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

net/publication/319036951

MEASURING THE IMPACT OF THE DIMENSIONS OF BRAND CREDIBILITY ON

THE DIMENSIONS OF OVERALL BRAND EQUITY OF GRAMEEN PHONE

Article · March 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 124

3 authors:

Md Farijul Islam Md Mostafizur Rahman

Jagannath University - Bangladesh Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University
12 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   90 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Md Alamgir Hossain
Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University
47 PUBLICATIONS   154 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

DIU and HSTU Joint work View project

Joint Research Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Md Mostafizur Rahman on 10 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 IJSDIS: ISSN 2078-192X Volume 5 Issue 2 March 2014

Int. J. Soc. Dev. Inf. Syst. 5(2): 08-16, March 2014

An online Journal of “G-Science Implementation and Publication” website: www.gurpukur.com or www.gscience.net

MEASURING THE IMPACT OF THE DIMENSIONS OF BRAND CREDIBILITY ON THE

DIMENSIONS OF OVERALL BRAND EQUITY OF GRAMEEN PHONE
M. F. ISLAM1, M. M. RAHMAN2* and M. A. HOSSAIN3
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted at the Faculty of Business Studies, Hajee Mohammad Denesh Science and
Technology University, Dinajpur, Bangladesh October-December, 2013. The study is an endeavour to
investigate customers’ point of view about the impact of the dimensions of brand credibility on the
dimensions of overall brand equity. The purpose of the study is to examine the association between brand
credibility dimensions (trustworthiness, expertise and attractiveness) and dimensions of overall brand
equity (brand loyalty, perceived quality and brand awareness) of existing customers of Grameen Phone in
Bangladesh. A self administered questionnaire was employed to collect data from respondents by method
of non-probability judgmental sampling. Some statistical tools like Bivariate regression analysis (BRA) and
analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to get the ultimate output with the help of SPSS. Results of
statistical analysis revealed that brand credibility has statistically significant and positive association with
overall brand equity. So company should focus on brand credibility and establish long lasting credibility to
sustain and strengthen the current branding position in the fierce competitive market.

Keywords: Brand credibility, Brand loyalty, Brand awareness, Perceived quality, Trustworthiness,
Expertise and Attractiveness.

INTRODUCTION
Brand is what resides in the minds of customers. Products are made in factory, but brands are created in
mind. Brand is nothing but it is the process of identifying or distinguishing the goods or services of one
producer from those of another. A brand is a name, term, sign, symbol, or design or a combination of
them, intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate
them from those of competitors. The key to a brand is that a marketer creates a new name, logo, or
symbols for a new product. Sometime a brand as more than as something that has actually created a
certain amount of awareness, reputation, prominence and so on in the marketplace. Brand equity refers
to the set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand. It is easy to say that competitive advantages
from brand can be gained by two parties. Brand equity is nothing but it is the process of sacrifice extra
amount of money for any choice able brand which includes perceive quality, market perceive quality,
brand awareness, channel relationship, and trademark. Brand equity can be classified into two ways:
consumer based brand equity and firm based brand equity. Plummer (1985) asserts that one component
of brand image is the personality or character of the brand itself. Today mobile phone markets are one
of the most turbulent market environments due to increased competition and change (Karjaluoto et al.,
2005). Wilska (2003) further argues that the younger the consumer, the more hedonistic features he or
she tends to value in mobile phones. A diverse study investigated the effect of brand credibility on
overall brand equity. Brand credibility increases consumer utility (Erdem et al., 2006), brand credibility
is positively associated with emotions and reasons in consumer decision making. Prior research had
investigated that source credibility impact attitude of consumers towards the source. It is seemed that
brand credibility has positive impact on consumer purchase intentions. The extent to what entity is
considered reliable or honest source of information is trustworthiness. It is highly associated to with
attitude. Trust in brand can be defined as security which is felt by consumer in transactions which is
based on understanding and perception and reliability of brand so that it can satisfy the interests and
welfare of consumers. It is a factor which differentiates between relations and transactions. Each type of
individual relation is based on trust, whether it is formed among individuals or it is formed between

