THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY

BAHCESEHIR UNIVERSITY

THE ROLES OF DIGITAL MARKETING AND DIRECT

MARKETING ON DEVELOPING BRAND EQUITY

Master’s Thesis

BENGİ YENİAYDIN

ISTANBUL, 2018
 THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY
BAHCESEHIR UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

THE ROLES OF DIGITAL MARKETING AND

DIRECT MARKETING ON DEVELOPING BRAND
EQUITY

Master’s Thesis

BENGİ YENİAYDIN

Supervisor: ASSIST. PROF. DR. BUKET AKDÖL

ISTANBUL, 2018
 THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY
BAHCESEHIR UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Title of Thesis: The roles of digital marketing and direct marketing on

developing brand equity
Name and Surname of Student: Bengi Yeniaydın
Date of Thesis Defense: 28.05.2018

The thesis has been approved by the Graduate School of Social Sciences.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Burak KÜNTAY

Graduate School Director

Signature

I certify that this thesis meets all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of
Master of Business Administration.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ela ÜNLER

Program Coordinator

Signature

This is to certify that we have read this thesis and we find it fully adequate in
scope, quality and content, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Business
Administration.

Jury Members Signature

Thesis Supervisor
Assist. Prof. Dr. Buket AKDÖL -----------------------------------

Member
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ahu ERGEN -----------------------------------

Member
Assist. Prof. Dr. Gül Selin ERBEN -----------------------------------
 PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my thesis supervisor, Assist. Prof. Dr. Buket Akdöl, who provided
a great consultancy, relevant and up-to-date information, constant support and expressed
positive attitude from the beginning until the end of my thesis process.

I also would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Yiğit Yurder, for his genuine
guidance, and knowledge about the subject.

Finally, I would like to thank my friends, and my parents, Yüksel Yeniaydın and İlhami
Yeniaydın for their moral support and motivational attitude.

Istanbul, 2018 Bengi Yeniaydın

 ABSTRACT

THE ROLES OF DIGITAL MARKETING AND DIRECT MARKETING ON

DEVELOPING BRAND EQUITY

Bengi Yeniaydın

Master of Business Administration

Thesis Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. Buket Akdöl

May 2018, 57 Pages

Brand equity is defined as the whole of a brand’s features, characteristics and benefits,
which are presented to the customers through four main dimensions: Brand awareness,
brand associations, perceived quality, brand loyalty. Marketing communication tools
play an essential role on the intent of creating and communicating value through those
dimensions. The main purpose of this thesis is investigating the effects of digital
marketing and direct marketing on developing brand equity, through its four
dimensions. This master’s thesis makes a unique contribution to scientific field, hence
there are limited research including empirical testing about the individual effects of
those two tools on developing brand equity. Accordingly, a questionnaire is conducted
to mobile phone users from Istanbul, Turkey; and collected data is analysed through
SPSS. Analysis results showed that both tools have a positive and significant effect on
developing brand equity, but digital marketing is more effective than direct marketing.

Keywords: Brand Equity, Marketing Communications, Digital Marketing, Direct

Marketing

iv
 ÖZET

DİJİTAL PAZARLAMA VE DOĞRUDAN PAZARLAMANIN MARKA

ÖZVARLIĞINI GELİŞTİRMEDEKİ ROLÜ

Bengi Yeniaydın

İşletme Yüksek Lisans Programı

Tez Danışmanı: Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Buket Akdöl

Mayıs 2018, 57 Sayfa

Marka özvarlığı, markanın karakteristik özellikleri ve müşteriye sunduğu faydaların

bütünü olarak tanımlanıp, dört temel boyut aracılığıyla müşterilere aktarılır: Marka
bilinirliği, marka çağrışımları, algılanan kalite, marka bağlılığı. Pazarlama iletişim
araçları, belirtilen boyutlar yoluyla değer yaratmada önemli rol oynamaktadır. Bu tez
çalışmasının ana amacı, dijital pazarlama ve doğrudan pazarlamanın, marka özvarlığını
dört temel boyut aracılığıyla geliştirmedeki rolünü incelemektir. Sadece dijital
pazarlama veya sadece doğrudan pazarlamanın marka özvarlığı üzerine etkisini ampirik
testlerle inceleyen çalışmalar literatürde kısıtlı olduğundan, bu tez çalışmasının bilimsel
literature katkısı özgündür. Bu çalışmada, İstanbul, Türkiye’de ikamet eden cep telefonu
kullanıcılarına anket yapılarak veri toplanarak, SPSS üzerinden analiz yapılmıştır.
Analizler, dijital pazarlama ve doğrudan pazarlamanın marka özvarlığını geliştirmede
pozitif ve anlamlı etkisi olduğunu, ancak dijital pazarlamanın daha etkili olduğunu
göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Marka Özvarlığı, Pazarlama İletişimi, Dijital Pazarlama,

Doğrudan Pazarlama

v
 CONTENTS

TABLES...............................................................................................................viii
FIGURES...............................................................................................................ix
ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................x
SYMBOLS.............................................................................................................xi
1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................4
2.1 BRANDS AND BRANDING………………………………………….4
2.1.1 Definition and Benefits of Branding……………………….....4
2.1.2 Development and Concept of Brand Equity…………………5
2.1.3 Models and Dimensions of Brand Equity……………………7
2.1.3.1 Brand awareness…………………………………......10
2.1.3.2 Brand associations…...................................................10
2.1.3.3 Perceived quality……………………………………..11
2.1.3.4 Brand loyalty…………………………………………12
2.2 MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS AND BRAND EQUITY.....13
2.2.1 Scope and Benefits of Marketing Communications..............13
2.2.2 Marketing Communication Tools and Their Effects on
Brand Equity……………………………………………………….16
2.2.2.1 Advertising……………………………………….......16
2.2.2.2 Sales promotions…………………………………......18
2.2.2.3 Direct marketing……………………………………..19
2.2.2.4 Personal selling……………………………………….21
2.2.2.5 Public relations……………………………………….22
2.2.2.6 Digital marketing…………………………………….23
2.2.3 Thesis Hypotheses…………………........................................24
3. DATA AND METHOD....................................................................................29
3.1 FRAMEWORK OF THE RESEARCH……….................................29
3.2 RESEARCH METHOD……………………………………………...31
4. FINDINGS…………........................................................................................39
4.1 NORMALITY TEST AND DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS.............39

vi
 4.2 FACTOR ANALYSIS..........................................................................42
4.3 REGRESSION ANALYSIS.................................................................47
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION..............................................................52
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………....58
CIRRICULUM VITAE………………………………………………………...67

vii
 TABLES

Table 2.1: Brand equity models………………………………………….........................8

Table 2.2: The roles of marcom tools on developing brand equity…………………….26
Table 3.1: Items of scales………………………………………………………………35
Table 3.2: Reliability levels of the scales………………………………………………36
Table 3.3: Demographics of the sample………………………………………………..37
Table 3.4: Mobile phone brand statistics of the sample………………………………..38
Table 4.1: Descriptive statistics of brand equity items………………………………...40
Table 4.2: Descriptive statistics of digital marketing items…………………………....41
Table 4.3: Descriptive statistics of direct marketing items…………………………….41
Table 4.4: KMO and Bartlett’s tests……………………………………………………42
Table 4.5: Explained variations of brand equity factors………………………………..43
Table 4.6: Brand equity factor matrix………………………………………………….43
Table 4.7: Explained variation of digital marketing …………………………………...44
Table 4.8: Explained variation of direct marketing …………………………………....44
Table 4.9: Digital marketing factor matrix……………………………………………..44
Table 4.10: Direct marketing factor matrix…………………………………………….45
Table 4.11: Identifying factors on the scale……………………………………………45
Table 4.12: Reconstruction of thesis hypotheses……………………………………….47
Table 4.13: The effects of digital marketing on brand equity dimensions…………......48
Table 4.14: The effects of direct marketing on brand equity dimensions……………...49
Table 4.15: Comparison of effects……………………………………………………..50
Table 4.16: Summary of regression analysis results…………………………………...51

viii
 FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Aaker’s brand equity model………................................................................9

Figure 2.2: Marketing communication tools…………………………………………...15
Figure 2.3: Conceptual framework………......................................................................27
Figure 3.1: Research model…………………………………………………………….30

ix
 ABBREVIATIONS

CRM : Customer Relationship Management

KMO : Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
PR : Public Relations
ROI : Return on Investment
SEO : Search Engine Optimization
SPSS : Statistical Program for Social Sciences
TQM : Total Quality Management
TV : Television

x
 SYMBOLS

Correlation coefficient of a sample : R

Degree of freedom : df
First main hypothesis : H1
Population size : N
R Squared Change, coefficient of determination : R2
Second main hypothesis : H2
Significance coefficient : F
Significance level or probability level : p, P
Standard error for the unstandardized beta : SE B
Standardized beta : β
Subhypotheses of first main hypothesis : H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d
Subhypotheses of first main hypothesis : H2a, H2b, H2c, H2d
Test statistic : T
Unstandardized beta : B

xi
 1. INTRODUCTION

In the current climate, all companies and markets endure a fierce competition
environment to continue their existence and reach success due to the increasing growth
in technology. Products’ or services’ quality standards have been raised widely through
the previous decades. Formerly, there were more small and medium-sized enterprises,
and less large corporate companies. Since there were less product and service option in
every sector, each company and enterprise had its own consumer segment. Therefore,
consumers were not aware of any other level of user experience or service standard
because of the way the product or service presented to them with the name of a brand.
Raising competition triggered changes in the marketing strategy and increased
importance of branding. Large corporate companies started to gain competitive
advantage on specific consumer segments through successful branding strategies.
Consumers’ sources to reach further information are increased, and they began
questioning the benefits of their product and service usage habits, searching for a higher
level of experience. On the purpose of being chosen, companies had to exist with their
brand name, being unique and special for the consumer. Brands should show the
differentiation with the rivals’ products. Therefore, informing the audience about
brands’ benefits through its products and services is critical.

At this point, brand equity emerges for establishing a critical differentiation strategy.
Aaker (1996, 1991) indicates that brand equity changes the way the brand exists in
consumers’ life and memory, as it is the sum of all features, characteristics, experiences,
benefits and values presented to the consumers. Brand equity is generally established,
expressed and measured through its main dimensions as brand awareness, brand
associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty (Aaker 1996).

As stated above, another important point is how to communicate the brand’s

characteristics to attract the consumers and become memorable and unique. It is stated
that, functional features and lifestyle image of the brand are more easily personalized
and brought into the forefront through a well-managed communication strategy.
Especially in saturated markets, the products and services are very similar except small
differences in design, and companies position their products accordingly through
marketing communication activities (Dahlén et al. 2010).

This study is about of the roles of marketing communication tools on developing brand
equity. One reason for the topic selection is there is limited research in the literature
about the specific roles of individual marketing communication tools on developing
brand equity through its dimensions. Another reason is brand equity’s importance on
successful management of a brand in a competitive environment. Aaker (1996)
indicated that main factors complicating a powerful brand development are price
competition, enhancement of many rivals, disarrangement in markets and media,
internal triggers to change brand strategy, demotivating factors in the organization.
Especially in today’s destructive competition era, many brands face the threat of losing
brand equity as these factors maintain their existence.

Analyzing the literature in scope of the research, detailed information about each
marketing communication tool’s role on developing brand equity is indicated in the
thesis. Afterwards, it is deduced that there is a research gap about the two marcom tools
digital marketing and direct marketing, whose importance has been raised for a
successful brand communication activity in this technological era. Developing
personalized, unique and direct communication with the consumers and efficient usage
of digital channels are required in the marketing strategies of competitive markets. The
purpose of the study is to determine the roles of digital marketing and direct marketing
on developing brand equity. For achieving this goal, four main research questions to
answer are stated below:

i. Does digital marketing and direct marketing have an effect on brand equity
dimensions?
ii. Are digital marketing communication tools like web sites, social media, mobile
applications, digital ads effective on developing brand equity?
iii. Are direct marketing communication tools like personalized SMS, e-mail, mobile
phone, digital channels or printed media materials effective on developing brand equity?

2
iv. Which of the marketing communication channels (digital marketing or direct
marketing) is more effective on brand equity dimensions?

In literature review part of the thesis, firstly, the process, importance and benefits of
branding are evaluated, and brand equity is introduced. After that, important brand
equity models and structures are explained, and the concept of brand awareness, brand
associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty as the dimensions of brand equity are
defined. Then, marketing communication tools and their relationships with developing
brand equity are evaluated. At the final section of the literature review part, conceptual
framework is stated, and main thesis hypotheses are constructed.

In data and method part of the thesis, research model is explained and subhypotheses
according to main hypotheses are constructed. Research methodology, sample, scales
and demographics are stated. In findings part of the thesis, research questions are
answered by testing hypotheses. Finally, on the discussion and conclusion part of the
thesis, results of this thesis are summarized, findings of the research are evaluated,
unique contributions of the thesis are explained, recommendations for further studies
and limitations of the research are indicated.

3
 2. LITERATURE REVİEW

In this part of the study, main purpose is providing a theoretical background through the
previous research for brand equity, marketing communication tools, and their effects on
brand equity dimensions. After giving a brief introduction about brands and branding,
brand equity is explained, and related literature is summarized. Then, main marketing
communication tools and their effects on brand equity dimensions are evaluated with
the intent of building the main hypotheses of the study.

2.1 BRANDS AND BRANDING

2.1.1 Definition and Benefits of Branding

Formerly, branding was the differentiation factor for the assets of producers (Davcik
and Sharma 2015, Interbrand 1992, Aaker 1991). As a word, ‘brand’ is coming from
‘brandr’ in the old North American language, meaning ‘to burn’; since the farmers and
ranch owners need to have marks as ‘branding’ on their animals for identification
(Interbrand 1992).

In the following years, the main idea of branding did not change, but gained a larger
scope. In terms of modern approach, brand and branding concept is centered upon
perceptions sourced from products and services. Brand is defined as a group of
memories, associations and experiences, which create a connection and value,
belonging to the consumers (Kapferer 2008, pp. 9-10). According to the definition of
American Marketing Association, the composition of name, symbol, design or term,
which helps distinguishing the products or services from each other, is defined as a
brand (Odabaşı and Oyman 2005, p. 360, Kotler 2000).

For a precise description of a brand, it is important to distinguish between a ‘brand’ and

a ‘product’. Successful brands have been developed from a various range of products,
which have been perceived to perform better than their rivals (Kapferer 2008). Products

4
are presented in the market to meet a need, but brands are multidimensional in
comparison to competing products for satisfying the same need (Keller 2008, pp. 4-5).

Branding requires managing a long-term vision to gather a strong position in the market
(Kapferer 2008, pp. 31-33). From the practical aspect of the managers, this strategy is
significant in terms of gaining awareness, associations, dignity and prestige (Keller
2008, p.2). Likewise, it is associated with many marketing elements like positioning,
customer relationship management (CRM), service quality, advertising identity,
awareness and recognition and so on. (Ak 2006, pp. 22-23).

