.03 423 0.18 Not significant
Brand association 5.68 0.94 5.45 1.21 5.44 1.14 5.55 1.21 427 0.33 Not significant
Brand loyalty 5.92 0.92 5.55 1.18 5.68 1.06 5.82 0.92 427 0.04 1 > 2**
University reputation 6.28 0.66 6.02 1.11 6.05 1.00 5.98 1.06 427 0.09 Not significant
Emotional environment 6.35 0.80 6.11 0.97 5.98 1.18 6..03 1.07 428 0.03 1 > 3**
Brand trust 6.36 0.83 5.92 1.09 6.16 1.11 6.14 1.01 428 0.01 1 > 2***
Learning environment 6.43 0.66 6.06 1.04 6.12 1.05 6.16 1.04 430 0.02 1 > 2**
Perceived quality 6.59 0.62 6.29 0.96 6.34 1.03 6.24 1.09 427 0.03 1 > 4**
Supporting dimensions
Library services 6.17 0.91 5.61 1.21 5.57 1.10 5.53 1.09 428 0.00 1 > 2***;1 > 3***; 1 > 4***
Residence hall 5.81 0.98 5.56 1.16 5.36 1.22 5.39 1.17 428 0.013 1 > 3**; 1 > 4**
Dining services 6.04 0.90 5.68 1.21 5.58 1.34 5.59 1.03 427 0.01 1 > 3**; 1 > 4**
Physical facilities 6.06 0.71 5.70 1.06 5.73 0.99 5.64 1.13 425 0.01 1 > 2**; 1 > 4**
Note(s): Scale: 1 5 very unimportant and 7 5 very important; **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01
supporting
dimensions
Core and
brand equity

comparisons by class
Table 5.

standing
One-way ANOVA
JARHE There were no significant differences between freshman and sophomore students, or between
sophomore, junior and senior levels, which may indicate that the sophomore level may be a
transitioning stage when students are acclimating to dining services and residence hall, and
thus, place not as much importance on residence halls and dining services as freshman.
Physical facilities were also more important to freshman than sophomore and senior-level
students at the p < 0.05 level. Freshman students seem to attach significantly more
importance to the brand equity dimensions than the upper-class standing students do.
Student class standing does not have an effect on brand awareness, brand association and
university reputation dimensions (p > 0.10). However, six out of eight core CBBE dimensions
and all of the four supporting dimensions had significant differences. Therefore, H2 is
supported for most of the core and all of the supporting constructs (Table 5). The findings
indicate that the freshman level is a crucial stage for universities to endeavor to provide what
students expect and need to create a positive experience.

5. Discussion and implications

This study uses the CBBE theory and the brand ecosystem framework as a holistic approach
to assess the multidirectional direct and indirect relationships between the university CBBE
dimensions. The testing of the measurement model with eight core and four supporting
CBBE dimensions (Figure 2) revealed that the measurements have internal consistency,
composite reliability and discriminant and construct validity. The results of the PLS–SEM in
Figure 2 supported the assertion that universities are complex systems of various sub-brands
that require complex endeavor of brand management by considering all relevant dimensions
in a holistic perspective (Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana, 2007; Rauschnabel et al., 2016)
in a brand ecosystem framework (Pinar et al., 2011). The holistic approach to examining
university brand equity is essential to offer complex bundles of benefits, most notably
academic and social benefits (Palmer et al., 2016) in creating a strong university brand and
brand equity.
The significant relationships revealed in Figure 2 between the core and supporting brand
equity dimensions support the suggestion by Bauer et al. (2008) that a brand equity model
should incorporate the causalities between the various brand equity dimensions. The multi-
directional relationships are in line with the findings of recent brand equity research using
SmartPLS–SEM (Girard et al., 2016; Pinar et al., 2020). The direct and indirect relationships
are consistent with those of Kaushal and Ali (2019) who found that reputation had both direct
and indirect effects through satisfaction on student loyalty behavior. In addition, the
supporting dimensions not only influence each other at high and moderate levels but also
play a crucial role in influencing the core dimensions directly or indirectly. This finding
confirms the assertion by Ng and Forbes (2009) that the core dimensions cannot function
properly without the supporting dimensions.
Another notable finding is that brand loyalty appears to be the dependent variable in the
model instead of university reputation, as asserted by Black (2008). This finding reaffirms the
importance of brand loyalty as one of the requirements of creating strong brands, including in
the higher education setting (Reichheld, 2011), and university reputation appears to be one of
the contributing dimensions to increase brand loyalty. The results in Figure 2 indicate
university brand loyalty is directly influenced by brand awareness, learning environment,
brand association and brand trust and indirectly through the interactions of the other core
and supporting dimensions. Among the significant relationships, brand trust had a strong
direct influence on brand loyalty. Additionally, because brand trust is influenced by other
dimensions – learning environment, library services, emotional environment and perceived
quality, each also influences brand loyalty indirectly through brand trust. Similar indirect
influences can be identified for other direct influencers of brand loyalty. Because loyalty is
determined by students’ willingness to recommend their university to others (Kaushal and Core and
Ali, 2019), and is an attachment that a customer has to a brand (Aaker, 1991), the focus of supporting
university branding strategy should be to build brand loyalty by identifying the direct and
indirect influences of the core and supporting value-creation dimensions on brand loyalty and
brand equity
developing strategies to strengthen them. dimensions
In addition, Figure 2 shows that brand association is directly influenced by the learning
environment, physical facilities, residence hall and brand awareness, and it influences
university reputation and brand loyalty. Given that brand association refers to the meaning
consumers adhere to the brand (Keller, 1993, 2013) and are “any link in memory to a brand”
(Aaker, 1991, p. 109) with level of strength, these dimensions serve as links in the student’s
mind for university branding. The implication is that universities must work on developing
strong brand associations that include many positive student experiences in creating a strong
university brand (Pinar et al., 2020). This requires an understanding of the sources of brand
associations such as state-of-the-art technology, internship programs, career center and
alumni networking events. Brand associations are also indirectly influenced by other brand
equity dimensions through the direct influencers. For example, while the learning
environment is influenced by library services and physical facilities, it holds a significant
influence on the brand equity dimensions, including university reputation, brand trust,
emotional environment, perceived quality, brand association, brand awareness, emotional
environment and brand loyalty. The university administrators should ensure that all of these
interactions and relationships create many positive associations as associative networks
(Henderson et al., 2002) or links in consumer memory that are needed for creating a strong
university brand (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993, 2013). More specifically, the learning environment,
physical facilities, library services, dining services and residence halls are important places for
student interactions, learning and university experiences. Students’ perception of the
university experience includes not only the functional attributes such as degree programs and
qualifications of staff (Yuan et al., 2016), but also the social life of the campus (Schee, 2011), and
all possible student, faculty and staff relationships and interactions.