1
Md. Farijul Islam, Lecturer, Department of Marketing, Hajee Mohammad Denesh Science and Technology University, Dinajpur,
Email: farijulmkthstu@gmail.com, 2Md. Mostafizur Rahman, Lecturer, Department of Management, Hajee Mohammad Denesh
Science and Technology University, Dinajpur and 3Md. Alamgir Hossain, Lecturer, Department of Management, Hajee
Mohammad Denesh Science and Technology University Dinajpur, Bangladesh, Email: shamimru@gmail.com.
*Corresponding authors Email: mostafiz7241@yahoo.com
8
 IJSDIS: ISSN 2078-192X Volume 5 Issue 2 March 2014

individual and brand. Trustworthiness is considered as it acts like a bridge between satisfaction and
individual relations and directs transactions positive orientation towards close, steady and committed
relationships between individuals and brand. Trustworthiness in brand means customers' tendency to
trust in brand capabilities in doing its duties for better performance that helps to enhance brand equity
for company. The extent to what entity has good knowledge, skills and abilities is expertise. Brand
credibility involve consumer to perceive that brand as reliable source of information (trustworthiness),
has skills (expertise) and match with personality characteristics (attractiveness). Hence trustworthiness,
expertise and attractiveness demonstrate a complete picture of brand credibility convenient to use, thus
adding value for the consumer. The extent to what entity is valued by personality characteristics
(behavior, ambition etc.) is attractiveness and it associated with personality characteristics. Brand
credibility plays an important role in purchase intentions of consumers and found that it has positive
and strong affect. The more brand is credible the more there are chances that it will be included in
choice set formation and will be selected (Erdem and Swait, 2004). Brand equity is nothing but it is the
process of sacrificing extra amount of money for any choice able brand. Brand equity refers to the
marketing effects and outcomes that accrue to a product with its brand name compared with those that
would accrue if the same product did not have the brand name. It includes perceive quality, market
perceive quality, name awareness, channel relationship, and trademark. It includes both tangible and
intangible asset. Brand equity is based on the product position of a brand. A customer who believes that
a brand deliver superior performance, is exciting to use, and is produced by a company with appropriate
social values will likely to be willing to a premium for the brand. An attempt to define the relationship
between customers and brands produced the term ``brand equity'' in the marketing literature. Feldwick
(1996) asserts the variety of approaches, by providing a classification of the different meanings of brand
equity as the total value of a brand as a separable asset ± when it is sold, or included on a Balance sheet;
a measure of the strength of consumers' attachment to a brand and a description of the associations and
beliefs the consumer think about the brand. Brand loyalty is an important dimension from the point of
view of brand equity measurement as consumer loyalty turns into future profit. A loyal consumer base
can assure predictable sales and profit for the company and reduces marketing costs since retaining
consumers is much less costly than attracting new ones. To measure the brand loyalty dimension,
Aaker (1996) indicated price premium, consumer satisfaction and loyalty as the most suitable tools.
However attractive a measure price premium is, its commercial application, the frequent price cuts and
the spectacularly differing prices among chains of shops create problems in its inclusion in the brand
equity model. Further on, price premium as an independent measure of brand equity has several
deficiencies as it does not unambiguously measure the company’s financial performance (even with a
high price premium, a company may suffer losses if sales decrease), and it does not show the brand’s
impact on reducing marketing costs. Despite its deficiencies, it stood at the basis of several
measurement models for brand equity (Randall et al., 1998). Perceived quality is simply the overall
customer’s assessment of the standard process of receiving customer services. In previous researches
the relationship between perceived quality and satisfaction, has been proved. Some experts believe that
the perceived quality is the extent of compliance rate between perceived performance and customer
expectations. Aaker (1991) discusses perceived quality separately from associations. Perceived quality
adds value to the product by creating motivation to buy, makes price premium application possible and
differentiates the brand. The importance of perceived quality is indicated by the fact that the research
referring to 3,000 strategic business units built on PIMS database found it the most important factor
influencing returns. Company managements consider perceived quality as one of the major important
sources of competitive advantages for building strong brand equity. Although the general liability of
researches based on PIMS’ database has often been questioned, in measuring brand equity several
researches have confirmed the treatment of perceived quality as an independent dimension or its
determining role in assessing brand equity (Aaker and Jacobson, 1994, Gamoran, 2007, Netemeyer et
al., 2004). Brand awareness is one of the most frequently measured dimensions of brand equity. The
basic measuring tools of brand awareness are recognition, recall, top of mind, brand dominance (only
one recalled brand name), brand knowledge and brand opinion. High awareness reduces the brand
choice-related perceived risk, consumers feeling safer when choosing a well-known brand (Moisescu,
2009). Lachance and Choquette-Bernier (2004) conducted a survey of young Finnish people aged 16-20
9
 IJSDIS: ISSN 2078-192X Volume 5 Issue 2 March 2014