Reason for branding’s rising importance is the wide scope of benefits it provides for
consumers, manufacturers and firms. For the consumers, brands indicate product
source, estimate their expectations, reduce risk and cost, provide time saving during
purchase decision and give signal about the quality (Kotler and Keller 2016, Chung et
al. 2013, Keller 2008, Keller and Lehmann 2006, Fill 2002, Krishnan and Hartline
2001, Yoo et al. 2000). From manufacturers’ and firms’ point of view, brands guarantee
the level of quality perception, develop a powerful and sustainable impact, create
financial and competitive advantage, preserve the legal rights of product, simplify
copyright processes and tie the goods with specific associations (Kotler and Keller
2016, Brunello 2014, Allaway et al. 2011, Keller 2008, pp. 6-10, Keller 2001).

2.1.2 Development and Concept of Brand Equity

In 1980’s, brand equity emerged among the important marketing topics as a confusing
concept and continued to become popular in 1990’s (Riezebos 2003, Keller 2008, Aaker
1990). At the beginning, it was financially defined as the difference between company’s
sales price and net assets (Feldwick 2002). Becoming more popular, brand equity was
defined by marketers as sum of total useful features and characteristics linked with the
product through a brand name (Davcik et al. 2015, Aaker 2004, Riezebos 2003,
Vázquez et al. 2002, Park and Srinivasan 1994, Rangaswamy et al. 1993).

5
According to the research, two main types of brand equity is emerged as customer-
based and financial in terms of source and measurement (Kapferer 2008, Keller 2008).
Customer-based approach, also stated as marketing approach, is more focused on
manner and attitude of the brand towards consumers (Richards 1997, Aaker 1996). It
indicates that a brand’s performance and value develop through consumers’ relationship
with the brand over time (Keller 2008, Rust et al. 2004). Customer-based brand equity
might be positive or negative when the consumers act more affirmative or less
affirmative to a brand’s products in comparison to a no name, meaning an unbranded
product (Kotler and Keller 2016, Keller 2008, p. 48, Keller 1993). As a customer-based
but ‘cognitive’ approach, Aaker (1991) indicates that brand equity is a set of value
generating or subtracting dimensions, which can be named as assets or liabilities, and
belongs to a product or service, attached by the brand’s name or logo. In general, brand
equity is influenced from consumer reactions, as they state the final equity value with
their purchase decision (Villas-Boas 2004, Keller and Lehmann 2003). On the other
hand, according to the financial approach, brands are accepted as assets, gathering value
into the market (Keller and Lehmann 2006, Upshaw 1995). It is stated that brand equity
is developed over the financial forecast of brand’s profits or market share (Kapferer
2008, Ehrenberg 1993). Therefore, the financial brand equity equals the value after
subtracting the brand equity from overall brand assets and has no negative value (Simon
and Sullivan 1993).

Except of many different approaches and definitions, brand equity concept has been
supportive for the development of branding and encouraged further research in
marketing area accordingly. However, mostly agreed understanding is that it clarifies
marketing and financial results between branded and unbranded products and generates
value for the brand (Kapferer 2008, Keller 2008, pp. 37-38, Netemeyer et al. 2004).
From an intangible perspective, brand equity comes from consumers’ sense of trust and
assurance (Brady et al. 2009).

Hence, brand equity symbolizes revenue and extension; firms in all sectors make
strategic plans for developing and sustaining brand equity (Dahlén et al. 2010, Keller
2008, Yoo et al. 2000, Shocker et al. 1994). While creating or redesigning brand

6
strategy, brand managers work for a powerful and long-term vision reflecting both the
products’ benefits and the brand’s identity. (Ak 2006).

Researchers emphasize that reaching a successful and sustainable level of brand equity
brings many below stated rewarding consequences both for the consumer, and for the
company (Brunello 2014, Dahlén et al. 2010, Keller 2008, p. 638, Sinha et al. 2008,
Keller and Lehmann 2006, Hoeffler and Keller 2003, Aaker 2000, Feldwick 1996,
Rangaswamy et al. 1993, Bharadwaj et al. 1993, Aaker 1991, Farquhar 1989).
Consumers are more pleased as they start to have more specific feelings and
information about the brand, gain more trust, make easier buying decisions and live a
better experience. Increasing brand equity, companies can create better chances and
gain competitive advantage. Accordingly, higher loyalty, durable competitiveness,
lower price sensitivity, faster recognition of the brand name, better communication,
research and development, increased effectiveness, adaptability and cooperation in
marketing strategy is obtained by the companies in the long-term.

2.1.3 Models and Dimensions of Brand Equity

Brand equity creates a remarkable change on brand perceptions and consumer habits
(Reynolds and Philips 2005). Therefore, the term emerged among the important terms
in marketing (Rossiter and Bellman 2005, Wood 2000). Elements of brand equity
should be improved, and their scope should be extended beyond management process
(Pickton and Broderick 2005).

Since brands and their equity are benefit gathering assets for a company, a model and a
measurement system is necessary to make relevant long-term decisions (Keller 2008,
Yoo et al 2000). Among the researchers, there are various models for evaluating and
measuring brand equity. Measurement criteria might be supported with financial
measures or results in case of coming across unbalanced outputs for financial analysis
(Kapferer 2008, Aaker 1996, p. 316). As brand equity is associated with brand
performance in the market, it can be evaluated with market specific measures as market
share and relative price, too. (Dahlén et al. 2010, p. 232, Aaker 1996). Brand equity can

7
be measured and leveraged through its sources, meaning its dimensions, or its results as
the estimation of the actions benefits. For enhancing and sustaining brand equity, its
dimensions should be leveraged (Keller 2008, Villarejo and Sanchez 2005, Aaker 2000,
Yoo et al. 2000, Aaker 1996). A summary of the research models is given in Table 2.1
chronologically.
Table 2.1: Brand equity models
Researcher
Buil et al. (2013)
Allaway et al. (2011)
Kapferer (2008)
Atilgan et al. (2009)
Pappu et al. (2007)
Pickton and Broderick (2005)
Netemeyer et al. (2004)
Keller (2001)
Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000)
Yoo et. al. (2000)
Young&Rubicam’s (2000)
Brand-Asset Valuator
Cooper and Simons (1997)
Feldwick (1996)
Shocker et al. (1994)
Aaker (1991)
Interbrand (1990)
Aaker (1990)
Equitrend (1990)
Dimensions
Brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality,
brand loyalty
Product and service quality, customer reward programs,
customer retention, price, layout, location, community
involvement
Brand awareness, brand image (associations)
Brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality,
brand loyalty
Brand awareness, brand associations and brand personality,
perceived quality, brand loyalty
Brand future, brand strength, brand description, brand
protection
Brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality,
uniqueness, price premium
Brand salience, brand performance, brand image, user
experience, brand loyalty
Brand awareness, perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand
associations and personality
Perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand awareness, brand
associations
Definition, relevance (as perceived difference), esteem,
knowledge (as familiarity)
Quality (associations and popularity), quantity (awareness,
penetration, loyalty data), future (growth and extension)
Brand assets, brand strength, brand value
Brand loyalty and brand associations
Brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, brand
associations, other brand assets (competitive advantage on
the market)
Leadership, globalization (internationality), stability,
market power, market trend, support, protection
Recognition, perceived quality, imagery, brand loyalty,
patent quality
Brand salience, perceived quality, user satisfaction
8
In this master’s thesis, researcher used a brand equity model based on Aaker’s (1996)
brand equity model, which includes most frequently used and proved brand equity
dimensions, showed in Table 2.1. This model or some of its dimensions has been used
by other researchers (Buil et al. 2013, Atilgan et al. 2009, Pappu et al. 2007, Netemeyer
et al. 2004, Yoo et al. 2000). Additionally, the dimensions were also reinvestigated on
the research by Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) and Aaker (2000) himself.
Accordingly, this brand equity structure also express the meaning of brand equity in
marketing terms. Aaker (1996) indicates that it is critical to know the way to long term
equity, which is going through the four main dimensions as brand awareness, brand
loyalty, perceived quality, brand associations and if included, other brand assets.
Aaker’s model including the detailed explanations on value creation through brand
equity is illustrated in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Aaker’s brand equity model

Source: Aaker, D. A., 1991. Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New
York: The Free Press.

9
2.1.3.1 Brand awareness

Awareness is defined as the power level of existence in consumers’ memory and their
description ability on different settings, also the primary step of the communication
(Aaker 1996, Rossiter and Percy 1987). Gaining brand awareness is among first
requirements for strengthening a brand, and it is related to many value preferences as
quality, trust, emotions, image and price (Çizmeci and Ercan 2015, Kapferer 2008).

Brand awareness is built through recognition and recall (Keller 2008, p. 638, Rossiter
and Bellman 2005, p. 107, Aaker 1991). For recognition and identification among the
rivals through the name, package or logo is important to link positive feelings into the
brand name (Keller 2008, Aaker 1996). However, recognition alone does not bring the
desired effect without the recalling process. Repetitive encountering associated with the
need awakens the consumers’ feeling of a good product, and it is linked together with
high level of promotion spending. The strength of recall is increased through usage of
personalized communication. Having high recall means, after asking about a product
category, the brand reflexively ranks among the first names coming to mind. In the
ultimate awareness level, the recalled brand name would be only one by target
consumers (Keller 2008, pp. 54-56; Rossiter and Bellman 2005, pp. 108-109, Aaker
1996, pp. 10-16).

Brand awareness level mostly determines the consumer-brand connection (Çizmeci and
Ercan 2015). Feeling of familiarity among the same product line fastens the purchase
process, which is critical for the development of long-term relationship (Sheela and
Sneha 2017, Macdonald and Sharp 2000, Dodds et al. 1991). As a result, brand equity is
enhanced through this motivation (Keller 2008, Atilgan et al. 2005, Yoo et al. 2000).

2.1.3.2 Brand associations

Associations are created through linkages with the product needs in consumers’ mind
(Dahlén et al. 2010). When permanent and successful, they are evoked automatically,
influencing the value and appreciation to the brand and for the consumer (Dahlén et al.

10
2010, Atilgan et al. 2005, Yoo et al. 2000, Aaker 1991). According to the organizational
identification theory, people strengthen their sense of belonging and personal identity
through joining to social communities (Mael and Ashforth 1992). Similary while getting
in contact with a brand, the created associations are merged with the social identity (Del
Rio et al. 2001).

Brand associations is defined as the information set and inferred meaning about the
brand in consumers’ memory, and these usually include the personalized feature and
benefits constituting brand image (Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000, Aaker 1991). For
attracting consumers, strong, remarkable and unique associations linked to a brand, are
necessary. Strength refers to the detail and personalization, remarkability refers to the
attractiveness, and uniqueness refers to originality and differentiation (Keller 2008,
Kapferer 2008, Aaker 1991). Constituting them also relies on maintaining a specific
level of brand awareness, which is stated as a primary objective on a brand’s
communication process with its consumers (Kotler and Armstrong 2012, Rossiter and
Bellman 2005). Therefore, brand awareness and brand associations dimensions are used
under a single dimension in some studies (Yoo and Donthu 2001, Yoo et al. 2000).

Brand associations might refer to product related dimensions like brand performance or
non-product related dimensions like consumers’ characteristic (Netemeyer et al. 2004,
Aaker 1991). However, the key point is to create the effect on purchase decisions,
where the associations create the foundation, and generate value for the brand (Atilgan
et al. 2005). Researchers (Rajh and Dosen 2009, Atilgan et al. 2005, Yoo et al. 2000,
Aaker 1991) emphasize that brand equity is boosted through the strength of associations
with the brand, which may contain product functionalities, promotion celebrities,
successful logo or symbols.

2.1.3.3 Perceived quality

Perceived quality aspect is normally stated as a part of brand associations, but due to its
characteristic as financial performance source and being a functionality and goodness
measure, it has been transformed into an important brand equity dimension (Aaker

11
1996, p. 17-19). This dimension is also characteristics as general reference source for
consumers (Yoo et al. 2000, Zeithaml 1988).

This aspect has a wide scope of measurement for various brands of products and
services, hence perceived quality measuring statemenrs have been not specifically stated
but left flexible (Nam et al. 2011). Studies (Yoo et al. 2000, Aaker and Jacobson 1994,
Anderson et al. 1994) have shown that perceived quality also contributes to the
company’s’ return on investment (ROI) and stock return, also having impact on market
share and profit. As a strategic scale, perceived quality is used as a success measure of
total quality management (TQM) programs and as a value in the mission statements.

One of the most distinguishing factors for consumers to be attracted to a brand is the
feeling of quality (Karaçor 2000, p. 128). High level of perceived quality together with
constant satisfaction is prerequisite for earning long-term trust (Fill 2002). Because
through a specific usage period, positive experiences and need fulfillment, perceived
quality is enhanced (Aaker 1991, Zeithaml 1988). When consumers have a positive
perception on specific products or services, they are more likely to and prefer them
among their competitors (Kayaman and Arasli 2007). In accordance to that, high brand
perceived quality and preferability increases brand equity (Atilgan et al. 2005, Yoo et al.
2000, Aaker 1996).

2.1.3.4 Brand loyalty

Brand loyalty is defined as the commitment to endure the same purchase behavior for a
brand, product or service and not being affected from external market factors or changes
in product attributes (Yoo et al. 2000, Oliver 1997, Aaker 1991). Loyal consumers have
the tendency to pay more and spread positive comments about the brand (Allaway et al.
2011, Wright and Sparks 1999).

It has been noticed that terms of loyalty and customer experience substitute each other
(O’Malley 1998). For a strong loyalty strategy, the brands should develop an emotional
connection with consumers, while catching a trend of cumulatively increasing

12
consumption (Kapferer 2008, pp. 252-254). For a safe strategy, consumers should get
the feeling of same superior experience through the consumption process (Sheela and
Sneha 2017). Because, even the most loyal consumers might change their behavior if
they do not recognize developments brand experience (Kapferer 2008).

Brand loyalty is evaluated through two different aspects as behavioral loyalty and
attitudinal loyalty (Bandyopadhyay and Martell 2007, Aydın and Ozer 2005).
According to behavioral approach, loyalty is measured with the frequency of repetitive
purchase. On the other hand, attitudinal approach is related to the tendency to purchase,
ideas about product and behaviour towards recommendation (Javalgi and Moberg 1997,
Jarvis and Wilcox 1976, Jacoby 1971). For attitudinal type of loyalty, it is possible that
consumers are loyal to more than one brand (Fill 2002, Dowling and Uncles 1997). The
brand loyalty definition used in this study implies the mixed definition of Oliver (1997),
and adapted from the research by Yoo et al. (2000). In this definition, the loyal behavior
to purchase and positive attitude among the brand is endured independently from any
external source (Oliver 1997).

Brand loyalty has been one of the main power sources of the brand and brings beneficial
consequences with financial growth and extension (Dahlén et al. 2010). It is a
complementary factor for revenue generation and value creation because of the
sustainable purchase effect, resulting in high brand equity (Kapferer 2008, Atilgan et al.
2005, Yoo et al. 2000 Grover and Srinivasan 1992, Aaker 1991).

2.2 MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS AND BRAND EQUITY

2.2.1 Scope and Benefits of Marketing Communications

Meaning of the word marcom includes the combination of the intended and perceived
messages sent from the marketer to the consumer for generating purchase (Rossiter and
Bellman 2005, p. 6). Marcom, as a process, is defined a constant and regular
conversation of a group or organization with its related recipients (Fill 2002, p. 12). In
terms of this process, each point of contact with the consumer is an opportunity to

13
communicate about the product and brand, because the common ground of all marcom
is marketing about them (Kotler and Keller 2016, Rossiter and Bellman 2005).