With the rapidly changing global conditions due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic,
university administrators have been forced to take abrupt precautions and make changes to
their internal policies. Because universities of all sizes and types have been impacted by the
COVID-19 pandemic in many ways, including moving in-class teaching to online teaching
and virtual office visits, their ability to quickly adjust to the pandemic not only potentially
affects students’ university experience but also may provide opportunities for international
students to complete degree programs online. The implication is that university
administrators should offer opportunities to engage and socialize students in positive
experiences with their peers (Gibson, 2010) and familiarize new students with not only the
social life of the campus (Schee, 2011) for onsite teaching but also the online learning
environment (Girard and Lysiak, 2019) for off-campus teaching. Mitchell (2020) states that
COVID-19 has provided higher education with the opportunity to “challenge assumptions
and should be the catalyst for change,” and that “higher education should not assume it will
have the luxury of returning to business as usual.” Mitchell also states that it is time to think
creatively and redesign higher education so that it responds to the needs of society in the
future. Therefore, offering training to students, faculty and staff for virtual class meetings
and peer interactions similar to the in-class learning and on-campus experience has become a
necessary step to respond to the changing needs of the students and other stakeholders.
Because this study was designed and conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic, the reader
should use caution when interpreting the results of this study concerning the potential impact
of the COVID-19 pandemic on university branding.
The model results show that brand awareness is an important factor for creating a strong
university brand and brand equity, as it directly influences brand loyalty, university brand
JARHE reputation and brand association and indirectly brand loyalty through brand association. As
shown in Figure 2, it is also directly influenced by residence halls and physical facilities, and
the learning environment influences the other brand equity dimensions. This is consistent
with the conceptualization of brand equity (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Keller, 1993, 2013), such that
brand awareness is essential for university branding for the ability of prospective students to
recognize or recall the university as a member of other university brands (Aaker, 1991) and
influence consumer buying (Huang and Sarig€oll€ u, 2012). Because brand awareness has a
moderately strong direct and/or indirect influence on brand loyalty and the other brand
equity dimensions, universities attempting to build strong brands should increase their
brand awareness in their target markets, prospective students and their influencers by
utilizing various advertising and promotional strategies. In addition, research indicates that
HEIs have been using different social media channels like Twitter and Facebook for branding
strategies (Belanger et al., 2014; Pharr, 2019; Galan et al., 2015; Linvill et al., 2012; Palmer, 2013;
Pringle and Fritz, 2019) and online brand communities in constructing a brand culture and
legitimacy (Brodie et al., 2013; Hakala et al., 2017; Schembri and Latimer, 2016) to not only
increase brand awareness but also positively impact the other brand equity dimensions. In
this regard, Pharr (2019) encourages colleges and universities to develop valuable and
engaging authentic brand content. However, Joyvice et al. (2019) suggest avoiding deceptive
marketing communications. The direct positive significant relationship between perceived
quality and brand trust indicates the importance of perceived quality in building brand trust.
In the university setting, perceived quality was measured by the critical role of faculty
with students’ learning experience (Table A1). Perceived quality has the highest mean value
of all CBBE dimensions in Table 2, which further emphasizes the importance of faculty for
university branding. The relevance of faculty is consistent with prior research (Kent et al.,
1993; Cheng and Tam, 1997; Aggarwal-Sharma et al., 2013) that highlighted the relationship
between the students, faculty and staff as one of the main determinants of the university
reputation and its image. These dimensions are related to the perceived quality of the
teaching and learning environment (Jillapalli and Jillapalli, 2014; Pinar et al., 2014). The
results also show that perceived quality is directly influenced by the learning environment of
the core dimensions, and the dining services and physical facilities of the supporting
dimensions and indirectly by other dimensions. Prior research also showed that perceived
university reputation and perceived faculty competency are the key influential dimensions in
determining students’ satisfaction with university experience (Elsharnouby, 2015). Dollinger
et al. (2018) defined value co-creation as the process of students’ feedback, opinions and other
resources. In this co-creation process, Saurombe et al. (2017) indicated that academic staff and
other personnel play a crucial role in the success of higher education, and that it is imperative
to cultivate a compelling organizational brand and work environment to attract and retain
talented academic staff members as a key part of their branding strategy.