and found that mobile phone choice and usage is consistent with respondents’ general consumption
styles. The research showed that addictive use was common among females and was related to trendy
and impulsive consumption styles. Young males however were found to be more trend-consciousness
and technology-savvy. These attributes were then linked to impulsive consumption from which he
concluded that genders are becoming more alike in mobile service choice. Similarly, Fitzsimons et
al.(2002) explains that consumer choice can also be approached from the perspective of conscious and
non-conscious choice. In addition, he submits that quite many choice situations occur outside of
conscious awareness and with limited information search and can be stated that many choices have both
conscious and non-conscious motives. Available information on demography of European mobile users
shows that the 18-24 year groups are the most active user group. Keller (1993) explains that building
customer-based brand equity requires the creation of a familiar brand that has favorable, strong and
unique brand associations. This can be done both through the initial choice of the brand identities, such
as the brand name, logo, or symbol, and through the integration of the brand identities into the
supporting marketing program. He concludes, these alternatives are chosen to help enhance brand
awareness or facilitate the linkage of brand associations underpinning the psychological principles that
are useful in understanding how the choice of a name affects brand recall and recognition processes.
Bolton (1998) suggests that service organizations should be proactive and learn from customers before
they defect by understanding their current satisfaction levels. The objectives of the study are (i) to
explore the impact of expertise and trustworthiness and attractiveness of corporate credibility on the
brand loyalty, perceived quality and brand awareness on overall brand equity and (ii) to investigate
whether there is positive significant relationship and interdependency among various factors of brand
credibility and overall brand equity of prescribed operator in Bangladesh.
METHODOLOGY
The study was conducted at the Faculty of Business Studies, Hajee Mohammad Denesh Science and
Technology University, Dinajpur, Bangladesh in Oct-Dec, 2013. Primary and secondary data were
used this study. Primary data were collected from Rangpur division specially Rangpur and Dinajpur
districts through interview schedule. Secondary data were collected from published journals,
periodicals, and books. Total respondents of the study were 300. The respondents were selected through
non-probability judgmental sampling. Data were analyzed by Bivarite Regression analysis (BRA) and
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).
Research hypotheses
H1: There is a significant positive relationship between Expertise and Brand loyalty
H2: There is a significant positive relationship between Trustworthiness and Brand loyalty
H3: There is a significant positive relationship between Attractiveness and Brand loyalty
H4: There is a significant positive relationship between Expertise and Perceived Quality
H5: There is a significant positive relationship between Trustworthiness and Perceived Quality
H6: There is a significant positive relationship between Attractiveness and Perceived Quality
H7: There is a significant positive relationship between Expertise and Brand Awareness
H8: There is a significant positive relationship between Trustworthiness and Brand Awareness
H9: There is a significant positive relationship between Attractiveness and Brand Awareness
H10: There is a significant positive relationship between Expertise and Overall Brand Equity
H11: There is a significant positive relationship between Trustworthiness and Overall Brand Equity
H12: There is a significant positive relationship between Attractiveness and Overall Brand Equity
Reliability test: The questionnaire containing of twenty-seven items, three items were to measure
demographic variables like gender, age and educational status. The value of Cronbach’s Alpha (percent)
lies between 0.620 to 0.810 (Table 2) those are globally recognized and accepted.

