DISSERTATION PROJECT REPORT

On
A STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF BRAND EQUITY ON PURCHASE MAKING
DECISIONS AND PERCEPTIONS

Submitted by
Puna Vikesh
20212439
6BBAH ‘A’

Under the guidance of

Dr. Upasana Gupta

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Award of the Degree of

BACHELOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION HONOURS

School of Business and Management

CHRIST (Deemed to be University)
Delhi NCR, India
APRIL, 2023
 DECLARATION

I, Puna Vikesh hereby declare that the Dissertation Project is a record of original work
undertaken by me for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Business Administration Honours.
I have completed this project under the supervision of Dr. Upasana Gupta, School of Business
Management.
I also declare that this project has not been submitted for the award of any degree, diploma,
associateship, fellowship or another title to any other Institution/University.

Place: Ghaziabad
Date:
Puna Vikesh
 CERTIFICATE BY GUIDE

This is to certify that the project submitted by Puna Vikesh titled DISSERTATION
PROJECT is a record of work done by him/her during the academic year 202 0-23 under my
supervision in partial fulfilment for the award of Bachelor of Business Administration Honours
.
This project has not been submitted for the award of any degree, diploma, associateship,
fellowship or another title to any other Institution/University.

Place: Ghaziabad
Date:
Dr. Upasana Gupta
School of Business and Management
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my profound gratitude to all those who have been instrumental in the
preparation of this project report. I wish to place on record my deep gratitude to my Course
Co- Coordinator, Ruchi Payal for her expert advice and help.
I would like to thank our Campus Dean and Director Dr. (Fr). Viju P Devassy for his support.
I am also thankful to our HOD Dr. Sachin Sinha and Dr. Jeanne Poulose (Associate Head) for
their help and support in completing the work
I am deeply grateful to Dr. Upasana Gupta for the Cooperation extended by her team for us to
help connect with the objective of the Dissertation project and furnish the required information.
Lastly, I would like to thank God, my parents and my friends for their constant help and support.

Puna Vikesh
20212439
 Table of Content
S. No. Topic Page No.
Chapter 1 Introduction 2-6

Chapter 2 Review of Literature 8-14

Chapter 3 Research Methodology 16-19

Chapter 4 Data Analysis 21-28

4.1 Demographic Status of The Respondents
4.2 Descriptive Statistics
4.3 Regression Analysis

Chapter 5 Discussion and Implications 30-32

5.1 Managerial Implication

Chapter 6 Conclusion, Limitations, and future directions 33-34

References 36-37
Annexures 39-45
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1|Page
Chapter 1

Background:

Brand equity refers to the worth added to a service or good of brand. It is the measure of how
much a brand is worth in the perspective of customers. A strong brand equity can give a
company with several benefits, such as increased customer loyalty, higher prices for products,
and a more successful introduction of new products. The topic of brand equity has been studied
and discussed by marketers and academics for decades, and there are several different ways to
measure and define it.

One among the most commonly used ways to measure brand equity is through consumer
research, such as surveys and focus groups. This research can help companies understand how
consumers perceive their brand, including factors such as awareness, associations, and loyalty.
Other methods of measuring brand equity include financial analysis, which looks at a brand's
revenues and profitability, and market analysis, which looks at a brand's market share and
competitive position.

There are several key components that contribute to a brand's equity, including brand
awareness, brand loyalty, perceived quality, and other ties that a brand may have. Brand
awareness describes the amount to which consumers are familiar with a brand and can
recognize it. Brand loyalty refers to the degree to which customers are committed to purchasing
from a brand over time. Perceived quality means consumers' general impression of quality of
a brand's products or services.

Other important factors that contribute to a brand's equity include the brand's history, its
reputation, and the emotions that it evokes in consumers. A brand alongside a strong history
and reputation can help to build trust and credibility with consumers, while a brand that stirs
up feelings of optimism can create a powerful emotional connectivity with consumers.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:

• Review the existing literature on brand equity and identify the key concepts and measures
• Conduct a study to gather data on consumers' perceptions and attitudes toward different
brands
• Analyse the relationship between brand equity and customer decisions