This study included measures for emotional environment as one of the CBBE dimensions.
The results in Figure 2 showed that the emotional environment is directly influenced by the
learning environment as the core dimension and residence hall and library service as the
supporting dimensions. Also, the emotional environment influences brand trust directly and
brand loyalty indirectly through brand trust. The findings indicate that student emotions
seem to be influenced positively by the dimensions or activities that are all experiential in
nature, indicating that the experiences are important for creating positive emotions.
Consistent with this finding, prior research indicated the importance of emotions in choosing
brands and evaluating and forming opinions about them, their role in consumer evaluation of
brands (Rosenbaum-Elliott et al. (2011), in customer satisfaction (Yu and Dean, 2001; Phillips
and Baumgartner, 2002), brand judgment (Pham et al. 2001) and behavioral intentions
(Ladhari, 2007). The implication is the university administrators should develop strategies to
create a strong emotional bond between university and students based on the authentic
learning experience as co-creation process (Dollinger et al., 2018) and positive experiences Core and
with their peers during social life of the campus (Gibson, 2010). Also, the co-creation supporting
experiential learning reinforced by social media and brand communities could both increase
brand awareness and create a strong emotional university brand.
brand equity
The PLS–SEM model in Figure 2 suggests that the supporting dimensions are the starting dimensions
points to build both an emotional environment and a learning environment, which influence
brand awareness and perceived quality, and directly or indirectly influence brand
associations, university reputation, brand trust and, ultimately, brand loyalty (considered
as overall brand equity in this study). The influence of the supporting dimensions on the
emotional dimension is important to note because these dimensions have a direct influence on
university experiences as students spend most of their time in these environments that their
relevance for student learning experience is discussed above. The findings indicate that while
the supporting dimensions do not impose a direct effect on brand loyalty, as proposed in
Figure 1 and presented in Figure 2, they have indirect effects through other brand equity
dimensions, which confirms their importance for the core dimensions in building a strong
university brand, as suggested by Ng and Forbes (2009).
Additionally, the relatively high mean values of the CBBE dimensions confirm the
relevance and importance of the scale measures for creating a strong university brand and
brand equity. Because the brand equity dimensions are measured with an importance scale,
the mean values represent student expectations from these dimensions. University
administrators should design strategies to meet students’ expectations because strong
brands are created when expectations are met or exceeded (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Keller, 1993,
2013). Combined with the above findings about each of the brand equity dimensions, the level
of importance or expectations from each of these dimensions could provide guidance to
prioritize which brand equity dimensions should receive the most attention when developing
branding strategies to create a strong university brand and brand equity.
Examining the brand equity dimensions by student demographics also offered insights
about their influence on university branding strategies. The comparisons of brand equity
dimensions by gender revealed significant differences between the perceptions of male and
female students for two out of the eight core dimensions (emotional environment and learning
environment) and for all of the supporting dimensions (dining services, library services,
residence hall and physical facilities). Female students considered those brand equity
dimensions more important than male students did for creating a strong university brand.
Because male students attached lower importance for all of the brand equity dimensions than
the female students, the results show that female students have higher social and educational
support needs and expectations. University administrators must make sure to meet or exceed
the female students’ expectations, which could be crucial for retention in the short run and
building loyalty in the long run.
The results show that living arrangement did not make a difference for the perceptions of
core brand equity dimensions, but it did make a difference for the supporting dimensions of
residence hall and dining services. Students living on-campus consider these dimensions
significantly more important than off-campus students, which is to be expected because of
their constant, daily experience with these services. Because the off-campus students do not
have any intentions to use residence halls and/or dining services, as expected, these services
are not important to them.
The results by student class standing indicate that in general freshman students perceive
the brand equity dimensions (except for the brand awareness, brand associations and
university reputation dimensions) as significantly more important than the upper-class
students. The importance scale used in this study gauges students’ expectations of each of
the brand equity dimensions. Part of this difference for class level may be explained by the
fact that freshman students have higher levels of expectations and needs for knowledge and
JARHE support as they enter the college. As they gain direct experience with different activities of
their university, the perception of the importance of these dimensions may have been
adjusted down through experience. University administrators should do everything to keep
meeting freshman students’ high expectation levels while meeting or exceeding the
expectations of the upper-level students. The findings of this study are similar to the findings
of the Kaushal and Ali (2019) study that student demographics were found to be affecting
satisfaction–loyalty relationships to various degrees.
From a strategic perspective, the most important implication of this study is that
university administrators must view the student experience as a system of experiences
driven by a university’s overall strategic direction and focus. Some of the specific
implications of findings regarding student gender, living arrangement and class standing
are: (1) Because female students find two out of the eight core dimensions and all supporting
dimensions more important than the male students do for creating a strong university brand,
these activities or services must be designed to meet or exceed female students’ expectations.
To get a better idea about the specific issues to address for female students, the items included
in each of the relevant core and supporting dimensions should further be investigated
(Table A1). The investigation could guide university administrators to have a better targeted
approach for the development of effective branding strategies, thus improving the activities
or services for female students to improve their satisfaction as well as retention. (2)
Addressing on-campus students’ concerns could have a positive effect on their overall
learning experience, including those that take place in the classroom. (3) Concerning the
results for class level, because freshman students perceive all but three dimensions (brand
awareness, brand association and university reputation) as being more important than the
upper-class students do; particular attention must be provided to the freshman experience
and their successful transition to university life. The freshman experience, driven by both
core and supporting dimensions, should not only increase the satisfaction and retention of
these students, but also prepare a foundation for long-term loyalty for the university brand.