After 1980’s, terms of ‘marketing’ and ‘communications’ have been utilized as

complementing each other to become more powerful, when their beneficial effects on
sales were recognizable (Ak 2006). Technological developments changed the
communication style globally, especially with smartphones and Internet (Kotler and
Keller 2016). Communication meant power for the brands, as it can reveal the strengths,
creates differentiation with the rivals and preserves relationships with consumers
(Kotler and Keller 2016, Kapferer 2008, p. 244). Therefore, marcom messages are
placed into various media tools to position brands in consumers’ mind (Rossiter and
Bellman 2005, p. 6).

Marketing communication activities have a dynamic construction, and high degree of

adaptation to changing market conditions and consumer mentality (Kitchen 1999).
Therefore, marcom actions can affect the targeted audience quickly than expected
(Herrera et al. 2002). Providing a mixture of marketing strategies and communication
methods, the communicated story’s main aim centralizes around the background and
meaning of the brand beyond the process (Dahlén et al. 2010). Consumers generally do
not give enough effort to a brand for finding out its functional benefits as quality
indicators (Aaker 1996, p. 20). Marcom tools lead them into the true criterion on
tangible and intangible brand perceptions, from where brand equity is generated (Buil et
al. 2013, Yoo et al. 2000). Consumers can gather information about the usage, target
audience and manufacturer about the product; also company’s and brand’s general
characteristics (Keller 2010, Fill 2002, Aaker 1996). Evaluating consumer behavior
towards marcom efforts, successful strategies for enhancing brand equity can be
developed (Buil et al. 2013, Yoo et al. 2000). Marcom contributes to brand development
through reorganizing the strategy, repositioning the brand, gaining consumers’ trust,
influencing and changing consumers’ and rivals’ perceptions, developing and
introducing new products, services and their new or changing features (Dahlén et al.
2010, Keller and Lehmann 2006).

14
Building a successful marcom strategy, it is important to puzzle the best communication
items in efficient combinations to create a single, integrated, stable and strong message
for consumers (Dahlén et al. 2010, Karaçor 2009, Naik et al. 2005, Fill 2002, p. 459,
Herrera et al. 2002). Consumers’ should have the feeling of getting one unique message
from multiple sources (Tynan 1994), and these integration through linking all messages
has great importance for contributing to brand equity (Kotler and Armstrong 2012).

Several studies indicate that promotion tools consist of different dialog channels coming
together to transmit a message (Kotler and Keller 2016, Rowley 2001). Those tools are
comprised of advertising, sales promotions, direct marketing, personal selling, PR, and
digital marketing (Kotler and Keller 2016, Kotler and Armstrong 2012, Dahlén et al.
2010, Keller 2008, Egan 2007, Rossiter and Bellman 2005, Keller 2003, Fill 2002).
Marcom tools’ and subtools according to the literature are summarized in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Marketing communication tools

Source: Pride, W. M. and Ferrell, O. C., 2014. Marketing. Issue no: 14 South-Western, USA: Cengage
Learning.
Keller, K. L., 2003. Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, managing brand equity.
Issue no:2 Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

15
2.2.2 Marketing Communication Tools and Their Effects on Brand Equity

2.2.2.1 Advertising

Advertising is defined as the promotion of products and services in paid context and
impersonal form to a mass community to affect their opinions (Dahlén et al. 2010,
Keller 2008, p. 235). Main advertising media tools are TV, radio, cinema, magazines,
newspapers, interactive and outdoor channels (Dahlén et al. 2010, Rossiter and Bellman
2005, Belch G. and Belch M. 1995). After 1980’s, advertising campaigns’ focus has
been transferred from product to brand image (Dahlén et al. 2010). Afterwards,
advertising became one of the best tools to tell the story, and characteristics of the brand
through a proactive and controllable but natural communication with the audience
(Kapferer 2008, pp. 196-197).

The key function of advertising is, being effective on a massive group while using a
simple-structured message (Fill 2002, p. 486). When higher personalization is needed,
advertising activities should be supported with segmented marcom tools (Fill 2002).
Because even if level of control on advertising components is high, personal influence
is low in the long term (Egan 2007).

Brand awareness, brand associations and perceived quality dimensions develop through
consumer-brand communication and linkage (Buil et al. 2013). Through
advertisements’ both rational, and emotional contact with the audience, a brand can
position itself in consumer’s mind with positive emotions, building awareness and
creating memorable associations, which will be remembered and recalled in the next
future (Buil et al. 2013, Dahlén et al. 2010, Keller 2008, Ak 2006, Villarejo and
Sanchez 2005, Fill 2002). In addition, brand value is leveraged through intensive
advertising.1 Therefore, it is strongly emphasized that advertising structure should be
directly associated with the corporate identity to provide the desired recall (Ak 2006,
pp. 42-43). Through a strong linkage and positioning, the brand is associated with the

1
Joshi, A., Hanssens, D., 2003. Advertising spending and market capitalization. INFORMS Marketing
Science Conference, June 2003 College Park, USA: University of Maryland.

16
favorite product image in consumers’ mind and became a part of their lifestyle (Fill
2002, Keller et al. 1998).

Through increased awareness and strengthened associations through advertising,

targeted audience’s tendency for purchase is increased even if they used to purchase
from competitor brands (Dahlén et al. 2010, Hauser and Wernerfeldt 1990). After
capturing a stable level, new successful campaigns in a smaller scope would have a
cumulatively increasing effect on awareness and associations, as consumers already
knew the brand (Kapferer 2008). Because the brand messages are placed in the
permanent memory and recalled through the new campaign (Fill 2002, p. 504).

As mentioned, perceived quality dimension can also be developed with advertising.

Consumers develop a sense of high quality when they receive continuous and intensive
advertising messages (Dahlén et al. 2010, Rossiter and Bellman 2005, Yoo et al. 2000,
Villarejo and Sanchez 2005, Aaker and Jacobson 1994, Kirmani and Wright 1989). It is
also stated that consumers determine their quality dimensions through advertising (Yoo
et al. 2000). Visibility of advertisement is increased through an optimum budget o
strengthen the effect (Keller 2008, Fill 2002, Simon and Sullivan 1993). In addition,
advertising helps to enhance brand loyalty. With advertising’s effect on positive
memories and associations, consumers develop a supportive behavior and tend to buy
the promoted product (Shimp 1997). When trust is developed, and purchase becomes
habitual, brand loyalty is created (Shimp 1997, Hauser and Wernerfeldt 1990).

On the other hand, inexact or deceptive contents on advertisements generate benefit for
a short-term, but afterwards result in a dramatic decrease on brand equity (Ak 2006, p.
90). For succeeding in a specific level of brand awareness, associations and perceived
quality, advertising strategy and message should be controllable, original, segmented
and visible (Buil et al. 2013, Kapferer 2008, Keller 2008, Fill 2002, Aaker 1996, Batra
et al. 1996).

17
2.2.2.2 Sales promotions

Sales promotions gained a growing importance on 1980’s and 1990’s due to the need of
quick purchase solutions. They are generally defined as incentive items to trigger the
consumers to the first or repetitive purchase, because degree of control on the
components and level of personal and financial influence is high in the short-term
(Keller 2008, p. 256, Egan 2007, p. 322, Fill 2002).

Sales promotions are stated as a critical marcom tool for influencing brand equity
(Valette-Florence et al. 2011). If carefully planned on effecting purchase decision, a
positive experience throughout the promotions might create new brand associations and
improve brand equity. Nevertheless, it should be kept in mind that brand loyalty and
perceived quality might decrease if the attitude is remarkably price oriented (Keller
2008, pp. 256-259). When sales promotion activities are supported with other marcom
tools, their effects would be more long-lasting in both cases (Fill 2002, pp. 569-570).

According to researchers, monetary promotions negatively, non-monetary promotions

positively affect brand equity (Buil et al. 2013, Yoo et al. 2000, Ray 1982). Among the
equity builders as non-monetary promotions, free samples, presents, contests,
demonstrations and informative components can be counted; and among the non-equity
builders as monetary promotions, price discounts, promotional packs, raffles, rebates,
coupons are in the items (Buil et al. 2013, Yoo et al. 2000, Ray 1982).

Monetary promotions may not work beneficially in long-term (Yoo et al. 2000). They
are simply copied by competitors and generally used for a short-term period (Fill 2002,
Aaker 1991). Regular or sharp decreases on the price might damage brand equity,
because of decreasing brand’s perceived quality, harming brand awareness and
associations through attracting attention into the price and triggering change on
purchase behavior, which would negatively affect brand loyalty (Kapferer 2008, pp.
246-247, DelVecchio et al. 2006, Fill 2002, Yoo et al. 2000). If a specific discount is
made to be preferred among rivals, perceived quality might be negatively affected.
Because according to consumers, a high equity and high quality having brand would not

18
need to lower its price and if it does, the perceived quality might be decreased (Dahlén
et al. 2010, Karaçor 2009, Winer 1986)

On the other hand, non-monetary promotions do not focus consumers into the price
setting, but to the brand characteristics. As this kind of promotions evoke entertaining
and informative emotions, they develop brand awareness, create positive associations
about the brand experience and enhance the level of perceived quality (Buil et al. 2013,
Palazon-Vidal and Delgado-Ballester 2005, Aaker 1991, Campbell and Diamond 1990).
Furthermore, experiencing and learning the brand might arise need in the long-term,
which will simplify the recalling process. For enhancing the effectiveness and creating
prior recognition and recall, a campaign can be introduced before the promotions are
distributed (Rossiter and Bellman 2005). As a result of successful strategy in the long-
term, brand loyalty can be built or strengthened, too. It is stated that loyalty programs
like frequent buyer programs and customer clubs are requested for many product
categories as developing brand awareness and perceived quality would also contribute
to brand’s loyalty (Allaway et al. 2011, Fill 2002, p. 563, Aaker 1996, pp. 21-23).

2.2.2.3 Direct marketing

Direct marketing aims to deliver one-to-one messages to each customer to develop and
endure a customized, unmediated and long-standing relationship (Kotler and Armstrong
2012, Fill 2002). Advantage of direct marketing is the ability to reach directly to the
customer (Thomas 2007). It includes various segmented communication methods
differentiating, usually giving customers the feeling of aggregation (Dahlén et al. 2010).

Usage of direct marketing as a marcom tool emerged in 1990’s and gained popularity
after efficient results (Fill 2002). At the beginning, direct mail was the main tool (Kotler
and Armstrong 2012). Afterwards, direct marketing actions had a wide scope including
SMS, e-mail, telephone, Internet or printed media material to reach consumers simply
and in an action-triggering manner (Keller 2010, Keller 2008, p. 247, Rossiter and
Bellman 2005, Fill 2002, pp. 674-679). Technological developments, especially the
Internet boosted the importance of direct marketing (Kotler and Keller 2016, Keller

19
2010). Nowadays, many companies develop strategies to build lasting relationships with
their customers through direct marketing (Kotler and Keller 2016).

The collection, evaluation and usage process of customer data is named as database
marketing (Kotler and Keller 2016, p. 662). Database marketing enables easier direction
of personalized marketing messages to customer segments (Keller 2008, p. 248, Fill
2002, pp. 672-673), and strengthen customer-brand relationship because of individual
communication (Aaker 1996). Through database marketing, big data pool and
importance increased enormously in the past five years, as each customer became a data
validation source through their digital footprints created via mobile phones, and more
accurate segmentation was possible. Therefore, direct media usage also started to
increase for companies (Kotler and Keller 2016, McAfee and Brynjolfsson 2012).

Direct marketing has remarkable impacts on brand awareness, brand associations,

perceived quality and brand loyalty through its sustainable dialogue with the audience;
resulting in an important effect on brand equity (Kotler and Armstrong 2012, Harridge
2009). For the customer, this direct relationship has benefits of timesaving and
personalized communication, effecting customer behaviour towards the brand and
creating a better experience (Keller 2010, Fill 2002). For the companies, it is an
important communication method to create brand awareness while launching a new
product and developing promotion of a current product (Dahlén et al. 2010). Besides, all
marcom tools can be used in line with direct marketing to create a stronger effect (Fill
2002, p. 667). High level of experience guarantee brand associations’ strength
(Mubushar et al. 2013). When segmented customers are recognized and communicated
personally, they develop higher levels of loyalty because of customized attention and
sustainable dialogue (Dahlén et al. 2010, p. 401, Kapferer 2008, p. 254). As usage of
permission-based approach has been started and widened by companies, trust and
loyalty are remarkably increased through customers’ own volition of participation
(Mallin and Finkle 2007, Fill 2002).

20
2.2.2.4 Personal selling

The nature of personal selling requires close and face-to-face communication and
interaction with the customers. Both positive and negative features of the product are
induced in the communicated message, whereby getting instant feedback is possible
(Kotler and Armstrong 2012, Keller 2008, p. 266). Personal selling is more important in
environments where customers demand more detailed explanations about products
directly from the company (Egan 2007). And it is among the biggest marcom tools on
purchase and budget parameters (Rossiter and Bellman 2005, p. 401, Fill 2002, p. 689).

Generally, representative makes product offers expressing the brand’s benefits

corresponding to customer’s needs, and superior features in comparison with the rivals
(Dahlén et al. 2010). The staff should have the necessary background about the product
or service customers pay for, but the role and need of expertise changes according to the
technical and functional attributes of the product (Dmour et al. 2013).

Communication process mainly includes customer acquisition, gathering information in

the market, providing a good relationship with the parties, promoting the products for
purchase and enduring trust through a sustainable maintenance relationship with the
customers (Fill 2002, pp. 694-695). During one-to-one communication of each
employee, the effect on the brand changes according to their characteristics to present
the message to the consumer (Wallace et al. 2013). But it is certain that that brand
awareness and brand image are strengthened, and reliability is increased through
personal selling, also brand equity is enhanced (Dmour et al. 2013, Rajh and Dosen
2009, Fill 2002). As the staff is the channel to introduce the brand message and has an
impact on brand image, they generally shape brand associations in the process of
personal selling (Berry 2000). When sales representatives show successful performance,
number of satisfied customers is increased, and brand loyalty is developed in the long-
term (Kotler and Armstrong 2012).

21
2.2.2.5 Public relations

PR as a marcom tool is guided to strengthen brand image and publicize its products and
services through making them more visible to arouse consumers’ interest. PR’s scope
includes press releases and conferences, congresses, festivals, openings, special events,
films, TV shows, publications, briefings, media interviews, sponsorships, lobbying and
so on (Dahlén et al. 2010, Keller 2010, Keller 2008, p. 264, Ak 2006, p. 112, Fill 2002).
For PR activities, reliability is higher, and the purchase risk consumers perceive is lower
in comparison with other marcom tools (Fill 2002, p. 621). Many companies started to
use corporate and marketing PR in the previous years to establish a quality
communication with their consumers (Mubushar et al. 2013)

As an important and frequently used way of PR, event marketing includes the
sponsorship of events related to a specific theme like sports, dance, entertainment, and
social or educational causes. As the event topics attract customers’ attention, a brand as
sponsor has the chance of identifying products and services, creating positive
experiences and increasing brand awareness. Providing additional credibility and trust
within an interactive environment, sponsored events also develop brand loyalty
(Mubushar et al. 2013, Dahlén et al. 2010, Keller 2008, pp. 259-262, Kotler and Keller
2006, Ak 2006, p. 111). Furthermore, organizing original events in engagement with the
consumers help gathering the maximum attention to the brand, as the audience’s
engagement level directly influences created brand associations (Dahlén et al. 2010 p.
420, Kapferer 2008, pp. 217-218).