10
 IJSDIS: ISSN 2078-192X Volume 5 Issue 2 March 2014

Table 1. Sample demographic characteristics.

Variable Type Frequency Percent
Male 184 61.54
Gender
Female 115 38.46
20-30 85 28.42
31-40 117 39.13
Age
41-50 52 17.39
More than 50 45 15.05
High school 43 14.38
Educational HSC/Diploma 65 21.73
Status Bachelors 105 45.9
Masters and Ph.D 86 29.1

Table 2. The result of reliability test.

Variables Number of items Cronbach’s Alpha (percent)
Trustworthiness 3 0.776
Expertise 3 0.730
Attractiveness 2 0.730
Brand loyalty 4 0.689
Brand awareness 4 0.620
Perceived quality 3 0.791
Overall brand equity 5 0.816

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

To test the conceptual framework (Fig. 1), SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) has been
used to analyze the data collected from 300 respondents from Grameen phone users Rangpur Division
in Bangladesh.

Brand Credibility of GP Brand Loyalty

Perceived Quality
Brand Expertise

Brand Trustworthiness Brand Awareness

Brand Attractiveness
Overall Brand Equity of GP

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of study.

The results of the study from table 3, table 4 and table 5 indicate the strength of relationship among the
expertise and trustworthiness and attractiveness with the brand loyalty, perceived quality, and brand
awareness. The expertise and trustworthiness and attractiveness also help to measure the strength of
relationship of overall brand equity.

11
 IJSDIS: ISSN 2078-192X Volume 5 Issue 2 March 2014

Table 3. Model summary of bivarite regression analysis.

Model Predictors: Adjusted R Std. Error of
Dependent variable R R Square
No. (Constant) Square the Estimate
1 Brand loyalty Expertise .567(a) .321 .318 2.23564
2 Brand loyalty Trustworthiness .687(a) .473 .470 1.97074
3 Brand loyalty Attractiveness .657(a) .431 .429 1.97074
4 Perceived quality Expertise .576(a) .332 .329 1.29986
5 Perceived quality Trustworthiness .617(a) .380 .377 1.25219
6 Perceived quality Attractiveness .649(a) .421 .419 1.97074
7 Brand awareness Expertise .511(a) .261 .257 3.34029
8 Brand awareness Trustworthiness .660(a) .436 .433 2.91820
9 Brand awareness Attractiveness .687(a) .471 .468 1.97074
10 Overall brand equity Expertise .542(a) .294 .290 3.15641
11 Overall brand equity Trustworthiness .717(a) .515 .512 2.61698
12 Overall brand equity Attractiveness .658(a) .432 .429 1.97074
Source: Data derived from SPSS outputs (Field Survey Data). a. All requested variables entered. b. Dependent Variables
Table 4. The result of ANOVA (b).
Model Dependent Predictors: Sum of Mean
Df F Sig.
no. variable (Constant) squares square
Regression 468.535 1 468.535
1 Brand loyalty Expertise Residual 989.620 298 4.998 93.743 .000(a)
Total 1458.155 299
Regression 689.158 1 689.158
2 Brand loyalty Trustworthiness Residual 768.997 298 3.884 177.443 .000(a)
Total 1458.155 299
Regression 689.158 1 689.158
3 Brand loyalty Attractiveness Residual 768.997 298 3.884 177.443 .000(a)
Total 1458.155 299
Regression 166.332 1 166.332
Perceived
4 Expertise Residual 334.548 298 1.690 98.442 .000(a)
quality
Total 500.880 299
Regression 190.421 1 190.421
Perceived
5 Trustworthiness Residual 310.459 298 1.568 121.444 .000(a)
quality
Total 500.880 299
Regression 686.158 1 686.158
Perceived
6 Attractive ness Residual 768.997 298 3.884 177.443 .000(a)
quality
Total 1455.155 299
Regression 780.760 1 780.760
Brand
7 Expertise Residual 2209.195 298 11.158 69.976 .000(a)
awareness
Total 2989.955 299
Regression 1303.806 1 1303.806
Brand
8 Trustworthiness Residual 1686.149 298 8.516 153.103 .000(a)
awareness
Total 2989.955 299
Regression 683.159 1 683.159
Brand
9 Attractiveness Residual 764.996 298 3.884 177.443 .000(a)
awareness
Total 1447.155 299
Regression 821.502 1 821.502
Overall brand
10 Expertise Residual 1972.653 298 9.963 82.456 .000(a)
equity
Total 2794.155 299
Regression 1438.140 1 1438.140
Overall brand
11 Trustworthiness Residual 1356.015 298 6.849 209.992 .000(a)
equity
Total 2794.155 299
Regression 689.158 1 689.158
Overall brand
12 Attractiveness Residual 768.997 298 3.884 177.443 .000(a)
equity
Total 1458.155 299
Source: Data derived from SPSS outputs (Field Survey Data)
12
 IJSDIS: ISSN 2078-192X Volume 5 Issue 2 March 2014