6. Limitations and suggestions for future research

The findings identified the significant relationships between the brand equity dimensions for
building a strong university brand. However, we caution that the results must be interpreted
with the following limitations. First, the study used a carefully selected targeted convenience
sample of various colleges and class levels at a university in the Midwestern USA. We
recommend that future studies use probability sampling to better represent the university
student population.
Second, because this is the first comprehensive study testing the relationships between the
core and supporting CBBE dimensions suggested by Ng and Forbes (2009) in higher education
and described in the brand ecosystem framework by Pinar et al. (2011), future research would
benefit from including and comparing multiple private and public universities, and
universities in other countries, to cross-validate the findings. Third, future studies may
consider other stakeholder perspectives in addition to that of current students (e.g. parents,
alumni, faculty/staff, donors) that could capture their role of brand co-creation in guiding
delivery of the brand promise (Dean et al. 2016). Fourth, the study did not include any
dimensions related to social media to examine their potential influence on the core and
supporting dimensions in creating university branding. Because social media have become
relevant for university branding (Belanger et al., 2014; Pharr, 2019; Galan et al., 2015; Linvill
et al., 2012; Palmer, 2013; Pringle and Fritz, 2019) and online brand communities (Brodie et al.,
2013; Hakala et al., 2017; Schembri and Latimer, 2016), future studies could include social
media dimensions relevant for university branding. Fifth, future studies may use an
agreement scale (i.e. beliefs, as a measure of performance) to determine how a university
performs on the various brand equity dimensions and to compare the results with the Core and
corresponding importance measures (i.e. value curve analysis). Sixth, because this study was supporting
conducted in one country, the brand equity dimensions used in this study could be tested in
different cultures to improve the scale measurements’ validity, reliability and generalizability.
brand equity
This also addresses the call for more cross-national validation and understanding the role of dimensions
CBBE in international marketing context (Buil et al., 2008, Christodoulides et al., 2015). Finally,
this study was conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, it was not designed to
study the potential effects of the pandemic on university branding and brand equity.
Therefore, we recommend that future university branding studies include measures to
understand the potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on students’ university experience
and the university brand equity dimensions that could have potential implications for creating
a strong university brand and brand equity.

References
Aaker, D. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, Free-Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D. (1996), Building Strong Brands, Free-Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, J. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 347-56.
Aggarwal-Sharma, A., Rao, V.R. and Popli, S. (2013), “Measuring consumer-based brand equity for
Indian business schools”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 175-203,
doi: 10.1080/08841241.2013.866609.
Ali, M. and Ahmed, M. (2018), Determinants of Students’ Loyalty to University: A Service-Based
Approach (No. 84352), University Library of Munich, Germany.
Ali-Choudhury, R., Bennett, R. and Savani, S. (2009), “University marketing directors’ views on the
components of a university brand”, International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 11-33.
Ambler, T., Bhattacharya, C.B., Edell, J., Keller, K.L., Lemon, K.N. and Mittal, V. (2002), “Relating
brand and customer perspectives on marketing management”, Journal of Services Research,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 13-25.
Atilgan, E., Aksoy, A. and Akinci, S. (2005), “Determinants of the brand equity: a verification
approach in the beverage industry in Turkey”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 237-248.
Ballester, D.E. and Aleman, M.J.L. (2001), “Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11-12, pp. 1238-1258.
Bauer, H.H., Sauer, N.E. and Exler, S. (2008), “Brand-image and fan loyalty in professional team sport:
a redefined model and empirical assessment”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 205-26.
Belanger, C., Bali, S. and Longden, B. (2014), “How Canadian universities use social media to brand
themselves”, Tertiary Education and Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 14-29.
Bennett, R. and Ali-Choudhury, R. (2009), “Prospective students’ perceptions of university brands: an
empirical study”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 85-107, doi: 10.
1080/08841240902905445.
Berry, L.L. (2000), “Cultivating service brand-equity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 128-137.
Bitner, M.J. (1995), “Building service relationships: it’s all about promises”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 246-251, doi: 10.1177/009207039502300403.
Black, J. (2008), The Branding of Higher Education, available at: http://www.semworks.net/papers/
wp_The-Branding-of-Higher-Education.php (accessed November-2019).
JARHE Brodie, R.J., Biljana Juric, A.I. and Hollebeek, L. (2013), “Consumer engagement in a virtual brand
community: an exploratory analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 105-114,
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029.
Buil, I., De Chernatony, L. and Martinez, E. (2008), “A cross-national validation of the consumer-based
brand-equity scale”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 384-92.
Chapleo, C. (2015), “Brands in higher education: challenges and potential strategies”, International
Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 150-163, doi: 10.1080/00208825.
2015.1006014.
Chatzipanagiotou, K., Veloutsou, C. and Christodoulides, G. (2016), “Decoding the complexity of the
consumer-based brand-equity process”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 11,
pp. 5479-86, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.159.
Chen, L.H. (2008), “Internationalization or international marketing? Two frameworks for
understanding international students’ choice of Canadian Universities”, Journal of Marketing
for Higher Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-33.
Cheng, Y.C. and Tam, W.M. (1997), “Multi-models of quality in education”, Quality Assurance in
Education, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 22-31.
Christodoulides, G., de Chernatony, L., Furrer, O. and Abimbola, T. (2006), “Conceptualizing and
measuring the equity of online brands”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22 Nos 7-8,
pp. 799-825.