According to researchers (Dahlén et al. 2010, Kotler and Keller 2006), PR provides
reputation sustainability for an organization through telling the brand story, which is
communicated for long-term bonding with the consumer. This perspective is useful to
increase brand awareness while introducing a new product, to create aggregation for
consumers to form positive brand associations, to solve consumer problems and
strengthening the experience level, which helps to develop brand loyalty. Therefore,
brand awareness, brand associations and brand loyalty are also positively affected, and
brand equity is improved in the long term (Dahlén et al. 2010).

22
2.2.2.6 Digital marketing

Technological developments together with the Internet and information technologies

after 1990’s led the companies reshape their marketing strategies for utilizing digital
media, to deduce better customer insights (Pride and Ferrell 2014, p. 316). Especially
after the 2000’s, customers’ and companies’ attention diverted more towards to digital
media from traditional media tools (Kotler and Keller 2016, Keller 2008, p. 231).

Brandings significance on digital area has raised accordingly as expected with various
opportunities (Fill 2002, p. 605). Communication style has been transformed from one-
way to reciprocal because of the direct and interactive relationship between consumer
and brand (Weber 2007). Consumers are not the passive audience anymore, but active
participants to the process (Çizmeci and Ercan 2015). Moreover, digital marketing is
stated as the new way of PR and direct marketing, because of providing direct dialogue
and quick reaction through digital media (Dahlén et al. 2010, Fill 2002). Digital media
is defined as any electronic media functioning with digital codes such as accessible
media through computers, mobile phones and all digital devices. Digital marketing
emerged with its mutuality in digital area and applies all the channels created with the
existence of digital media (Pride and Ferrell 2014, Winer 2009).

As digital media is globally reachable by all target audiences independent from the
location, income levels or societal positions, increasing the interaction and spreading
information is much faster, easier and sustainable (Çizmeci and Ercan 2015, Öztürk
2013). Hence these facts have been obvious, companies constantly develop long-term
strategies and endure a strong competition in the digital area (Sheela and Sneha 2017).
Digital marketing opportunities enabled practical information sharing for consumers
and companies through digital media, mainly via web and social media. While
consumers gather and share information, companies, shareholders, suppliers develop
business networks through online media (Pride and Ferrell 2014, Snider 2012).

Efficient use of user-generated content is emerged as success key in the digital area, as
customers can access digital platforms globally while actively searching, sharing,

23
criticizing the content through digital channels (Pride and Ferrell 2014, Varnalı 2013).
Varnalı (2013) states that digital marcom tools can be classified in two groups as the
ones creating paid content and the ones creating proactive content. When content
sharing depends on the payment, sharing is done according to a plan. Web sites,
banners, ads, sponsorhips, micro sites, search engine advertisements help to make paid
and controlled promotion of digital content (Kotler and Keller 2016, Çizmeci and Ercan
2015, Varnalı 2013). Unpaid proactive content is created and triggered by user
interaction. Social media sites like Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn,
Flickr, MySpace; another media sharing sites, wikis, online forums, blogs, podcasts, and
communities, paid keyword techniques like search engine optimization (SEO) form this
group of digital marcom tools (Sheela and Sneha 2017, Kotler and Keller 2016, Çizmeci
and Ercan 2015, Pride and Ferrell 2014, Dahlén et al. 2010, Fill 2002).

Using the digital media tools and their worldwide communication area, brand awareness
is built more quickly and efficiently (Çizmeci and Ercan 2015). Marketing on web is
quite effective on steering customers’ attention. Online ads give marketers the
opportunity to increase awareness and manage associations about the brand, since
digital area allows high customization on target segments and their positioning (Keller
2008, p. 249). Usage of product demo or functionality videos through viral content over
digital media has become very effective for spreading the brand story and strengthening
brand image through awareness and associations; and this is also called word-of-mouth
marketing in the modern world (Dahlén et al. 2010, Kapferer 2008, p. 214, Fill 2002, p.
609). This kind of efficient usage of internet media tools also generate higher levels of
brand loyalty (Keller 2008, Kotler and Keller 2006). Especially social media campaigns
are emphasized for sharing the experience, increasing engagement, triggering usage and
increasing loyalty (Sheela and Sneha 2017, Kavisekara and Abeysekara 2016).

2.2.3 Thesis Hypotheses

There is substantial research about brand equity and its dimensions, and their
relationship with marketing concepts (Davcik et al. 2015, Aghaei et al. 2014, Buil et al.
2013, Allaway et al. 2011, Chu and Keh 2006, Villarejo and Sanchez 2005, Palazon-

24
Vidal and Delgado-Ballester 2005, Netemeyer et al. 2004, Yoo et al. 2000). For the
relationship with marcom tools, many researchers are centered upon two main
promotion tools advertising and sales promotions, examining mostly budget and
frequency effects (Valette-Florence et al. 2011, Villarejo and Sanchez 2005, Anderson
and Simester 2004). Some studies jointly examine consumer reactions with another
marcom tools through multiple brand equity dimensions (Buil et al. 2013, Siriram et al.
2007, Keller and Lehmann 2003, Yoo et al. 2000).

There is a research gap about the examination of each marcom tool’s role on the
dimensions on brand equity, which is chosen of the subject of this thesis, whereby
Aaker’s model (1991) is used as customer-based brand equity model. It is already
proven that brand equity is expressed as the sum of brand awareness, brand
associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty dimensions included in that structure,
and enhanced through them (Yoo et al. 2000, Aaker 1991). Therefore, it is logical and
brings more specific results to investigate marcom tools’ individual roles on the
development of four dimensions. Accordingly, theoretical background of this thesis
investigates the roles of marketing communication tools on developing brand equity
through its dimensions.

Each marcom tool’s effect on brand equity dimensions have been evaluated extensively
through various sources in the literature review. Main brand equity model, as stated
before, was Aaker’s model, which includes the most commonly used four dimensions of
brand equity as brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality and brand
loyalty. In the literature, nearly each marcom tool is stated as related to brand equity
dimensions. Still, there are also situations, whereby no affiliations have been found yet.
A summary of the literature review on the roles of marcom tools on developing brand
equity is shown on the Table 2.2 below. According to the results found on the literature,
the relationships between marcom tools and brand equity dimensions are stated as
positive, negative or not available.

25
Table 2.2: The roles of marcom tools on developing brand equity

Sales promotions
Direct Personal Public Digital
Advertising
Non- marketing selling relations marketing
Monetary
monetary
Brand
Positive Negative Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive
awareness
Brand
Positive Negative Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive
associations
Perceived Not Not Not
Positive Negative Positive Positive
quality available available available
Brand
Positive Negative Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive
loyalty

As stated in the literature, advertising, sales promotions, personal selling and PR are
older items in the traditional promotion mix (Kotler and Armstrong 2012, Dahlén et al.
2010, Kotler and Keller 2006). Especially advertising and sales promotions gained
popularity during 1980’s (Dahlén et al. 2010). On the other hand, direct marketing, as a
promotion tool, is emerged in 1990’s, developed with the technology and had more
importance with the increasing usage of Internet (Keller 2010, Fill 2002). With the
proliferation of Internet, after 2000’s, digital marketing ranked among the most
preferred promotion tools (Keller 2008). Through the increasing usage of online and
offline tools on web and mobile channels and the remarkable effect of social media
strongly influenced marketing strategies (Çizmeci and Ercan 2015, Varnalı 2013).
Nowadays, digital marketing and direct marketing are in a close relationship, which is
strategically and practically quite important, as they provide a substantially high
spreading power and accurate personalized communication. In addition, through the
literature review it is deduced that the researchers mostly focused on advertising and
sales promotions effects on brand equity. There are limited empirical research about
how brand equity is effected by digital marketing and direct marketing, which have a
growing importance nowadays. For all these reasons, this thesis tests the effects of
digital marketing and direct marketing on the customer-based brand equity dimensions.
A conceptual framework is illustrated in Figure 2.3.

26
Figure 2.3: Conceptual framework

Regarding the literature and the conceptual framework, main question to answer is if
digital marketing and direct marketing separately have positive effects on brand equity
through its dimensions. Therefore, following literature about the roles of digital
marketing and direct marketing on developing brand equity is summarized as a basis for
hypotheses development.

Firstly, digital marketing has a wide scope of effective communication items, which
made online media one of the most currently popular marcom elements (Kotler and
Keller 2016, Sheela and Sneha 2017, Ryan 2016, Çizmeci and Ercan 2015, Pride and
Ferrell 2014). As digital marketing gathers value for the brand, it also helps to enhance
brand equity dimensions. Online ads and content sharing, viral videos and word-of-
mouth marketing provide opportunities of spot-on reach to targeted segments, whereby
brand awareness is increased, and brand associations is strengthened (Çizmeci and
Ercan 2015, Dahlén et al. 2010, Fill 2002). Since digital media triggered user interaction
and experience sharing, there is an increasing opportunity to generate a better brand
experience through digital marketing. Because high level of brand experience results in
repetitive usage and delivers higher levels of brand loyalty (Sheela and Sneha 2017,
Keller 2008, Kotler and Keller 2006). Interestingly, neither positive, nor negative
effects are observed on perceived quality dimension in the literature. But it can be
assumed that perceived quality is positively affected from digital marketing, since
digital marketing has an important effect on customer experience and repetitive
purchase behavior, as stated in the literature explained above. In order to find out if

27
these assumptions are true, the first main hypothesis (H1) below will be tested in this
master thesis.

H1: Digital marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect on brand equity
dimensions.

Secondly, direct marketing has an increasing effect and broadening scope among the
marcom tools, as it eliminates any intermediaries and creates one-to-one communication
with consumers. Another reason for the accelerating development is technological
developments on information technologies and data processing, which enhanced the
communication channels and made consumer-brand communication easier. Researchers
emphasize that perpetual and influential direct communication with targeted consumers
brings higher levels of brand equity through strengthening all its dimensions (Mubushar
et al. 2013, Kotler and Armstrong 2012, Harridge 2009). Memorability and
recognizability of the experience are advantageous features of direct marketing, and
triggers the increase on brand awareness, associations and perceived quality, whereby
loyalty is developed through the personalization impact in the long-term (Kotler and
Armstrong 2012, Dahlén et al. 2010, Kapferer 2008). In order to find out if these
assumptions are true, the second main hypothesis (H2) below will be tested in this
master thesis.

H2: Direct marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect on brand equity
dimensions.

28
 3. DATA AND METHOD

This part of the study provides information about research framework and design, data
collection, analysis methods and process. The research model and subhypotheses
according to main hypotheses are explained. Then, suitable methods for developed
framework is stated and explained together with the details of analysis tools.

3.1 FRAMEWORK OF THE RESEARCH

The purpose of this study is investigating the effects of digital marketing and direct
marketing on developing brand equity through its dimensions. In accordance to the
information gained from literature review, which is summarized on the Table 2.2 in the
previous part of the thesis, and the main hypotheses, following subhypotheses are
developed.

H1 investigates the effect of digital marketing on developing brand equity. Therefore,

subhypotheses (H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d) investigating the effect of digital marketing on brand
equity dimensions are developed.

H1: Digital marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect on brand equity
dimensions.

H1a: Digital marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect on brand
awareness.
H1b: Digital marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect on brand
associations.
H1c: Digital marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect on perceived
quality.
H1d: Digital marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect on brand loyalty.

29
H2 investigates the effect of direct marketing on developing brand equity. Therefore,
subhypotheses (H2a, H2b, H2c, H2d) investigating the effect of direct marketing on brand
equity dimensions are developed.

H2: Direct marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect on brand equity
dimensions.

H2a: Direct marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect on brand
awareness.
H2b: Direct marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect on brand
associations.
H2c: Direct marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect on perceived
quality.
H2d: Direct marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect on brand loyalty.

According to the main hypotheses, the research model is illustrated in Figure 3.1 below.

Figure 3.1: Research model

H1
Digital
Marketing

Brand Equity
H2
Direct
Marketing

30
3.2 RESEARCH METHOD

After reviewing the literature and through related inferences, hypotheses have been
developed, which will be investigated through the selected research method. After the
reason for method selection is explained, the applied method will be evaluated in detail.

Quantitative research is found appropriate for the study, as it is required to test the
effects of marcom tools on brand equity dimensions. It is emphasized that more precise
and multifunctional results for brand equity dimensions are obtained with quantitative
analysis and measurement (Keller 2008, p. 374). Quantitative methods include testing
and interpreting a statement, while using mathematical, numerical and statistical
methods (Bryman 2012. Supportive or negatory statements about the subject are
hypothesized, and the researcher seeks evidence to prove them. Usually, the extent of
quantitative research is based on specific questions or statements prepared for the
measurement of predetermined variables and collection of valid data (Keller 2008, p.
374). Quantitative research approaches include collecting, validating and analyzing
data, whereby causal relationships between selected variables are defined and
interpreted through systematic principles (Saunders et al. 2012). When analysis and
summary of a huge amount of data is necessary, quantitative research is useful through
statistical analysis, which leads the researcher to generalized but precise statements as a
result of the study (Bryman 2012, Milliken 2001).

For the analysis process of this thesis, an online questionnaire is conducted. The results
are tested through statistical analysis program Statistical Program for Social Sciences
(SPSS). Survey method is the mostly used method among quantitative research tools
and has many following advantages for the researcher (Malhotra 2003). Distribution of
questionnaires is easy and limiting the answers with the scales results in obtaining more
trustworthy answers. Additionally, analysis and investigation of collected information is
quite practical through analysis tools. On the other hand, researchers might face
difficulties and time loss if the survey respondents do not want to share information and
do not give reliable answers. Because of that, the structure, order and wording of the
items or questions in the survey is very important. Kottler (2005) states important

31
additional aspects to be considered while preparing online surveys. Survey questions or
items should have a simple structure and present precise meaning to make sure that
respondents are not distracted. Purpose of the research and estimated duration of the
survey should be stated to the respondents in the introduction of the survey. Preparing
the survey for this study, these preferences are used as a structural guideline.

Main sample of this research is mobile phone users, which are living in Istanbul,
Turkey. Consumers are informed and directed to fill the questionnaire according to their
current mobile phone brand, which was asked at the beginning of the survey. The
criteria for the product category and brand selection is the usage level and penetration
among the audience, because it is critical to gather true, balanced and reliable answers
from the respondents and ensure the validity of the survey results (Buil et al. 2013, Yoo
et al. 2000, Parameswaran and Yaprak 1987). As current mobile penetration ratio is 98
percent in Turkey according to the Information and Communication Technologies
Authority of Turkey, criteria for product selection is fulfilled.2 It can be assumed that it
is a suitable brand category, as mobile channels are important for digital marketing and
direct marketing activities because of the brand communication through channels like
messages, e-mails, mobile applications, and mobile sites.

At the beginning of the survey, respondents are informed about the topic, purpose of the
study, name and contact information of the researcher, estimated duration and content of
the survey. To prevent the possible manipulation of answers, it is emphasized that there
are no true or false selections in the questionnaire, and the respondents’ genuine
responses are important (Aronson et al. 1990). Introduction part also states that
participation is voluntary, and respondents can end the survey anytime they want.