Table 5. Coefficients (a).

Unstandardized Standardized
Model Predictors: t Sig.
Dependent variable Coefficients Coefficients
No. (Constant)
B Std. Error Beta
1.320 .929 1.420 .157
1 Brand loyalty Expertise
.549 .057 .567 9.682 .000
-.652 .825 -.789 .431
2 Brand loyalty Trustworthiness
.759 .057 .687 13.321 .000
-.652 .825 -.789 .431
3 Brand loyalty Attractiveness
.759 .057 .657 13.321 .000
1.878 .540 3.476 .001
4 Perceived quality Expertise
.327 .033 .576 9.922 .000
1.464 .524 2.791 .006
5 Perceived quality Trustworthiness
.399 .036 .617 11.020 .000
-.652 .825 -.789 .431
6 Perceived quality Attractiveness
.759 .057 .649 12.321 .000
7.071 1.388 5.093 .000
7 Brand awareness Expertise
.708 .085 .511 8.365 .000
3.610 1.222 2.954 .004
8 Brand awareness Trustworthiness
1.044 .084 .660 12.373 .000
-.652 .825 -.789 .431
9 Brand awareness Attractiveness
.759 .057 .687 13.321 .000
2.326 1.312 1.773 .078
10 Overall brand equity Expertise
.726 .080 .542 9.081 .000
-1.589 1.096 -1.450 .149
11 Overall brand equity Trustworthiness
1.097 .076 .717 14.491 .000
-.652 .825 -.789 .431
12 Overall brand equity Attractiveness
.759 .057 .658 18.321 .000
Source: Data derived from SPSS outputs (Field Survey Data)
Model no. 1 shows the relationship between expertise and brand loyalty. Here H1 represents the
relationship between these two variables are found to be statistically significant as the significance
value is less than required value of Alpha (α = 0.05) as the relevant statistical outputs are shown above.
Now it can be noted that the strength of relationship between expertise and brand loyalty equity is found
to be moderately held positive at (R2=.321). Regression analysis revealed that value of Adjusted R
Square is .318, it represents that 31.80% change in dependent variable (brand loyalty) is due to
independent variables expertise. It reveals that brand loyalty is positively associated with expertise.
Table of Coefficients (a) under Standardized Coefficients showed that there was a significant influence
of expertise on brand loyalty with a beta value .567 showing the strength of the relationship i.e. almost
57%. Model no. 2 shows the relationship between trustworthiness and brand loyalty. Here H2 represents
the relationship between these two variables are found to be statistically significant as the significance
value is less than required value of Alpha (α = 0.05) as the relevant statistical outputs are shown in
table. Now it can be noted that the strength of relationship between trustworthiness and brand loyalty
equity is found to be moderately held positive at (R2=.473). Regression analysis revealed that value of
Adjusted R Square is .470, it represent that 47.00% change in dependent variable (brand loyalty) is due
to independent variable trustworthiness. It reveals that brand loyalty is positively associated with
trustworthiness. Table 5 of Coefficients (a) under Standardized Coefficients showed that there was a
significant influence of trustworthiness on brand loyalty with a beta value .687 showing the strength of
the relationship i.e. almost 69%. Model no. 3 shows the relationship between attractiveness and brand
loyalty: Here H3 represents the relationship between these two variables are found to be statistically
significant as the significance value is less than required value of Alpha (α = 0.05) as the relevant
statistical outputs are shown above. Now it can be noted that the strength of relationship between
attractiveness and brand loyalty equity is found to be moderately held positive at (R2=.431). Regression
analysis revealed that value of Adjusted R Square is .429, it represent that 42.90% change in dependent
variable (brand loyalty) is due to independent variable attractiveness. It reveals that brand loyalty is
13
 IJSDIS: ISSN 2078-192X Volume 5 Issue 2 March 2014