Christodoulides, G., Cadogan, J.W. and Veloutsou, C. (2015), “Consumer-based brand-equity
measurement: lessons learned from an international study”, International Marketing Review,
Vol. 32 Nos 3-4, pp. 307-328.
Churchill, G.A.Jr and Iacobucci, D. (2005), Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations, 9th ed.,
Thomson/South-Western, Mason, OH.
Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N. (1995), “Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase
intent”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 25-40.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah,
New Jersey, NJ.
Cowell, D.W. (1982), “Do we need to revise the marketing-mix for services marketing?”, in Thomas, M.
(Ed.), Marketing: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice, Marketing-Education Group
15th Annual Conference, Lancaster, pp. 78-89.
Dean, D., Arroyo-Gamez, R.E., Punjaisri, K. and Pich, C. (2016), “Internal brand co-creation: the
experiential brand meaning cycle in higher education”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69
No. 8, pp. 3041-3048.
Dennis, C., Papagiannidis, S., Alamanos, E. and Bourlakis, M. (2016), “The role of brand attachment
strength in higher education”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 3049-3057.
DeShields, O.W., Kara, A. and Kaynak, E. (2005), “Determinants of business student satisfaction and
retention in higher education: applying Herzberg’s two-factor theory”, International Journal of
Educational Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 128-139.
Dollinger, M., Lode, J. and Coastes, H. (2018), “Co-creation in higher education: towards a conceptual
model”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 210-231.
Eakuru, N. and Mat, K.N. (2008), “The Application of structural equation modeling (SEM) in
determining the antecedents of customer loyalty in banks in South Thailand”, The Business
Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 129-39, Cambridge.
Eldegwy, A., Elsharnouby, T.H. and Kortam, W. (2018), “How sociable is your university brand?”,
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 912-930, doi: 10.1108/IJEM-
12-2017-0346.
Elsharnouby, T.H. (2015), “Student co-creation behavior in higher education: the role of satisfaction
with the university experience”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 238-262, doi: 10.1080/08841241.2015.1059919.
Farjam, S. and Hongyi, X. (2015), “Reviewing the concept of brand equity and evaluating consumer- Core and
based brand equity (CBBE) models”, International Journal of Management Science and Business
Administration, Vol. 1 No. 8, pp. 14-29. supporting
Fornell, Cl. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
brand equity
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50. dimensions
Furedi, F. (2011), “Introduction to the marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer”,
in Molesworth, M., Scullion, R. and Nixon, E. (Eds), The Marketisation of Higher Education and
the Student as Consumer, Routledge, Oxford, pp. 15-22.
Galan, M., Lawley, M. and Clements, M. (2015), “Social media’s use in postgraduate students’ decision-
making journey: an exploratory study”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 287-312.
Gibson, A. (2010), “Measuring business student satisfaction: a review and summary of the major
predictors”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 251-259.
Girard, T. and Lysiak, L. (2019), “A collaborative approach to blended learning design and cctivities to
engage students: acase study”, Proceedings of the 2019 Atlantic Marketing Association,
Asheville, NC Sept, pp. 25-29.
Girard, T., Trapp, T., Pinar, M., Gulsoy, T. and Boyt, T.E. (2016), “Consumer-based brand equity of a
private-label brand: measuring and examining determinants”, Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 39-56, doi: 10.1080/10696679.2016.1236662.
Gobe, M. (2001), Emotional Branding: The New Paradigm for Connecting Brands to People, Allworth
Press, New York, NY.
Gr€onroos, C. (2007), Service Management and Marketing, 3rd ed., John Wiles and Sons, Chichester.
Hair, J.F.Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, T.M., Christian, M. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), SAGE, Los-Angeles, CA.
Hakala, H., Niemi, L. and Kohtamaki, M. (2017), “Online brand community practices and the
construction of brand legitimacy”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 537-558, doi: 10.1177/
1470593117705695.
Helgesen, Ø. and Nesset, E. (2007), “Images, satisfaction and antecedents: drivers of student loyalty? A
case study of a Norwegian university college”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 38-59.
Hemsley-Brown, J. and Goonawardana, S. (2007), “Brand harmonization in the international higher
education market”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 9, pp. 942-948.
Henderson, G.R., Iacobucci, D. and Calder, B.J. (1998), “Brand diagnostics: mapping branding effects
using consumer associative networks”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 111
No. 2, pp. 306-327.
Henderson, G.R., Iacobucci, D. and Calder, B.J. (2002), “Using network analysis to understand Brands”,
in Broniarczyk, S.M. and Kent, N. (Eds), NA - Advances in Consumer Research, Association for
Consumer Research, Valdosta, GA, Vol. 29, pp. 397-405.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity
in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-35.
u, E. (2012), “How brand awareness relates to market outcome, brand equity,
Huang, R. and Sarig€oll€
and the marketing mix”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 92-99.
Im, H.H., Kim, S.S., Elliot, S. and Han, H. (2012), “Conceptualizing destination brand equity dimensions
from a consumer-based brand equity perspective”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,
Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 385-403, doi: 10.1080/10548408.2012.674884.
Iqbal, M.J., Rasli, A.B.M. and Hassan, I. (2012), “University branding: a myth or a reality”, Pakistan
Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 168-184.
JARHE Ivy, J. (2008), “A new higher education marketing mix: the 7Ps for MBA marketing”, International
Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 288-299.
Jillapalli, R.K. and Jillapalli, R. (2014), “Do professors have customer-based brand equity?”, Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 22-40.