Survey is structured with Google Forms tool, which provides easy distribution of the
online questionnaires through online channels. Using the Google forms link, the
questionnaire is distributed between the dates 10.02.2018-24.02.2018 to mobile phone
users over mobile phone, e-mail and social media to reach the targeted audience.

2
Türkiye Bilgi Teknolojileri ve Iletişim Kurumu, 2017. Türkiye Elektronik Haberleşme Sektörü Pazar
Verileri Raporu. 3rd quarter. Ankara.

32
Kottler (2005) states that direct links and invitations are successful and efficient to reach
to targeted segments while conducting a survey. For the duration of fourteen days, the
questionnaire has been filled out by 467 respondents. After subtracting the number of
forms including missing answers, 10 questionnaires are eliminated, and 457
questionnaires are left as available for analysis.

Brand equity scale includes four main dimensions of brand equity. Their precise
definitions in this master thesis are given below to make a short reminder about the
brand equity model.

a. Brand awareness: Brand’s existence power and detail in consumers’ memory,

divided into recall and recognition levels, and mostly stated as a prerequisite for being a
strong brand.
b. Brand associations: Comprised of specific characteristics for brand, which stick in
consumers’ mind. Known as a subsidiary of brand awareness.
c. Perceived quality: Built as consumers’ general opinion, as a consequence of
transmitted quality level to consumers.
d. Brand loyalty: Sustainable purchase commitment and attitude to a brand, and highly
associated with the level of customer experience.

On the research model in this study, each variable is measured with scale item sets
including more than one item. Literature review on brand equity and its dimensions,
digital marketing and direct marketing efforts including the previous studies on the
topic formed the structure of the questionnaire. Preparing the questionnaire, required
scale items for brand equity dimensions, digital marketing and direct marketing items
are customized and adapted according to this research from their usage in the literature.
Preparing the scale, Aaker’s (1996) brand equity measure criteria is used as guideline
for the scale structure of brand equity dimensions to make sure that all related brand
equity measurements items are placed in the survey. Survey consists of four parts,
including thirty-two scale items and five demographic questions.

33
Five-point Likert type scale is used for all variables in the questionnaire to determine
respondents’ answers:

1: strongly disagree
2: disagree
3: neither agree nor disagree
4: agree
5: strongly agree.

On the brand equity dimensions part, 12 items are used in the scale. Three items for
each brand equity item, brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality and
brand loyalty, is placed to measure consumers’ brand equity preferences for their
mobile phone brand (Netemeyer et al. 2004, Yoo and Donthu 2001, Yoo et al. 2000,
Aaker 1996, Aaker 1991). Items for some dimensions are reused by another brand
equity studies (Buil et al. 2013, Pappu et al. 2007, Villarejo and Sanchez 2005).

After brand equity items, digital marketing and direct marketing items are formed of 7
items for each part. Items of the scales are designed to separately evaluate consumer
perceptions on digital marketing and direct marketing efforts. This perspective is
adapted from studies conducted about marketing communication tools individual
relationships with brand equity dimensions (Buil et al. 2013, Yoo et al.2000, Page and
Luding 2003). To evaluate perceived digital marketing efforts, scale items are
customized from the scale used by Sheela and Sneha (2017), and important digital
marketing statements from different marketing books (Kotler and Keller 2016, Pride
and Ferrell 2014) are included. For the evaluation of perceived direct marketing efforts,
the scale items used in Page and Luding (2003)’s research about direct marketing
actions in banking sector is adapted according the research area of this thesis.

All items of scales with their related references are illustrated in Table 3.1. After brand
equity, digital marketing and direct marketing scale items, five questions are included in
the questionnaire to analyze respondent demographics. Demographics were about
gender, education level, current expertise area, age and marital status.

34
Table 3.1: Items of scales

Section Code Item Reference

Buil et al. 2013, Villarejo and
1 BAW1 I am aware of this brand's products and services. Sanchez 2005, Yoo and
Donthu 2001, Yoo et al. 2000
Buil et al. 2013, Villarejo and
I can easily recognize the brand among its
2 BAW2 Sanchez 2005, Yoo and
competitors.
Donthu 2001, Yoo et al. 2000
When I think about the sector, this brand ranks Buil et al. 2013, Netemeyer
3 BAW3
among the first brands coming to my mind. et al. 2004
Villarejo and Sanchez 2005,
4 BAS1 I can easily recall the logo of the brand. Yoo and Donthu 2001, Yoo
et al. 2000
I can differentiate the brand from its competitors Netemeyer et al. 2004, Yoo
5 BAS2
when I think and recall its characteristics. and Donthu 2001
Buil et al. 2013, Villarejo and
I can visualize the kind of person using this
6 BAS3 Sanchez 2005, Aaker 1996,
brand.
Aaker 1991
Brand Villarejo and Sanchez 2005,
equity This brand has high quality products and services Netemeyer et al. 2004, Yoo
dimensions 7 PQ1
among the competitors. and Donthu 2001, Yoo et al.
2000
Brand's diversity of products and services is
8 PQ2 Netemeyer et al. 2004
impressive.
When I compare the brand with the competitors, I Villarejo and Sanchez 2005,
9 PQ3
appreciate it. Netemeyer et al. 2004
Buil et al. 2013, Pappu et al.
2007, Villarejo and Sanchez
10 BL1 I am loyal to this brand.
2005, Yoo and Donthu 2001,
Yoo et al. 2000
Even if another brand in this category has the Villarejo and Sanchez 2005,
11 BL2
same features as my brand, I keep using the same. Yoo and Donthu 2001
Buil et al. 2013, Pappu et al.
I do not want to prefer another brand in this 2007, Villarejo and Sanchez
12 BL3
product category. 2005, Yoo and Donthu 2001,
Yoo et al. 2000

1 DG1 This brand is successful in digital marketing.

Kotler and Keller 2016, Pride
I can easily understand the brand's and Ferrell 2014
2 DG2 product/service area through its digital marketing
activities.
3 DG3 I follow this brand on social media. Sheela and Sneha 2017

This brand's social media/website usage helps me

Digital 4 DG4 to reach any information about the brand when I
marketing need it. Kotler and Keller 2016, Pride
and Ferrell 2014
When I think about a successful built web site, I
5 DG5
remember this brand's website.

This brand's digital media usage helps me to learn

6 DG6 Sheela and Sneha 2017
about its product and service quality.
I can easily compare the brand with its
Kotler and Keller 2016, Pride
7 DG7 competitors through the information gained from
and Ferrell 2014
the Internet.

35
 This brand is successful in direct
1 DR1
communication with its customers.

This brand provides valid and memorable

2 DR2
information in direct communication.

Information the brand provides me through

3 DR3 direct communication keeps me updated about
recent developments.

When this brand offers me a campaign, I can

Direct 4 DR4
predict the information it would present. Page and Luding 2003
marketing
I have a stronger quality perception when this
5 DR5 brand personally communicates me about
special campaigns and opportunities.

I establish a bond with the brand when it

6 DR6 directly communicates and presents
personalized opportunities to me.

When this brand endures one to one

7 DR7 communication with me, I more frequenty use
and recommend it.

As the scale items are customized from different scales, reliability level of the scale is
measured before conducting any analysis. One of the most frequently used tools for
measuring the reliability of scales is finding their Cronbach’s alpha values. The scales’
Cronbach’s alpha statistics are shown on the Table 3.2. This reliability coefficient is
between 0 and 1, but the acceptable minimum range is stated as above 0.60 and 0.70.
When this number is above 0.70 and more, the scales in the questionnaire are approved
as valid (Hair et al. 1998, p. 88). As seen on Table 3.2, the Cronbach’s alpha values on
the applied questionnaire are far above the acceptable level, and reliability of the
research is ensured.

Table 3.2: Reliability levels of the scales

Scales Mean Variance Number of items Cronbach's alpha

Brand equity 3,807 0,169 12 0,932

Digital marketing 3,466 0,172 7 0,895

Direct marketing 3,298 0,009 7 0,925

36
Before proceeding to the findings of the research, respondent demographics will be
closely viewed to interpret the characteristics of the respondents. Demographics of the
sample are listed below in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Demographics of the sample

Frequency Percent Cumulative percent

GENDER
Female 174 38,1 38,1
Male 283 61,9 100
Total 457 100
EDUCATION
Elementary school 1 0,2 0,2
High school 45 9,8 10,1
Associate Degree 23 5 15,1
Bachelor’s Degree 252 55,1 70,2
Master's Degree 105 23 93,2
Doctorate Degree 31 6,8 100
Total 457 100
EXPERTISE AREA
Finance 21 4,6 4,6
Fine Arts 29 6,3 10,9
Law 4 0,9 11,8
Production 42 9,2 21,0
Human Resources 18 3,9 24,9
Media 3 0,7 25,6
Architecture 13 2,8 28,4
Customer Services 24 5,3 33,6
Sales&Marketing 115 23 56,6
Information Technologies 91 19,9 76,5
Medicine 19 4,2 80,7
Management 10 2,2 82,9
Other 78 17,1 100
Total 457 100
AGE
<21 2 0,4 0,4
21-25 21 4,6 5
26-30 99 21,7 26,7
31-35 81 17,7 44,4
36-40 62 13,6 58
41-45 75 16,4 74,4
46-50 51 11,2 85,6
51-55 37 8,1 93,7
56-60 21 4,6 98,2
>60 8 1,8 100
Total 457 100
MARITAL STATUS
Single 168 36,8 36,8
Married 283 61,9 98,7
Other 6 1,3 100
Total 457 100

37
Almost 62 percent of respondents are men and 38 percent are women. 85 percent of the
respondents are graduated from a university. Large majority of the respondents have
expertise on sales and marketing with 23 percent. Also, it can be said that most of the
respondents are between the age of 26 and 35 with the ratio of 40 percent. 62 percent of
the respondants are married and 37 percent are single. According to the demographics,
most of the sample is comprised of married and highly educated young professional
men, working on sales and marketing.

Table 3.4 below shows the statistics of the respondents’ current mobile phone brand. A
clear majority of the sample are IPhone and Samsung users with a ratio of 83,2 percent.

Table 3.4: Mobile phone brand statistics of the sample

Frequency Percent Cumulative percent

Mobile phone brand
Asus 8 1,8 1,8
General Mobile 8 1,8 3,5
Huawei 7 1,5 5
Iphone 211 46,2 51,2
LG 17 3,7 54,9
Samsung 169 37 91,9
Sony 7 1,5 93,4
Other 30 6,6 100
Total 457 100

The normality tests, reliability and validity tests for the scales and regression analysis
are conducted by SPSS 20.0 program, and findings are shown at the next part of the
thesis.

38
 4. FINDINGS

This part of the study includes the analyses for hypotheses testing, and the objective
evaluations of the results. On findings part, research questions of the study are answered
through statistical analyses results obtained through hypotheses testing. Firstly, normal
distribution of the data is checked, and factor structure is evaluated before testing the
hypotheses. Proceeding with the required factor and hypotheses revisions accordingly,
linear regression models are established, regression analyses are conducted with SPSS,
and the results are interpreted in scope thesis hypotheses and subhypotheses.

4.1 NORMALITY TEST AND DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

On the purpose of testing the normal distribution of the data, it is checked if the
skewness values of the items are in the acceptable range. Normal distribution is proven
if skewness values are between -2 and 2 (Gravetter and Wallnau 2014, Trochim and
Donnelly 2006; Field 2000).

As seen in Table 4.1, Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 skewness requirement for normality is
provided for the scales of brand equity, digital marketing and direct marketing. It can be
stated that the data are normally distributed, and parametric tests can be conducted at
the further analysis.

According to the descriptive statistics on Table 4.1, it can be seen that mean values of
all brand equity items are minimum 3,3 and above. Hence, it can be said that most of
the respondents agree or strongly agree with the scale items about brand equity
dimensions brand awarenes, brand associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty.
Additionally, respondents reflect a positive opinion about their mobile phone brands’
equity.

39
Table 4.1: Descriptive statistics of brand equity items

Standard
N Mean Skewness
Deviation
Brand awareness

I am aware of this brand's products and services. 457 3,8731 0,9627 -1,1510
I can easily recognize the brand among its
457 4,1422 1,0193 -1,4360
competitors.
When I think about the sector, this brand ranks among
457 4,3567 0,9446 -1,8640
the first brands coming to my mind.
Brand associations

I can easily recall the logo of the brand. 457 4,4179 0,9473 -2,0400
I can differentiate the brand from its competitors when
457 4,0153 1,0376 -1,0010
I think and recall its characteristics.
I can visualize the kind of person using this brand. 457 3,0919 1,1699 -0,0230

Perceived quality
This brand has high quality products and services
457 3,7790 1,0352 -0,7270
among the competitors.
Brand's diversity of products and services is
457 3,8096 1,0539 -0,8890
impressive.
When I compare the brand with the competitors, I
457 3,9322 1,0097 -1,0700
appreciate it.
Brand loyalty

I am loyal to this brand. 457 3,6083 1,2130 -0,6140

Even if another brand in this category has the same
457 3,3217 1,2771 -0,2580
features as my brand, I keep using the same.
I do not want to prefer another brand in this product
457 3,3370 1,2671 -0,2700
category.

Digital marketing scale items’ descriptive statistics are shown in Table 4.2. Mean values
are minimum 3,3 and above expect of third item, which is ‘I follow this brand on social
media.’ It can be said that respondents are unsure about following their mobile phone
brand on social media. Hereunder, general impression of the respondents is positive
about their mobile phone brand’s digital marketing, as most of the respondents agree or
strongly agree with the scale items about digital marketing.

40
Table 4.2: Descriptive statistics of digital marketing items

Standard
Digital marketing N Mean Skewness
Deviation
This brand is successful in digital marketing. 457 3,8600 0,9586 -0,8720
I can easily understand the brand's product/service
457 3,7856 0,9563 -0,7690
area through its digital marketing activities.
I follow this brand on social media. 457 2,6521 1,3009 0,3720
This brand's social media/website usage helps me to
reach any information about the brand when I need 457 3,7396 1,0596 -0,9530
it.
When I think about a successful built web site, I
457 3,3063 1,0711 -0,2150
remember this brand's website.
This brand's digital media usage helps me to learn
457 3,3917 1,0626 -0,4470
about its product and service quality.
I can easily compare the brand with its competitors
457 3,5252 1,0841 -0,5680
through the information gained from the Internet.

Direct marketing scale items’ descriptive statistics are shown Table 4.3. Mean values of
the items are minimum 3,1 and above. It can be said that most of the respondents agree
or strongly agree with the items and think positively about direct marketing of their
mobile phone brand.

Table 4.3: Descriptive statistics of direct marketing items

Standard
Direct marketing N Mean Skewness
Deviation
This brand is successful in direct communication with its
457 3,3523 1,0845 -0,3620
customers.

This brand provides valid and memorable information in direct

457 3,4551 1,0443 -0,4950
communication.

Information the brand provides me through direct communication

457 3,3370 1,0984 -0,4080
keeps me updated about recent developments.

When this brand offers me a campaign, I can predict the

457 3,2101 1,0739 -0,3410
information it would present.