positively associated with attractiveness. Table of Coefficients (a) under Standardized Coefficients
showed that there was a significant influence of attractiveness on brand loyalty with a beta value .657
showing the strength of the relationship i.e. almost 66%. Model no. 4 shows the relationship between
expertise and perceived quality: Here H4 represents the relationship between these two variables are
found to be statistically significant as the significance value is less than required value of Alpha (α =
0.05) as the relevant statistical outputs are shown above. Now it can be noted that the strength of
relationship between expertise and perceived quality equity is found to be moderately held positive at
(R2=.332). Regression analysis revealed that value of Adjusted R Square is .329, it represent that
32.90% change in dependent variable (perceived quality) is due to independent variable expertise. It
reveals that perceived quality is positively associated with expertise. Table of Coefficients (a) under
Standardized Coefficients showed that there was a significant influence of expertise on perceived
quality with a beta value .576 showing the strength of the relationship i.e. almost 58%. Model no. 5
shows the relationship between trustworthiness and perceived quality: Here H5 represents the
relationship between these two variables are found to be statistically significant as the significance
value is less than required value of Alpha (α = 0.05) as the relevant statistical outputs are shown above.
Now it can be noted that the strength of relationship between trustworthiness and perceived quality
equity is found to be moderately held positive at (R2=.380). Regression analysis revealed that value of
Adjusted R Square is .377, it represent that 37.70% change in dependent variable (perceived quality) is
due to independent variable trustworthiness. It reveals that perceived quality is positively associated
with trustworthiness. Table of Coefficients (a) under Standardized Coefficients showed that there was a
significant influence of trustworthiness on perceived quality with a beta value .617 showing the strength
of the relationship i.e. almost 62%. Model no. 6 shows the relationship between attractiveness and
perceived quality: Here H6 represents the relationship between these two variables are found to be
statistically significant as the significance value is less than required value of Alpha (α = 0.05) as the
relevant statistical outputs are shown above. Now it can be noted that the strength of relationship
between attractiveness and perceived quality equity is found to be moderately held positive at
(R2=.421). Regression analysis revealed that value of Adjusted R Square is .419, it represent that
41.90% change in dependent variable (perceived quality) is due to independent variable attractiveness.
It reveals that perceived quality is positively associated with attractiveness. Table of Coefficients (a)
under Standardized Coefficients showed that there was a significant influence of attractiveness on
perceived quality with a beta value .649 showing the strength of the relationship i.e. almost 65%. Model
No 7: shows the relationship between expertise and brand awareness: Here H7 represents the
relationship between these two variables are found to be statistically significant as the significance
value is less than required value of Alpha (α = 0.05) as the relevant statistical outputs are shown above:
Now it can be noted that the strength of relationship between expertise and brand awareness equity is
found to be moderately held positive at (R2=.261). Regression analysis revealed that value of Adjusted
R Square is .257, it represent that 25.70% change in dependent variable (brand awareness) is due to
independent variable expertise. It reveals that brand awareness is positively associated with expertise
Table of Coefficients (a) under Standardized Coefficients showed that there was a significant influence
of expertise on brand awareness with a beta value .511showing the strength of the relationship i.e.
almost 51%.
Model no. 8 shows the relationship between trustworthiness and brand awareness: Here H8 represents
the relationship between these two variables are found to be statistically significant as the significance
value is less than required value of Alpha (α = 0.05) as the relevant statistical outputs are shown above.
Now it can be noted that the strength of relationship between trustworthiness and brand awareness
equity is found to be moderately held positive at (R2=.436). Regression analysis revealed that value of
Adjusted R Square is .433, it represent that 43.30% change in dependent variable (brand awareness) is
due to independent variable trustworthiness. It reveals that brand awareness is positively associated
with trustworthiness. Table of Coefficients (a) under Standardized Coefficients showed that there was a
significant influence of trustworthiness on brand awareness with a beta value .660 showing the strength
of the relationship i.e. almost 66%. Model no. 9 shows the relationship between attractiveness and
brand loyalty: Here H9 represents the relationship between these two variables are found to be