Joseph, M., Mullen, E.W. and andSpake, D. (2012), “University branding: understanding students’
choice of an educational institution”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-12, doi:
10.1057/bm.2012.13.
Joyvice, C., Atemnkeng, J.T., Sama, M.C., Agbor, M.S. and Buwah, N.N. (2019), “The effect of deceptive
marketing communication on the brand equity of private higher education institutions (PHEI’s)
in the Northwest and Southwest Regions of Cameroon”, International Journal of Social and
Administrative Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Kaushal, V. and Ali, N. (2019), “University reputation, brand attachment and brand personality as
antecedents of student loyalty: a study in higher education context”, Corporate Reputation
Review. doi: 10.1057/s41299-019-00084-y.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. (2013), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity,
4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, NJ.
Kent, W.E., Lian, K., Khan, M. and Anene, J. (1993), “Colleges’ Hospitality programs: perceived
quality”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 90-97.
Khoshtaria, T., Datuashvili, D. and Matin, A. (2020), “The Impact of brand equity dimensions on
university reputation: an empirical study of Georgian higher education”, Journal of Marketing
for Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/08841241.2020.1725955.
Kim, W. and Kim, H. (2004), ““Measuring customer-based restaurant brand equity: investigating the
relationship between brand equity and firms’ performance””, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 115-131.
Kim, H.B., Kim, W.G. and An, J.A. (2003), “The effect of consumer-based brand equity on firms’
financial performance”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 335-351.
Kimpakorn, N. and Torquer, G. (2010), “Service brand equity and employee brand-commitment”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 378-388.
Kumar, A., Lee, H.J. and Kim, Y.K. (2009), “Indian consumers’ purchase intention toward a United
States versus local brand”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 5, pp. 521-527.
Ladhari, R. (2007), “The Effects of consumption-emotions on satisfaction and word-of-mouth
communications”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 12, pp. 1085-1108.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995), “Measuring customer-based brand equity”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 11-19.
Leone, R.P., Rao, V.R., Keller, K.L., Luo, A.M., McAlister, L. and Srivastava, R. (2006), “Linking brand
equity to customer equity”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 125-138.
Linvill, D.L., McGee, S.E. and Hicks, L.K. (2012), “Colleges’ and universities’ use of Twitter: a content
analysis”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 636-638.
Liao, N. and Wu, T.C. (2009), “The pivotal role of trust in customer-loyalty: empirical research
on the system-integration market in Taiwan”, The Business Review, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 277-282.
Md Noor, S.M., Manan, K.A. and Kuthoos, H.M.A. (2019), “Assessing corporate brand equity of public
universities”, Journal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication, Vol. 35 No. 3,
pp. 283-299.
Mitchell, N. (2020), “Students to decide which institutions survive COVID-19”, 07 May, University
World News, available at: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story520200507
135847614 (accessed 10 July 2020).
Mirzaei, A., Siuki, E.H., Gray, D. and Johnson, L.W. (2016), “Brand associations in the higher education Core and
sector: the difference between shared and owned associations”, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 419-438. supporting
Mourad, M., Meshreki, H. and Sarofim, S. (2020), “Brand equity in higher education: comparative
brand equity
analysis”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 209-231, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019. dimensions
1582012.
Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), “The Effect of a market orientation on business profitability”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 20-35.
Netemeyer, R.G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J. and Wirth, F. (2004),
“Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 209-224.
Newman, S. and Jahdi, K. (2009), “Marketisation of education: marketing, rhetoric and reality”, Journal
of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1080/03098770802638226.
Ng, I.C.L. and Forbes, J. (2009), “Education as service: the understanding of university experience
through the service logic”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 38-64.
Nguyen, B., Yu, X., Melewar, T.C. and Hemsley-Brown, J. (2016), “Brand ambidexterity and
commitment in higher education: an exploratory study”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69
No. 8, pp. 3105-3112.
Nicholls, J., Harris, J., Eleanor, M., Clarke, K. and Sims, D. (1995), “Marketing higher education: the
MBA experience”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 31-38.
Oh, T.T., Keller, K.K., Neslin, S.A., Reibstein, D.J. and Lehmann, D.R. (2020), “The past, present, and
future of brand research”, Marketing Letters, published online, June 04, doi: 10.1007/s11002-020-
09524-w.
Oppenheim, A. (1992), Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, Pinter, London.
Pharr, J.M. (2019), “Best practices in digital content marketing for building university brands”,
Association of Marketing Theory and Practice Proceedings, 2019, p. 8, available at: https://
digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/amtp-proceedings_2019/8.
Palmer, S. (2013), “Characterization of the use of Twitter by Australian universities”, Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 333-344.
Palmer, A., Koenig-Lewis, N. and Asaad, Y. (2016), “Brand identification in higher education: a
conditional process analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 3033-3040.
Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W. (2005), “Consumer-based brand equity: improving
the measurement – empirical evidence”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 14
Nos 2-3, pp. 143-54.
Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W. (2006), “Consumer-based brand-equity and country-of-
origin relationships: some empirical evidence”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 5-6,
pp. 696-717.
Perin, M.G., Sampaio, C.H. and Sim~oesde P
olvora, C.R.P. (2012), “Modeling antecedents of student loyalty
in higher education”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 101-116.
Pham, M.T., Cohen, J.B., Pracejus, J.W. and Hughes, G.D. (2001), “Affect monitoring and the primacy of
feeling in judgement”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 167-188.
Phillips, D.M. and Baumgartner, H. (2002), “The Role of consumption emotions in the satisfaction
response”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 243-252.