I have a stronger quality perception when this brand personally

457 3,1794 1,1291 -0,2840
communicates me about special campaigns and opportunities.

I establish a bond with the brand when it directly communicates

457 3,2495 1,1486 -0,3510
and presents personalized opportunities to me.

When this brand endures one to one communication with me, I

457 3,3042 1,1573 -0,3740
more frequenty use and recommend it.

41
4.2 FACTOR ANALYSIS

Before starting to test the hypotheses on the roles of digital marketing and direct
marketing on developing brand equity dimensions, factor analysis is conducted for
summarizing the scale items in a more meaningful sorting. Factor analysis provides a
check for the sufficiency of dimension number and their positioning in the analysis of
the respondent data. Firstly, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s tests are applied
to determine if the data set is suitable for factor analysis. If the result of KMO test is
close to 1, it is shown that the data set is suitable for factor analysis (Hair et al. 1998, p.
99). Another test additional to KMO is Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, which shows if a
relationship exists between variables. On Bartlett’s Test, if significance level p is
smaller than 0,05; than the test result is acceptable.

Firstly, KMO and Bartlett’s Test are applied to brand equity, digital marketing and
direct marketing scale items. As illustrated on Table 4.4, KMO values of all three scale
items are close to 1, and all p values are smaller than 0,05. Therefore, it can be said that
all data sets in the scale are available for factor analysis.

Table 4.4: KMO and Bartlett’s tests

Brand equity Digital marketing Direct marketing

KMO 0,913 0,891 0,870
Bartlett's Chi-Square 3588,093 1824,477 2793,894
Test of df 45 21 21
Sphericity p 0,000 0,000 0,000

Continuing to the factor analysis, the answers of the respondents to the brand equity are
subject to Varimax factor rotation. At the beginning, the results of the analysis have
shown a four-factor structure, which confirms the brand equity scale items according to
the literature. Because 4 brand equity factors were indicated in the scale with 12
questions. But two scale items fall into 2 different categories. First of them is first brand
awareness item BAW1 as ‘I am aware of this brand's products and services’ and second
of them is third brand associations item BAS3 as ‘I can visualize the kind of person
using this brand’. Those items are extracted, and the result included a three-factor
structure, which is shown in Table 4.5. Those 3 factors came up with an explained

42
variation of 81,6 percent, which means 81,6 percent of brand equity scale items can be
explained with 3 factors.

Table 4.5: Explained variations of brand equity factors

Initial Eigenvalues
Component
Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 6,155 61,55 61,550
2 1,279 12,794 74,344
3 0,721 7,213 81,557

Factor matrix is shown in Table 4.6 and includes the factor loadings showing the
correlation between scale items and factors. Higher factor loading means a stronger
correlation (Altunışık et al. 2005, pp. 212-226). The two extracted items, BAW1 and
BAS3, had low factor loadings. Remaining items in the table have minimum factor
loading as 0,6; and show that each scale item has significant correlation with their
related factor.

Table 4.6: Brand equity factor matrix

Component
1 2 3
BAW2 0,731
BAW3 0,821
BAS1 0,877
BAS2 0,609
PQ1 0,797
PQ2 0,828
PQ3 0,802
BL1 0,744
BL2 0,906
BL3 0,881

According to above results of the brand equity factor analysis and factor matrix after the
extraction of two items, brand awareness and brand associations items are distributed
under the same factor. Since brand awareness and brand associations are quite similar
and interrelated concepts, three-dimensional brand equity structure is also supported and
applicable in the literature (Yoo and Donthu 2001, Yoo et al. 2000). Accordingly, two
separate factors are renamed as the first factor Brand Awareness-Associations. No

43
changes are observed for perceived quality and brand loyalty items; therefore, these
dimensions remain the same as second and third factors.

Afterwards, the answers of the respondents to the digital marketing and direct marketing
scale items are subject to Varimax factor rotation. The results of the both analysis, as
seen in Table 4.7 and Table 4.8, have shown a one-factor structure, as assumed in the
scale structure. According to the results, 62,9 percent of digital marketing scale items
are explained with one factor. Similarly, 68,9 percent of direct marketing scale items are
explained with one single factor, too.

Table 4.7: Explained variation of digital marketing

Initial Eigenvalues
Component
Total % of Variance Cumulative %
Digital marketing 4,401 62,878 62,878

Table 4.8: Explained variation of direct marketing

Initial Eigenvalues
Component
Total % of Variance Cumulative %
Direct marketing 4,823 68,898 68,898

Factor matrices of digital marketing and direct marketing items is shown in Table 4.9
and Table 4.10. It is obtained that both scales’ items are distributed under their
estimated factor, and each scale item has significant correlation with their assigned
factor. Minimum factor loading is 0,7 for digital marketing items and 0,8 for direct
marketing items.

Table 4.9: Digital marketing factor matrix

Component
1
DG1 0,795
DG2 0,826
DG3 0,657
DG4 0,821
DG5 0,818
DG6 0,853
DG7 0,766

44
 Table 4.10: Direct marketing factor matrix

Component
1
DR1 0,869
DR2 0,855
DR3 0,839
DR4 0,824
DR5 0,847
DR6 0,788
DR7 0,786

After factor analysis, two scale items are extracted, two factors are united and renamed.
Five factors, brand awareness-associations, perceived quality, brand loyalty, digital
marketing, direct marketing, are determined, and remaining items with their factor
loadings and Cronbach’s alpha values are shown in Table 4.11. Cronbach’s alpha values
are above the acceptable level 0,7; and the reliability of the factors is ensured.

Table 4.11: Identifying factors on the scale

Factor Cronbach's
Code
Loadings Alpha
1.Variable: Brand Equity

1.Factor: Brand awareness-associations 0,875

BAW2 I can easily recognize the brand among its competitors. 0,731
When I think about the sector, this brand ranks among the first
BAW3 0,821
brands coming to my mind.
BAS1 I can easily recall the logo of the brand. 0,877
I can differentiate the brand from its competitors when I think
BAS2 0,609
and recall its characteristics.
2.Factor: Perceived quality 0,919
This brand has high quality products and services among the
PQ1 0,797
competitors.
PQ2 Brand's diversity of products and services is impressive. 0,828
When I compare the brand with the competitors, I appreciate
PQ3 0,802
it.
3.Factor: Brand loyalty 0,912
BL1 I am loyal to this brand. 0,744
Even if another brand in this category has the same features as
BL2 0,906
my brand, I keep using the same.
BL3 I do not want to prefer another brand in this product category. 0,881

45
 2.Variable: Digital Marketing 0,895

DG1 This brand is successful in digital marketing. 0,795

I can easily understand the brand's product/service area
DG2 0,826
through its digital marketing activities.
DG3 I follow this brand on social media. 0,657
This brand's social media/website usage helps me to reach any
DG4 0,821
information about the brand when I need it.
When I think about a successful built web site, I remember
DG5 0,818
this brand's website.
This brand's digital media usage helps me to learn about its
DG6 0,853
product and service quality.
I can easily compare the brand with its competitors through
DG7 0,766
the information gained from the Internet.
3.Variable: Direct Marketing 0,925

This brand is successful in direct communication with its

DR1 0,869
customers.
This brand provides valid and memorable information in
DR2 0,855
direct communication.
Information the brand provides me through direct
DR3 0,839
communication keeps me updated about recent developments.
When this brand offers me a campaign, I can predict the
DR4 0,824
information it would present.
I have a stronger quality perception when this brand
DR5 personally communicates me about special campaigns and 0,847
opportunities.
I establish a bond with the brand when it directly
DR6 0,788
communicates and presents personalized opportunities to me.
When this brand endures one to one communication with me,
DR7 0,786
I more frequenty use and recommend it.

As the factors have been reconstructed, thesis hypotheses are revised accordingly.
Previous and new hypotheses are shown in Table 4.12. Two main hypotheses remain
unchanged. But the number of subhypotheses is reduced from eight to six, as the
hypotheses H1a with H1b are united to create a new hypothesis H1a; and hypotheses H2a
and H2b are united to create another new hypothesis H2a. Additionally, other hypotheses
numbers are revised accordingly.

46
 Table 4.12: Reconstruction of the thesis hypotheses

Previous Hypotheses New Hypotheses

H1: Digital marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect on
brand equity dimensions.
H1a: Digital marketing has a statistically
significant and positive effect on brand H1a: Digital marketing has a
awareness. statistically significant and positive
H1b: Digital marketing has a statistically effect on brand awareness-
significant and positive effect on brand associations.
associations.
H1c: Digital marketing has a statistically H1b: Digital marketing has a
significant and positive effect on perceived statistically significant and positive
quality. effect on perceived quality.
H1d: Digital marketing has a statistically H1c: Digital marketing has a
significant and positive effect on brand statistically significant and positive
loyalty. effect on brand loyalty.
H2: Direct marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect on
brand equity dimensions.
H2a: Direct marketing has a statistically
significant and positive effect on brand H2a: Direct marketing has a
awareness. statistically significant and positive
H2b: Direct marketing has a statistically effect on brand awareness-
significant and positive effect on brand associations.
associations.
H2c: Direct marketing has a statistically H2b: Direct marketing has a
significant and positive effect on perceived statistically significant and positive
quality. effect on perceived quality.
H2d: Direct marketing has a statistically H2c: Direct marketing has a
significant and positive effect on brand statistically significant and positive
loyalty. effect on brand loyalty.

Proceeding with the accepted factors and revised subhypotheses, the analysis will be
finalized with regression analysis for testing the thesis hypotheses.

4.3 REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Regression analysis helps to determine the relationship between two variables through
expressing the cause and effect relation with a mathematical function. Regression
analysis have two commonly used types as linear regression and multiple linear
regression. Linear regression is used for the models including a dependent and an
indepent variable, whereby the effect on the dependent variable is examined. When

47
there are multiple independent variables for investigating the effect, multiple linear
regression is appropriate for the model (Durmuş et al. 2011, p. 154).

On the purpose of testing the first thesis hypothesis “Digital marketing has a statistically
significant and positive effect on brand equity dimensions”, three thesis subhypotheses
about digital marketing’s effect on different brand equity dimensions are tested with
three linear regression models. For all models, the independent variable is the same as
digital marketing. Dependent variables are brand awareness-associations, perceived
quality and brand loyalty. Table 4.13 shows the effects of digital marketing on brand
awareness-associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty. Investigating the effects, it
is deduced that the effects of independent variable digital marketing on dependent
variables as brand equity dimensions are positive and significant as p values are smaller
than 0,05. One-unit additional change on digital marketing creates 59,6 percent increase
on brand awareness-associations, 59,9 percent increase on perceived quality and 55,8
percent increase on brand loyalty. Digital marketing variable can explain 35,5 percent of
the change on brand awareness-asssociations, 35,7 percent of the change on perceived
quality and 30,9 percent of the change on brand loyalty.

Table 4.13: The effects of digital marketing on brand equity dimensions

Coefficient Table Model Summary ANOVA

Independent Dependent
variable variable
B SE B β T P R Rsquare F P

Brand
Digital
awareness- 0,595 0,038 0,596 15,819 0,000 0,596 0,355 250,230 0,000
marketing
associations

Digital Perceived
0,681 0,043 0,599 15,946 0,000 0,599 0,357 254,281 0,000
marketing quality

Digital Brand
0,764 0,053 0,558 14,330 0,000 0,558 0,309 205,360 0,000
marketing loyalty

48
On the purpose of testing the second hypothesis “Direct marketing has a statistically
significant and positive effect on brand equity dimensions”, three thesis subhypotheses
about direct marketing’s effect on different brand equity dimensions are tested with
three linear regression models, too. For all models, the independent variable is direct
marketing. Dependent variables are brand awareness-associations, perceived quality and
brand loyalty, like the previous analysis. Table 4.14 shows the effects of direct
marketing on brand equity dimensions. According to the evaluation of the results, it can
be said that the effects of direct marketing on brand awareness-associations, perceived
quality and brand loyalty are positive and significant as all p values are smaller than
0,05. One-unit additional change on direct marketing triggers 38,9 percent increase on
brand awareness-associations, 48,9 percent increase on perceived quality and 44,1
percent increase on brand loyalty dimension. Direct marketing variable can explain 15
percent of the change on brand awareness-asssociations, 23,7 percent of the change on
perceived quality and 19,2 percent of the change on brand loyalty. Explained variance
Rsquare is smaller than on the results of the previous analysis, but the percent is
significant.

Table 4.14: The effects of direct marketing on brand equity dimensions

Model
Coefficient Table ANOVA
Summary
Independent Dependent
variable variable
B SE B β T P R Rsquare F P

Brand
Direct
awareness- 0,358 0,040 0,389 9,020 0,000 0,389 0,150 81,354 0,000
marketing
associations

Direct Perceived
0,511 0,043 0,489 11,958 0,000 0,489 0,237 142,992 0,000
marketing quality

Direct Brand
0,556 0,053 0,441 10,470 0,000 0,441 0,192 109,629 0,000
marketing loyalty

According to hypotheses testing, three research questions are answered positively as it

is determined that digital marketing and direct marketing have an effect on brand equity

49
dimensions, and consequently on brand equity. Firstly, digital marketing
communication tools like web sites, social media, mobile applications, digital ads are
effective on developing brand equity. Secondly, direct marketing communication tools
like personalized SMS, e-mail, mobile phone, digital channels or printed media
materials are effective on developing brand equity.

Moreover, to determine and compare the effectiveness levels, the effects and
explanation percentages of digital marketing and direct marketing on brand equity
dimensions are summarized in Table 4.15. It can be assumed that digital marketing is
more effective on developing brand awareness-associations, perceived quality and brand
loyalty than direct marketing. In addition to that, digital marketing can explain a higher
percentage of the effect on brand equity dimensions than direct marketing. In
accordance to that determination, fourth research question is answered as digital
marketing can be assumed as more effective on brand equity dimensions than direct
marketing.

Table 4.15: Comparison of effects

Independent
Dependent variable Beta Rsquare
variable
Brand awareness-
Digital marketing 0,596 0,355
associations
Digital marketing Perceived quality 0,599 0,357

Digital marketing Brand loyalty 0,558 0,309

Brand awareness-
Direct marketing 0,389 0,150
associations
Direct marketing Perceived quality 0,489 0,237

Direct marketing Brand loyalty 0,441 0,192

According to the results of regression analysis, test results of the hypotheses are
summarized in Table 4.16 below. All thesis hypothesis and subhypotheses are accepted.

50
 Table 4.16: Summary of regression analysis results

H1: Digital marketing has a statistically significant and positive

Accepted
effect on brand equity dimensions.
H1a: Digital marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect
Accepted
on brand awareness-associations.
H1b: Digital marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect
Accepted
on perceived quality.
H1c: Digital marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect
Accepted
on brand loyalty.
H2: Direct marketing has a statistically significant and positive
Accepted
effect on brand equity dimensions.
H2a: Direct marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect
Accepted
on brand awareness-associations.
H2b: Direct marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect
Accepted
on perceived quality.
H2c: Direct marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect
Accepted
on brand loyalty.

Pre-analyses before hypotheses testing and regression analysis for hypotheses testing
are conducted in this part of the study to answer to research questions accordingly. In
the next part of the study, the findings are discussed in scope of research framework and
model, and the scientific contribution of the study is determined through research
results.