14
 IJSDIS: ISSN 2078-192X Volume 5 Issue 2 March 2014

statistically significant as the significance value is less than required value of Alpha (α = 0.05) as the
relevant statistical outputs are shown above. Now it can be noted that the strength of relationship
between attractiveness and brand awareness equity is found to be moderately held positive at (R2=.471).
Regression analysis revealed that value of Adjusted R Square is .468, it represent that 46.80% change in
dependent variable (brand loyalty) is due to independent variable attractiveness. It reveals that brand
loyalty is positively associated with attractiveness. Table of Coefficients (a) under Standardized
Coefficients showed that there was a significant influence of attractiveness on brand awareness with a
beta value .687 showing the strength of the relationship i.e. almost 69%. Model no. 10 shows the
relationship between expertise and overall brand equity: Here H10 represents the relationship between
these two variables are found to be statistically significant as the significance value is less than required
value of Alpha (α = 0.05) as the relevant statistical outputs are shown above. Now it can be noted that
the strength of relationship between expertise and overall brand equity is found to be moderately held
positive at (R2=.294). Regression analysis revealed that value of Adjusted R Square is .290, it represent
that 29.0% change in dependent variable (overall brand equity) is due to independent variable expertise.
It reveals that overall brand equity is positively associated with expertise. Table of Coefficients (a)
under Standardized Coefficients showed that there was a significant influence of expertise on overall
brand equity with a beta value .542 showing the strength of the relationship i.e. almost 54%. Model no.
11 shows the relationship between trustworthiness and overall brand equity: Here H11 represents the
relationship between these two variables are found to be statistically significant as the significance
value is less than required value of Alpha (α = 0.05) as the relevant statistical outputs are shown above
table. Now it can be noted that the strength of relationship between trustworthiness and overall brand
equity is found to be moderately held positive at (R2=.515). Regression analysis revealed that value of
Adjusted R Square is .512 it represent that 51.20% change in dependent variable (overall brand equity)
is due to independent variable trustworthiness. It reveals that overall brand equity is positively
associated with trustworthiness. Table of Coefficients (a) under Standardized Coefficients showed that
there was a significant influence of trustworthiness and overall brand equity with a beta value .717
showing the strength of the relationship i.e. almost 72%. Model no. 12: shows the relationship between
attractiveness and overall brand equity: Here H12 represents the relationship between these two
variables are found to be statistically significant as the significance value is less than required value of
Alpha (α = 0.05) as the relevant statistical outputs are shown above. Now it can be noted that the
strength of relationship between attractiveness and overall brand equity is found to be moderately held
positive at (R2=0.432). Regression analysis revealed that value of Adjusted R Square is .429, it
represent that 42.90% change in dependent variable (overall brand equity) is due to independent
variable attractiveness. It reveals that overall brand equity is positively associated with attractiveness.
Table of Coefficients (a) under Standardized Coefficients showed that there was a significant influence
of attractiveness on overall brand equity with a beta value .658 showing the strength of the relationship
i.e. almost 66%.
CONCLUSIONS
The impact of corporate credibility of brand exists on customer based brand equity. Its found that
strength of relationship of expertise is related moderately with loyalty, perceived quality and brand
awareness. Strength of relationship of trustworthiness with brand loyalty, perceived quality and brand
awareness is moderate. The strength of relationship between attractiveness and brand awareness equity
is found to be moderately held positive. The strength of relationship between attractiveness and overall
brand equity is found to be moderately held positive. Strength of relationship of expertise and
trustworthiness is moderate with overall brand equity of the brand. Therefore, we recommend to mobile
operator GP should emphasis all the dimensions of overall brand equity such as expertise,
trustworthiness, loyalty, personal quality, brand awareness and association. Because of all the elements
are related with each other moderately. The main implication is that credibility of brand is very
important and has greater impact on overall brand equity that ultimately helps to enhance brand loyalty,
perceived value and brand awareness which lead to build overall brand equity. GP should emphasis on
particular dimensions of brand credibility like trustworthiness and attractiveness to build strong overall