Pinar, M. and Trapp, P. (2008), “Creating competitive advantage through ingredient branding and
brand-ecosystem: the case of Turkish cotton and textiles”, Journal of International Food and
Agribusiness Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 29-56.
Pinar, M., Trapp, P., Girard, T. and Boyt, T.E. (2011), “Utilizing brand-ecosystem for branding and
building brand equity in higher-education”, International Journal of Educational Management,
Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 724-739.
JARHE Pinar, M., Trapp, P., Girard, T. and Boyt, T.E. (2014), “University brand equity: an empirical
investigation of its dimensions”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 28
No. 6, pp. 616-634, doi: 10.1108/IJEM-04-2013-0051.
Pinar, M., Girard, T. and Basfirinci, C. (2020), “Examining the relationship between brand equity
dimensions and university brand equity: an empirical study in Turkey”, International Journal
of Educational Management, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 1119-1141, doi: 10.1108/IJEM-08-2019-0313.
Plewa, C., Ho, J., Conduit, J. and Karper, I. (2016), “Reputation in higher education: A fuzzy set analysis
of resource configurations”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69, No. 8, pp. 3087-3095.
Pringle, J. and Fritz, S. (2019), “The university brand and social media: using data analytics to assess
brand authenticity”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 19-44, doi: 10.
1080/08841241.2018.1486345.
Pringle, J. and Naidoo, R. (2016), “Branding and the commodification of academic labour”, in Barnett,
R., Temple, P. and Scott, P. (Eds), Valuing Higher Education: An Appreciation for the Work of
Gareth Williams, UCL Institute of Education Press, London, pp. 158-177.
Rajh, E. and Dosen, Ð.O. (2009), “The effects of marketing mix elements on service brand equity”,
EkonomskaIstrazivanja, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 69-83.
Rauschnabel, P.A., Krey, N., Babin, B.J. and Ivens, B.S. (2016), “Brand management in higher
education: the university brand personality scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8,
pp. 3077-3086.
Reichheld, F.F. (1996), The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force behind Growth, Profits, and Lasting
Value, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Reichheld, F. (2011), The Ultimate Questions 2.0, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

and Moital, M. (2020), “Does the type of degree predict different levels of
Retamosa, M., Mill
an, A.
satisfaction and loyalty? A brand equity perspective”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 23,
pp. 57-77, doi: 10.1057/s41299-019-00073-1.
Saurombe, M., Barkhuizen, E.N. and Schutte, N.E. (2017), “Management perceptions of a higher
educational brand for the attraction of talented academic staff”, SA Journal of Human
Resource Management/SA Tydskrifvir Menslikehulpbronbestuur, Vol. 15, doi: 10.4102/sajhrm.
v15i0.831.
Rosenbaum-Elliott, R., Percy, L. and Pervan, S. (2011), Strategic Brand Management, 2nd ed., Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Schee, B.V. (2011), “Students as consumers: programming for brand loyalty”, Services Marketing
Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 32-43.
Schembri, S. and Latimer, L. (2016), “Online brand communities: constructing and co-constructing
brand culture”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 32 Nos 7-8, pp. 628-651, doi: 10.1080/
0267257X.2015.1117518.
Shalom, L. and Hino, H. (2016), “Emotional brand attachment: a factor in customer-bank
relationships”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 136-150.
Sheng, M.L. and Teo, T. (2012), “Product attributes and brand equity in the mobile domain: the
mediating role of customer experience”, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 139-146.
Sultan, P. and Wong, H.Y. (2012), “Cultures’ consequences in the assessment of higher education
service quality: the case of CQU, Australia”, Sharing the Cup of Knowledge, Australian and New
Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, ANZMAC, Adelaide.
Sultan, P. and Wong, H.Y. (2014), “An integrated-process model of service quality, institutional brand
and behavioural intentions: the case of a university”, Managing Service Quality: An
International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 487-521.
Sultan, P. and Wong, H.Y. (2019), “How service quality affects university brand performance,
university brand image and behavioral intention: the mediating effects of satisfaction and trust
 and moderating roles of gender and study mode”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 26, Core and
pp. 332-347, doi: 10.1057/s41262-018-0131-3.
supporting
Sung, M. and Yang, S.U. (2008), “Toward the model of university image: the influence of brand
personality, external prestige, and reputation”, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 20
brand equity
No. 4, pp. 357-376. dimensions


Switała, M., Gamro, W., Reformat, B. and Bili
nska-Reforma, K. (2020), “The influence of brand
awareness and brand image on brand equity – an empirical study of logistics service
providers”, Journal of Economics and Management, Vol. 33, pp. 96-119.
Tong, X. and Hawley, J.M. (2009), “Measuring customer-based brand equity: empirical evidence from
the sportswear market in China”, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 262-71.
Tran, K., Nguyen, P., Do, H. and Nguyen, L. (2020), “University students’ insight on brand equity”,
Management Science Letters, Vol. 10 No. 9, pp. 2053-2062, doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2020.2.006.
Tsiotsou, R.H. (2013), “Sport team loyalty: integrating relationship marketing and a hierarchy of
effects”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 458-471.
Ushantha, R.A.C. and Kumara, P.A.P.S. (2016), “A Quest for service quality in higher education:
empirical evidence from Sri Lanka”, Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 98-108. doi:
10.1080/15332969.2016.1154731.
Washburn, J.H. and Plank, R.E. (2002), “Measuring brand equity: an evaluation of a consumer-based
brand equity Scale”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 46-61.