51
 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Analysis of this master’s thesis is carried out among mobile phone users, who are living
in Istanbul, Turkey. When respondents’ descriptive statistics about brand equity items
are evaluated, it is determined that mobile phone users mostly agree the items about
their mobile phone brand’s equity dimensions on average. This is an indication of that
respondents’ mobile phone brands’ achieved above average brand equity levels for their
consumers.

When the descriptive statistics of digital marketing items are interpreted, the remark can
be made that respondents have a positive attitude towards their mobile phone brand’s
digital marketing, but still can not decide if they want to have a more close relationship
where they follow their brand on social media.

Descriptive statistics of the items about direct marketing show similar characteristics,
and it is indicated that respondents at least agree the items, and strongly agree to some
items. So, it can be stated that survey respondents perceive their mobile phone brand
successful on direct marketing.

The findings might be also evaluated together with respondent demographics. Most of
the respondents have at least a bachelor’s degree, expertise on marketing and are
between the ages of 26-35. Accordingly, the findings showing that the respondents on
average agree to the scale items can be related to the respondents’ high consciousness
because of being young and well-educated.

Before starting to test the thesis hypotheses, the reliability and significance of the
twenty-six scale items about brand equity, digital marketing and direct marketing are
also tested. As all scales’ Cronbach’s alpha values fall into the acceptable range, the
reliability of the scales are verified.

52
As a final check before regression analysis, factor analysis is performed for checking
the accuracy of factor numbers in the scale. KMO values of brand equity, digital
marketing and direct marketing scale items, and p values in the Bartlett’s test show that
the data is appropriate for factor analysis. Brand equity dimensions’ Varimax factor
rotation and factor matrix results showed a 3-factor structure instead of 4-factor. One
brand awareness and one brand associations scale items are extracted because of having
low factor loadings. Brand awareness and brand associations items distributed under
the same factor. Perceived quality, brand loyalty, digital marketing and direct marketing
items are distributed under single factors. Therefore, a new factor is formed involving
both brand awareness and brand associations items, and it is named as brand awareness-
associations. Accordingly, three-dimensional brand equity structure is used, which
shows a similar analysis model used by another researchers (Yoo and Donthu 2001,
Yoo et al. 2000). Due to the change in the number of brand equity dimensions, thesis
hypotheses and subhypotheses are revised, where two main hypotheses and six
subhypotheses remained. Those final hypotheses purpose to individually investigate if
digital marketing and direct marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect
on brand equity through its dimensions brand awareness-associations, perceived quality
and brand loyalty.

After factor analysis, regression analysis is conducted according to the reconstructed

thesis hypotheses. First main hypothesis of the research is about testing the effect of
digital marketing on brand equity dimensions. The related subhypotheses’ assert that
digital marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect on brand awareness-
associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty dimensions of brand equity. According
to the results of regression analysis, it is accepted that digital marketing has a
statistically significant and positive effect on brand awareness-associations, perceived
quality and brand loyalty. Observed effect level is nearly the same for the effect on
brand awareness-associations and perceived quality. The effect on brand loyalty is a bit
lower in comparison to other brand equity dimensions. Hypothesis testing results
support the theories on the literature about digital marketing’s positive role on
developing brand awareness, associations (Dahlén et al. 2010, Kapferer 2008, Keller
2008, Fill 2002), and brand loyalty (Keller 2008, Kotler and Keller 2006).

53
Additionally, the studies using quantitative techniques arrive into same conclusion.
Çizmeci and Ercan’s (2015) research indicates that digital marketing’s strong effect on
creating brand awareness, and the effects is shown through Delphi technique. Sheela
and Sneha (2017) show the impact of social media in developing brand loyalty through
measurement of statements with statistical simple percentage method. According to
another research (Kavisekara and Abeysekara 2016) on the effects of social media
marketing, as an important part of digital marketing on brand equity dimensions, the
analysis results reveal similar deducements. The study uses both regression and
correlation techniques. It is stated that all brand equity dimensions have a strong
relationship with social media marketing variables with higher correlation coefficients.
Regression coefficients also show a similar effect on brand equity. Average effect rates
are statistically significant and positive, but lower in comparison to this thesis’
regression analysis, which is possibly a consequence of just regarding social media
among digital marketing.

Second main hypothesis of the research is about the effect of direct marketing on brand
equity dimensions. The related subhypotheses’ claim that direct marketing has a
statistically significant and positive brand awareness-associations, perceived quality and
brand loyalty dimensions of brand equity. According to the results of regression
analysis, it is accepted that direct marketing has a statistically significant and positive
effect on brand awareness-associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty. Observed
effect level is highest for perceived quality, secondly for brand loyalty and thirdly for
brand awareness-associations.

Second hypothesis testing results support the literature review about direct marketing’s
positive role on developing brand equity (Kotler and Armstrong 2012, Harridge 2009).
Results of the studies using similar techniques in this thesis are compared to other
findings in the literature for making further inferences. Mubushar et al. (2013) states
that direct marketing has a strong and significant effect on development of brand equity
through brand awareness, perceived quality and brand loyalty According to another
research on marketing communication tools impact on building brand equity; brand
awareness, associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty are positively affected from

54
direct marketing, and the effect coefficients are shown through Structural Equation
Modelling. The study indicates that the effect level is highest for brand awareness, and
followed by perceived quality, brand associations and brand loyalty. As the research is
conducted in banking sector, where it is critical to directly contact the customer for
gathering attention, the differentiation about awareness effect is explainable.3

Even if the purpose of the study is testing the effects of digital marketing and direct
marketing on brand equity through its dimensions, the effects are also compared
inbetween. In addition to above stated hypotheses results, the evaluation is made that
the effects on brand equity dimensions are stronger in total for digital marketing than
direct marketing, and digital marketing can explain a higher percentage of the changes
on brand equity dimensions than direct marketing. Highest difference is observed on the
effect on brand awareness-associations dimension. Thus, it can be interpreted that
digital marketing activities can be assumed as more effective on enhancing brand
awareness-associations than direct marketing activities among mobile phone users. The
reason for this might be the intense and raising personalized communication using
consumers’ personal information through their prior permission, which might
discomfort mobile phone users afterwards, and cause them to ignore the
communication. There are no significant differences between the effects on perceived
quality and brand loyalty. Mobile phone users are still sensitive to any digital and direct
communication activity from where they can perceive the brand’s quality. Digital
marketing raises the level of customer experience through convenient and simple
processes, and direct marketing’s personalization help to develop a habitual purchase
behavior, and a sustainable brand loyalty effect can be provided.

As emphasized in the literature, brand equity is vital for a brand to succeed, and
therefore it is important to examine the elements enhancing brand equity, like marcom
tools in this study. Research was about the roles of digital marketing and direct
marketing on developing brand equity. The purpose of this study was to investigate the
effects of digital marketing and direct marketing on developing brand equity through its

3
Saddek, H. H., (2015). The impact of marketing communication tools on building brand equity in the
Egyptian banking sector: A customer perspective. Thesis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Cardiff,
Galler: Cardiff Metropolitan University School of Management.

55
dimensions, and researcher also attempted to make additional deducements and
assumptions according to their differentiation points on effecting brand equity. Main
results of the study are summarized below:

i. Digital marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect on brand

awareness-associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty.
ii. Direct marketing has a statistically significant and positive effect on brand
awareness-associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty.
iii. Digital marketing can be assumed as more effective than direct marketing on
developing brand equity.
iv. Digital marketing can be assumed as more effective on developing brand
awareness-associations and perceived quality than brand loyalty.
v. Direct marketing can be assumed as more effective on developing perceived
quality and brand loyalty than brand awareness-associations.
vi. Mobile phone users in Istanbul, Turkey are generally satisfied with their mobile
phone brand’s digital marketing and direct marketing.

According to results of this thesis, all hypotheses are tested, testing results supported
researchers’ arguments and all thesis hypotheses are accepted. Additionally, different
results comparing the individual effects of two marcom tools are obtained, and sectoral
findings are evaluated. Therefore, the thesis achieves the purpose of testing the effects
of digital marketing and direct marketing on developing brand equity through its
dimensions. Researcher states that there are limited research including empirical testing
about the individual effects of digital marketing and direct marketing on developing
brand equity. For this reason, contribution of this master’s thesis to scientific field is
unique.

A variety of managerial implications emerge from study results. Firstly, digital

marketing is critical for a brand to develop brand equity dimensions. Managers should
make investment plans regarding digital marketing budgets in order to increase brand
equity. Managers should develop new strategies to bond with their customers on all
digital channels, run digital campaigns like social media campaigns, and develop new

56
media channels additionally. Secondly, direct marketing’s effect should be taken into
consideration especially for the companies gathering their customer data for
communicating them. Marketing managers can make an endeavor for a more accurate
segmentation and personalized communication according to consumers’ demographics
and purchase habits, whereby the effect on brand awareness-associations, perceived
quality and brand loyalty will be increased.

Even if the scale used in the research are customized from different researchers’
applications and contains the brand equity and marketing communication terms valid
for any sector, several limitiations also exist for the study. Firstly, the research is
conducted in a specific region and sector. Researcher recommends to retest the findings
with another studies conducted in different sectors in Turkey, or different sectoral
environments abroad. Secondly, the marketing methods used in this study has a large
scope and therefore the results are generalized for all marketing tools within digital
marketing and direct marketing. For example, social media channels, mobile web sites,
mobile applications’ effect as a part of digital marketing and e-mail, SMS, push
notification channels’ effect as a part of direct marketing on brand equity dimensions
might be possibly investigated in further research. Thirdly, the interactions between
marcom tools and brand equity dimensions are left out of the analysis. Digital
marketing and direct marketing actions might affect each other, as in brand awareness-
associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty. Therefore, thesis writer recommends
that further research on brand equity may examine those interactions together with
measuring the effect level of marcom tools on brand equity dimensions.

57
 REFERENCES

Books

Ak, M., 2006. Marka yönetimi. Istanbul: Akis Kitap.

Aaker, D. A., 2004. Brand portfolio strategy: Creating relevance, differentiation,
energy, leverage and clarity. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Aaker, D. A., 2000. Building strong brands. New York: Simon&Schuster.
Aaker, D. A. & Joachimsthaler, E., 2000. Brand leadership. New York: Free Press.
Aaker, D. A., 1996. Building strong brands. New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. A., 1991. Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name.
New York: The Free Press.
Altunışık, R., Coşkun, R., Bayrataroğlu, S. and Yıldırım, E., 2005. Sosyal bilimlerde
araştırma yöntemleri. Issue no: 4. Sakarya: Sakarya Kitabevi.
Aronson, E., Ellsworth, P., Carlsmith, J. M. and Gonzales, M. H., 1990. Methods of
research in social psychology. Issue no: 2. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Batra, R., Myers, J. G. and Aaker D. A., 1996. Advertising management. New Jersey:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Belch, G. E. & Belch, M. A., 1995. Introduction to advertising and promotion: An
integrated marketing communications perspective. Issue no:3. Homewood: Irwin.
Bryman, A., 2012. Social research methods. Issue no: 4. US: Oxford University Press.
Cooper, A. & Simons, P., 1997. Brand equity lifestage: An entrepreneurial revolution.
London: TBWA Simons Palmer.
Dahlén, M., Lange, F. and Smith, T. 2010. Marketing communications: A brand
narrative approach. West Sussex: Jonh Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Durmuş, B., Yurtkoru, S. E. and Çinko, M. 2011. Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS’le veri analizi.
Issue no: 4. Istanbul: Beta Yayınları.
Egan, J., 2007. Marketing communications. London: Thomson Learning.
Feldwick, P., 2002. What is brand equity, anyway? Henley-on-Thames, Oxon: World
Advertising Research Center.

58
Field, A. P., 2000. Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows: Advanced
techniques for beginners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fill, C., 2002. Marketing communications: Contexts, strategies and applications. Issue
no: 3. Edinburgh Gate Essex: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Gravetter, F. & Wallnau, L., 2014. Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences.
Issue no: 8. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. and Black, W. 1998. Multivariate data
analysis. Issue no: 5. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Interbrand Group, 1992. World’s greatest brands: An international review. New York:
John Wiley.
Jarvis, L. P. and Wilcox, J. B., 1976. Repeat purchasing behavior and attitudinal brand
loyalty: Additional evidence, in Marketing: 1776-1976 and beyond, pp. 151-152,
Bernhardt, K. L., (Ed.). New York: American Marketing Association.
Kapferer, J. N., 2008. Strategic brand management: Creating and sustaining brand
equity long term. Issue no: 4. Gosford: Ashford Colour Press.
Karaçor, S., 2000. Toplumsal değişme ve reklam. Issue no: 6. Konya: İletişim Fakültesi
Yayınları.
Keller, K. L., 2008. Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managing
brand equity. Issue no: 3. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Keller, K. L., 2003. Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, managing
brand equity. Issue no: 2. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Kitchen, P. J., 1999. Marketing communications: Principles and practice. London:
International Thomson Business Press.
Kotler, P., 2000. Marketing management: The millennium edition. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P. & Keller, K. L., 2016. Marketing management. Issue no: 15. Essex: Pearson
Education.
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G., 2012. Principles of marketing. Issue no: 14. Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P. & Keller, K. L., 2006. Marketing management. Issue no: 12. New Jersey:
Pearson Prentice Hall.

59
Malhotra, N. K., 2003. Basic marketing research: Application to contemporary issues
with SPSS-student edition. Australia: Pearson Education.
Odabaşı, Y. & Oyman, M., 2005. Pazarlama iletişimi yönetimi. Issue no: 6. Istanbul:
Mediacat.
Oliver, R. L., 1997. Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective in the consumer. New York:
Mc-Graw Hill.
Öztürk, M. C. (Ed.), 2013. Dijital iletişim ve yeni medya. Eskişehir: Anadolu
University, pp. 120-152.
Pickton, D. & Broderick, A., 2005. Integrated marketing communications. Issue no: 2.
London: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Pride, W. M. and Ferrell, O. C., 2014. Marketing. Issue no: 14. South-Western, USA:
Cengage Learning.
Ray, M. R., 1982. Advertising and communication management. New Jersey: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Riezebos, R., 2003. Brand management: A theoretical and practical approach. Harlow:
Pearson Education.
Rossiter, J. R. & Bellman, S., 2005. Marketing communications: Theory and
applications. Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Rossiter, J. R. & Percy, L., 1987. Advertising and promotion management. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Ryan, D., 2016. Understanding digital marketing: Marketing strategies for engaging
the digital generation. Issue no: 4. New York: Kogan Page Ltd.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A, 2012. Research methods for business
students. London: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Shimp, T. A., 1997. Advertising, promotion and supplemental aspects of integrated
marketing communications. Issue no: 4. Orlando, FL: Dryden.
Trochim, W. M. & Donnelly, J. P., 2006. The research methods knowledge base. Issue
no: 3. Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog.
Tynan, K., 1994. Multi-Channel Marketing: Maximizing market share with an
integrated marketing strategy. Massachusetts: Probus.
Upshaw, L. B., 1995. Building brand identity: A strategy for success in hostile market
place. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

60
Varnalı, K., 2013. Dijital tutulma, pazarlama iletişimi ve insan. İstanbul: Capital
Media-Mediacat Press.
Weber, L., 2007. Marketing to the social web. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

61
Periodicals

Aaker, D. A. and Jacobson, R., 1994. The financial information content of perceived
quality. Journal of Marketing Research. 31 (May), pp. 191-201.
Aaker, D. A., 1990. Brand extensions: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Sloan
Management Review. 31 (4), pp. 47-56.
Aghaei, M., Vahedi, E., Kahreh, M. S. & Pirooz, M., 2014. An examination on the
relationship between services marketing mix and brand equity dimensions.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 109, pp. 865-869.
Allaway, A. W., Huddleston, P., Whipple, J. & Ellinger, A. E., 2011. Customer based
brand equity, equity drivers, and customer loyalty in the supermarket industry.
Journal of Product&Brand Management. 20 (3), pp. 190-204.
Anderson, E. T. and Simester, D. I., 2004. Long run effects of promotion depth on new
versus established customers: Three field studies. Marketing Science. 23 (1), pp.
4-20.
Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann D. R., 1994. Customer satisfaction, market
share and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing. 58 (3), pp.
53-66.
Atilgan, E., Akinci, S., Aksoy, S., & Kaynak, E., 2009. Customer-based brand equity
for global brands: A multinational approach. Journal of Euromarketing. 18 (2),
pp. 115-132.
Atilgan, E., Aksoy, S., & Akinci, S., 2005. Determinants of the brand equity: A
verification approach in the beverage industry in Turkey. Journal of Marketing
Intelligence and Planning. 23 (3), pp. 237-248.
Aydın, S. and Özer, G., 2005. The analysis of antecedents of customer loyalty in the
Turkish mobile telecommunication market. European Journal of Marketing. 39
(7/8), pp. 910-925
Bandyopadhyay, S. and Martell, M., 2007. Does attitudinal loyalty influence behavioral
loyalty? A theoretical and empirical study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services. 14 (1), pp. 35-44.
Berry, L. L., 2000. Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 28 (1), pp. 128-137.