15
 IJSDIS: ISSN 2078-192X Volume 5 Issue 2 March 2014

brand equity by focusing on brand loyalty and brand awareness so that they can retain and develop
competitive position in mobile phone market in Bangladesh. So companies should establish and build
up strong and distinctive brand credibility from its competitors. And the second managerial implication
can be that companies should develop a long lasting brand credibility to more influence on brand
loyalty that help to increase customer lifetime value. And it can be established by giving expertise,
trustworthiness and attractiveness to consumers.
REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A. 1991. Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. Free Press, New York.
Aaker, D. A. 1996. Building Strong Brands, Free Press, New York, NY, p. 150
Aaker, D. A. and R. Jacobson. 1994. The Financial Information Content of Perceived Quality. Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 31 No. 2 pp. 191-201.
Bolton, R. 1998. A Dynamic Model of the Duration of the Customer’s Relationship with a Continuous Service
Provider: The Role of Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Science, Vol. 17 No. 1 pp. 45-62.
Erdem, T. and J. Swait. 2004. Brand credibility brand consideration and choice. Journal of Consumer Research.
Vol. 31 No. 1 pp. 191-198.
Erdem, T., J. Swait and A. Valenzuela. 2006. Brands as Signals: A Cross-Country Validation Study. Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 1 pp. 34-49.
Feldwick, P. 1996. Do we really need “brand equity? The journal of Brand Management. Vol. 4 No. 2 pp. 75-79.
Fitzsimons, G. J., J. W. Hutchinson, P. Williams, J. W. Alba, T. L. Chartrand, J. Huber, Kardes, F. R., G. Menon,
P. Raghubir, J. E. Russo, B. Shiv and N. T. Tavassoli. 2002. Non-Conscious Influences on Consumer
Choice. Marketing Letters.Vol. 13 No. 3 pp. 269-279.
Gamoran, J. 2007. Virtual Brand Equity: When Brand Signals Disappear, Will Consumers Pay a Premium for
Brand Image? Economics Honors Thesis. Washintgton University.
Karjaluoto, H., J. Karvonen, J. Pakola, M. Pietilä, J. Salo and R. Svento. 2005. Exploring Consumer Motives in
Mobile Phone Industry: An Investigation of Finnish Mobile Phone users. Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Business Economics, Management, and Marketing. Vol. 3 Issue 1 pp. 335-342.
Keller, K. L. 1993. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of
Marketing. Vol. 57 No. 1 pp. 01-22.
Lachance, M. J. and Nadia Choquette-Bernier. 2004. College Students' Consumer Competence: A Qualitative
Exploration. International Journal of Consumer Studies. Vol. 28 No. 5 pp. 433-442.
Moisescu, O. 2009. The Importance of Brand Awareness in Consumers’ Buying Decision And Perceived Risk
Assessment. Management and Marketing Journal. Vol. 7 No. 1 pp. 103-110.
Netemeyer, R. G., B. Krishnan, C. Pullig, G. Wang, M. Yagci, D. Dean, J. Ricks and F. Wirth. 2004. Developing
and Validating Measures of Facets of Customer-based Brand Equity. Journal of Business Research. Vol.
57 No. 2 pp. 209-224.
Plummer, J. T. 1985. How Personality Makes a Difference. Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 24 No. 6 pp. 27-31.
Randall, T., K. Ulrich and D. Reibstein. 1998. Brand Equity and Vertical Product Line Extent. Marketing Science.
Vol. 17 No. 4 pp. 356-379.
Wilska, T. A. 2003. Mobile Phone Use as Part of Young People’s Consumption Styles. Journal of Consumer
Policy. Vol. 26 No. 4 pp. 441-463.

16

View publication stats