Watkins, B.A. and Gonzenbach, W.J. (2013), “Assessing university brand personality through logos:
an analysis of the use of academics and athletics in university branding”, Journal of Marketing
for Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 15-33.
Whisman, R. (2009), “Internal branding: a university’s most valuable intangible asset”, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 367-370.
Wilson, E.J. and Elliot, E.A. (2016), “Brand meaning in higher education: leaving the shallows via deep
metaphors””, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 3058-3068.
Yasin, N.M., Md Noor, N. and Mohamad, O. (2007), “Does image of country-of-origin matter to brand
equity?”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 38-48.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand-
equity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), “An examination of selected marketing-mix elements and brand
equity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 195-211.
Yu, Y.T. and Dean, A. (2001), “The Contribution of emotional satisfaction to consumer loyalty”,
International Journal of Services Industry Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 234-250.
Yuan, R., Liu, M.J., Luo, J. and Yen, D.A. (2016), “Reciprocal transfer of brand identity and image
associations arising from higher education brand extensions”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 3069-3076.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.
Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L. (1990), Delivering Quality Service: Balancing Customer
Perceptions and Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Zeithaml, V., Bitner, M. and Gremler, D. (2013), Services Marketing, Integrate Customer Focus across
the Firm, 6th ed., McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York, NY.
JARHE Appendix

Factor
Eight core and four supporting brand equity dimensions – constructs loadings

Core – brand awareness

baw1 The university is well known 0.80
baw2 The university is among the first to come to mind when one thinks of all universities 0.78
in the country
baw3 The university’s logo is instantly recognizable 0.75
baw4 The university is known to offer specialized degree programs 0.75
baw5 The university’s degree programs are well known 0.79
Core – university reputation (overall brand equity)
ur1 The graduates of the university earn higher incomes than industry average 0.77
ur2 Companies prefer recruiting the university’s graduates 0.83
ur3 The university’s graduates are well recognized in their professions 0.86
ur4 The university’s graduates have successful careers 0.91
ur5 The university’s graduates receive good job offers 0.89
ur6 The university’s graduates are employed before or soon after graduation 0.86
ur7 The university’s graduates have no trouble getting accepted to graduate school 0.76
Core – perceived quality
p1 The university’s faculty are knowledgeable in their fields 0.82
p2 The faculty are polite in responding to students 0.90
p3 The faculty care about students’ needs 0.94
p4 The faculty are responsive to student needs 0.93
p5 The faculty are willing to help students 0.93
p6 The faculty are accessible for students’ questions and concerns 0.90
Core – brand loyalty
bloy1 The university is one of the first choices of prospective students 0.72
bloy2 The university’s graduates recommend the university to others 0.86
bloy3 The university’s graduates are loyal to the university 0.85
bloy4 The university’s graduates are proud of the university 0.91
bloy5 Its students/graduates are proud to have other people know that they will have/have 0.87
a degree from the university
Core – emotional or feeling
emo1 The university provides a supportive environment 0.89
emo2 The faculty/staff–student interactions are warm 0.91
emo3 Student relationships are characterized as warm and friendly 0.93
emo4 The university provides the students with a sense of community 0.88
Core – brand associations
bas2 The university employs state-of-the-art technology in educating its students 0.77
bas3 The university offers an internship program 0.85
bas4 The university’s career center helps students search for jobs 0.82
bas5 The university organizes alumni networking events 0.76
Core – brand trust
bt1 Students have trust in the education they are receiving/received from the university 0.83
bt2 The faculty are honest with students 0.86
Table A1. bt3 The faculty and students trust each other 0.93
Final brand equity bt4 The faculty emphasize ethical values in their courses 0.80
dimensions with factor
loadings (continued )
 Factor
Core and
Eight core and four supporting brand equity dimensions – constructs loadings supporting
brand equity
Core – learning environment
le1 The university has a supportive learning environment 0.80
dimensions
le2 The university is known as a respected institution 0.89
le3 The university has high academic standards 0.88
le4 The university offers well-known degree programs 0.84
le5 The university has a well-known academic reputation 0.90
Supporting – library services
ls1 The university has quality library resources (e.g. online databases, journals, 0.83
books, etc.)
ls2 The library offers a comfortable study environment 0.83
ls3 The library personnel are knowledgeable 0.91
ls4 The library personnel are polite in responding to student questions 0.90
ls5 The library personnel are helpful 0.93
ls6 The university provides student tutoring services 0.82
Supporting – dining services
ds1 The university has clean dining facilities 0.85
ds2 The university dining facility offers healthy food 0.82
ds3 The dining service personnel are knowledgeable about the food they serve 0.87
ds4 The dining service personnel are polite 0.91
ds5 The dining service personnel are professional 0.88
ds6 The dining service personnel serves the food quickly 0.82
Supporting–- residence hall
rh1 The university has modern residence halls 0.83
rh2 The university residence halls offer a good environment to study (e.g. study lounge) 0.87
rh3 The university residence halls have the latest technology in the rooms 0.82
rh4 The university residence halls provide opportunities for student activities 0.78
rh5 The university residence hall directors are polite 0.83
Supporting – physical facilities
oa1 The university offers a career placement center with supportive resources 0.72
(e.g. staff, room, training)
oa3 The university has modern classrooms 0.76
oa4 The university’s library has state-of-art computer labs 0.76
oa4 The university offers a variety of financial aid (e.g. scholarships, student loan, work 0.77
study) services
oa5 The registrar’s office takes care of student registration issues 0.80 Table A1.

Corresponding author
Tulay Girard can be contacted at: tug1@psu.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com