62
Bharadwaj, S. G., Varadarajan, P. R. & Fahy, J., 1993. Sustainable competitive
advantange in service industries: A conceptual model and research propositions.
Journal of Marketing. 57 (4), pp. 83-99.
Brady, M. K., Cronin, J. J., Fox, G. L., & Roehm, M. L., 2009. Strategies to offset
performance failures: The role of brand equity. Journal of Retailing. 84 (2), pp.
151-164.
Brunello, A., 2014. Customer-based brand equity-an innovative approach. Institute of
Economic Research. 23 (1), pp. 73-81.
Buil, I., Chernatony, L. & Martinez, E., 2013. Examining the role of advertising and
sales promotions in brand equity creation. Journal of Business Research. 66 (1),
pp. 115-122.
Campbell, I. and Diamond, W., 1990. Framing and sales promotions: The
characteristics of a “good deal”. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 7 (4), pp. 25-31.
Chu, S., and Keh, H. T., 2006. Brand value creation: Analysis of the Interbrand-
Business Week brand value rankings, Marketing Letters. 17 (4), pp. 323-331.
Chung, Y. J., Lee, J., & Heath, L. R., 2013. Public relations aspects of brand attitudes
and customer activity. Public Relations Review. 39 (5), pp. 432-439.
Çizmeci, F. and Ercan, T., 2015. The effect of digital marketing comunication tools in
the creation brand awareness by housing companies. Megaron. 10 (2), pp. 149-
161.
Davcik, N. S., and Sharma, P., 2015. Impact of product differentiation, marketing
investments and brand equity on pricing strategies: A brand level investigation.
European Journal of Marketing. 49 (5/6), pp. 760-781.
Davcik, N. S., Silva, R.V., & Hair, J. F., 2015. Towards a unified theory of brand
equity: Conceptualizations, taxonomy and avenues for future research. Journal of
Product & Brand Management. 24 (1), pp. 3-17.
Del Rio, A. B., Vázquez, R. & Iglesias, V., 2001. The effects of brand associations on
consumer response. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 18 (5), pp. 410-425.
DelVecchio, D., Henard, D. H. & Freling, T. H., 2006. The effect of sales promotion on
post-promotion brand preference: A meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing. 82 (3),
pp. 203-213.

63
Dmour, H. A., Zubi, Z. F., & Kakeesh, D., 2013. The effect of services marketing mix
elements on customer-based brand equity: An empirical study on mobile telecom
service recipients in Jordan. International Journal of Business and Management. 8
(11), pp. 13-26.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe K. B. & Grewal, D., 1991. Effects of price, brand, and store
information on buyers' product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research. 28
(3), pp. 307-319.
Dowling, G. R. and Uncles, M., 1997. Do customer loyalty programmes really work?
Sloan Management Review. 38 (4), pp. 71-82.
Ehrenberg, A. S. C., 1993. If you are so strong why aren’t you bigger? Making the case
against brand equity. Admap. 28 (10), pp. 13-14.
Farquhar, P. H., 1989. Managing brand equity. Marketing Research. 1 (3), pp. 24-33.
Feldwick, P., 1996. Do we really need brand equity? The Journal of Brand
Management. 4 (1), pp. 9-28.
Grover, R. and Srinivasan, V., 1992. Evaluating the multiple effects of retail promotions
on brand loyal and brand switching segments. Journal of Marketing Research. 29
(1), pp. 76-89.
Harridge, S., 2009. Direct marketing and relationships: An opinion piece. Direct
Marketing: An International Journal, 2 (4), pp. 192-198.
Hauser, J. R. and Wernerfeldt, B., 1990. An evaluation cost model of consideration sets.
Journal of Consumer Research. 16 (4), pp. 393-408.
Herrera, F., Lopez, E., & Rodriguez, M.A., 2002. A linguistic decision model for
promotion mix management solved with genetic algorithms. International Journal
of Approximate Reasoning. 30 (3), pp. 203-223.
Hoeffler, S. and Keller, K. L., 2003. The marketing advantages of strong brands. Brand
Management. 10 (6), pp. 421-445.
Jacoby, J., 1971. A model of multi-brand loyalty. Journal of Advertising Research. 11
(3), pp. 25-31.
Javalgi, R. R. and Moberg, C. R., 1997. Service loyalty: Implications for service
providers. Journal of Services Marketing. 11 (3), pp. 165-179.
Karaçor, S., 2009. Pazarlama iletişiminde marka yaratma odaklı konumlandırma
stratejileri. Ankara Sanayi Odası, Ocak, pp. 26-39.

64
Kavisekara, S. and Abeysekara, N., 2016. Effect of social media marketing on brand
equity of online companies. Management and Marketing Journal. 14 (2), pp.
201-216.
Kayaman, R., and Arasli, H., 2007. Customer based brand equity: Evidence from the
hotel industry. Journal of Managing Service Quality. 17 (1), pp. 92-109.
Keller, K. L., 2010. Brand equity management in a multichannel, multimedia retail
environment. Journal of Interactive Marketing. 24 (2), pp. 58-70.
Keller, K. L. and Lehmann, D. R., 2006. Brands and branding: Research findings and
future priorities. Marketing Science. 25 (6), pp. 740-759.
Keller, K. L., 2003. Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge.
Journal of Consumer Research. 29 (4), pp. 595-600.
Keller, K. L. and Lehmann, D. R., 2003. How do brands create value? Marketing
Management, May/June, pp. 27-31.
Keller, K. L., 2001. Building customer-based brand equity. Marketing Management. 10
(2), pp. 14-19.
Keller, K. L., Heckler, S. E. & Houston, M. J., 1998. The effects of brand name
suggestiveness on advertising recall. Journal of Marketing. 62 (1), pp. 48- 57.
Keller, K. L., 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing. 57 (1), pp. 1-22.
Kirmani, A. and Wright, P., 1989. Money talks: Perceived advertising expenditures and
expected product quality. Journal of Consumer Research. 16 (3), pp. 344-353.
Kottler, R., 2005. Eight tips offer best practices for online MR. Marketing News. 30 (6),
pp. 24-25.
Krishnan, B. C., and Hartline, M. D., 2001. Brand equity: Is it more important in
services? Journal of Services Marketing. 15 (5), pp. 328-342.
Macdonald, E. and Sharp, B., 2000. Brand awareness effects on consumer decision
making for a common, repeat purchase product: A replication. Journal of
Business Research. 48 (1), pp. 5-15.
Mael, F. and Ashforth, B. E., 1992. A partial test of the reformulated model of
organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 13 (2), pp. 103-
123.

65
Mallin, M. L. and Finkle, T. A., 2007. Social entrepreneurship and direct marketing.
Direct marketing: An international Journal. 1 (2), pp. 68-77.
McAfee, A. and Brynjolfsson, E., 2012. Big Data: The management revolution.
Harvard Business Review, October, pp. 60–68.
Milliken, J., 2001. Focus on management history: Qualitative research and marketing
management. Management Decision. 39 (1), pp. 71-77.
Mubushar, M., Haider, I., & Iftikhar, K., 2013. The effect of integrated marketing
communication on customer-based brand equity with mediating role of corporate
reputation in cellular industry of Pakistan. Global Journal of Management and
Business Research Marketing. 13 (6), pp. 21-29.
Naik, A. N., Ramann, K. & Winer, R, 2005. Planning marketing-mix strategies in the
presence of interactions. Marketing Science. 24 (10), pp. 25-34.
Nam, J., Ekinci, Y. & Georgina, W., 2011. Brand equity, brand loyalty and customer
satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research. 38 (3), pp. 1009-1030.
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. 57 (2), pp. 209-224.
O’Malley, L., 1998. Can loyalty schemes really build loyalty? Marketing Intelligence
and Planning. 16 (1), pp. 47-55.
Page, C., & Luding, Y., 2003. Bank managers’ direct marketing dilemmas customers’
attitudes and purchase intention. International Journal of Bank Marketing. 21 (3),
pp. 147-163.
Palazon-Vidal, M. and Delgado-Ballester, E., 2005. Sales promotions effect on
customer-based brand equity. International Journal of Market Research. 47 (2),
pp. 179-204.
Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R.W., 2007. Country image and consumer-based
brand equity: Relationships and implications for international marketing. Journal
of International Business Studies. 38 (5), pp. 726-745.
Parameswaran, R. and Yaprak, 1987. A cross national comparison of consumer research
measures. Journal of Internatonal Business Studies. 18 (1), pp. 35-49.

66
Park, C. S. and Srinivasan, V., 1994. A survey-based method for measuring and
understanding brand equity and its extendibility. Journal of Marketing Research.
31 (2), pp. 271-288.
Rajh, E., and Dosen, D., 2009. The effect of marketing mix elements on service brand
equity. Economic Research Original Scientific Paper, 22 (4), pp. 69-83.
Rangaswamy, A., Burke, R. & Oliva, T. A., 1993. Brand equity and the extendibility of
brand names. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 10 (1), pp. 61-75.
Reynolds, T. J. and Philips C. B., 2005. In search of true brand equity metrics: All
market share ain’t created equal. Journal of Advertising Research. 45 (2), pp. 171-
186.
Richards, T., 1997. Measuring the true value of brands. Admap, March, pp. 32-36.
Rowley, J., 2001. Remodelling marketing communications in an internet environment:
Electronic networking applications and policy. Marketing Review. 11 (3), pp. 203-
212.
Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. N. & Zeithaml, V. A., 2004. Return on marketing: Using
customer equity to focus marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing. 68 (1), pp.
109-127.
Sheela, P and Sneha, K., 2017. Impact of social media in developing brand loyalty
among students. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research.
7 (1), pp. 31-38.
Shocker, A. D., Srivastava, R. K. & Ruekert, R. W., 1994. Challenges and opportunities
facing brand management: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of
Marketing Research. 3 (2), pp. 149-158.
Simon, C. J. and Sullivan, M. J., 1993. Measurement and determinants of brand equity:
A financial approach. Marketing Science. 12 (1), pp. 28-52.
Sinha, A., Ashill, N. J., & Gazley, A., 2008. Measuring customer-based brand equity
using hierarchal Bayes methodology. Australian Marketing Journal. 16 (1), pp. 3-
19.
Siriram, S., Balachander, S., & Kalwani, M. U., 2007. Monitoring the dynamics of
brand equity using store-level data. Journal of Marketing. 71, pp. 61-78.
Snider, M., 2012. Study details digital lives by age, sex and race. USA Today, 24
February.

67
Thomas, A. R., 2007. The end of mass marketing: or why all successful marketing is
now direct marketing. Direct Marketing: An International Journal. 1 (1), pp. 6-
16.
Valette-Florence, P., Guizani, H. & Merunka, D., 2011. The impact of brand personality
and sales promotions on brand equity. Journal of Business Research. 64 (1), pp.
24-28.
Vázquez, R., Del Rio, A. B. & Iglesias, V., 2002. Consumer-based brand equity:
development and validation of a measurement instrument. Journal of Marketing
Management. 18 (1/2), pp. 27-48.
Villarejo, A. F. and Sanchez, M. J., 2005. The impact of marketing communication and
price promotion on brand equity. Journal of Brand Management. 12 (6), pp. 431-
445.
Villas-Boas, J. M., 2004. Consumer learning, brand loyalty, and competition. Marketing
Science. 23 (1), pp. 134-145.
Wallace, E., De Chernatony, L., & Buil, I., 2013. Service employee clusters in banking.
European Journal of Marketing. 47 (11/12), pp. 1781-1803.
Winer, R. S., 2009. New communications approaches in marketing: Issues and research
directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing. 23 (2), pp. 108-117.
Winer, R. S., 1986. A reference price model of brand choice for frequently purchased
products. Journal of Consumer Research. 13 (2), pp. 250-256.
Wood, L., 2000. Brands and brand equity: Definition and management. Management
Decision. 38 (9), pp. 662-669.
Wright, C. and Sparks, L., 1999. Loyalty saturation in retailing: Exploring the end of
retail loyalty cards? International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management.
27 (10), pp. 31-46.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N., 2001. Developing and validating a multidimensional
consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research. 52 (1), pp. 1-
14.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. & Lee, S., 2000. An examination of selected marketing mix
elements and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 28 (2),
pp. 195-211.

68
Zeithaml, V. A., 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end
model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing. 52 (3), pp. 2-22.

69
Other Sources

Joshi, A., Hanssens, D., 2003. Advertising spending and market capitalization.
INFORMS Marketing Science Conference, June 2003 College Park, USA:
University of Maryland
Saddek, H. H., (2015). The impact of marketing communication tools on building brand
equity in the Egyptian banking sector: A customer perspective. Thesis for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Cardiff, Galler: Cardiff Metropolitan University
School of Management.
Türkiye Bilgi Teknolojileri ve Iletişim Kurumu, 2017. Türkiye Elektronik Haberleşme
Sektörü Pazar Verileri Raporu. 3rd quarter. Ankara.

70
 CURRICULUM VITAE

Bengi Yeniaydın was born in Istanbul in 1990. She studied primary school in Melih
Isfendiyar Elementary School and high school in Istanbul Erkek Lisesi. After starting
university at 2009, she gained her college degree in Istanbul Technical University
Business Faculty Industrial Engineering Department in 2013. In 2016, she started
Master of Business Administration Program in Bahçeşehir University.

Bengi has been working in Türk Telekom Marketing Department since September
2015. Before, she gained professional work experience in Turkcell, Mercedes-Benz
Türk and Baymak.

71