2|Page
• Explore the impact of different branding strategies on brand equity

With the rise of digital technologies, many differences of the business world have undergone
significant changes. One such change has been the way in which consumers interact with
brands. Digital channels such as social media, websites, and mobile apps have created new
opportunities for brands to connect with consumers, but they have also presented new
challenges. For example, consumers now have access to more information about brands, which
may affect how they perceive brand equity. This research gap could explore how digital
transformation has impacted brand equity and how this, in turn, affects consumer purchase
decisions. Students represent a unique demographic that may have different perspectives on
brand equity compared to non-students. For example, students might be more inclined to
prioritize certain values or attributes in the brands they choose to purchase, such as social
responsibility or sustainability. Understanding these differences could help marketers tailor
their branding strategies to better reach this important demographic. This research gap could
involve surveys or interviews with both student and non -student consumers to explore
differences in their perspectives on brand equity. Brands use a variety of strategies to build
brand equity and influence consumer purchase decisions. For instance, some brands may focus
on creating emotional connections with their customers, while others may prioritize value or
quality. This research gap could explore the effectiveness of different branding strategies in
influencing consumer purchase decisions. This could involve a review of existing research on
the topic or conducting experiments to test the effect of different branding strategies on
consumer behaviour.

Purpose of the study:

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of brand equity on consumer purchase
decisions, with a focus on the influence of different branding strategies. To achieve this
objective, the study will pursue the following research objectives:

A review of existing literature on brand equity will be conducted to identify key concepts and
measures. This will involve analysis of academic articles and industry reports that examine the
concept of brand equity and its influence on consumer behaviour. This literature review provide
a theoretical foundation for study and help identify the key variables and measures to be used
in the data collection and analysis.

3|Page
The study will gather data on consumers' perceptions and attitudes towards different brands.
This will be done through a survey that will be administered to a representative sample of
consumers. The survey will include questions about brand awareness, brand loyalty, and brand
associations, as well as questions about consumer demographics and purchas ing behaviour.
This data will be used to measure brand equity and its components, such as brand loyalty and
brand awareness.

The study will analyse the relationship between brand equity and customer decisions.
Specifically, the study will examine how brand equity influences consumer decision-making,
including the factors that influence brand choice and the importance of different branding
strategies in shaping consumer behaviour. This analysis will be carried out utilising statistical
techniques such as regression analysis, which will allow us to identify the most important
factors that influence brand choice.

The study will explore the impact of different branding strategies on brand equity. This will be
done by comparing the effectiveness of different branding strategies in influencing consumer
behaviour, including emotional branding, value-based branding, and quality-based branding.
This analysis will provide insights into the most effective branding methods for various types
of products and industries.

Problem Statement:

Brand equity is a vital concept in marketing research, as it influences consumer attitudes and
behaviour. However, there is still a lack of concrete data exploring the association between
brand equity and customer decision-making. This research gap is particularly relevant in light
of the digital transformation of the world, which has created new opportunities and challenges
for brands in terms of building and managing brand equity.

To address this gap, this study aims to achieve four research objectives. First, the study will
review the existing literature on brand equity to identify the key concepts and measures used
in previous studies. Second, the study will conduct a survey to gather data on consumers'
perceptions and attitudes toward different brands. Third, the study will analyse the relationship
between brand equity and customer decisions, specifically examining the impact of brand
equity on consumers' readiness to pay higher prices, perception of extensions of the brand,
brand preference, and purchasing intention. Finally, the study will investigate the effect of

4|Page
various branding techniques on brand equity, exploring how various approaches to brand
construction and management influence consumer perceptions of brand value.

By achieving these research objectives, the study aims to contribute to the existing literature
on brand equity and provide insights for brand managers and marketers on how to effectively
build and manage brand equity in the digital age. With the rising significance of digital channels
in brand communications and the growing influence of social networking sites and online
reviews on consumer decision-making, understanding the impact of brand equity on customer
decisions is more important than ever. This paper aims to address research gap while offering
insightful findings for both academic researchers and marketing practitioners.

Significance of the study:

The study will add to the existing body of knowledge on brand equity by investigating the
association between brand equity and key customer decisions, such as willingness to pay price
premiums, perception of brand extensions, preference for a brand, and purchase intention. The
study will employ a consumer-based approach to measuring brand equity, a relatively
unexplored area in the business. Therefore, the outcomes of this study will add to the existing
body of knowledge on the topic and help researchers better understand how brand equity
influences consumer behaviour.

It will provide valuable insights for brand managers and marketers on how to effectively build
and manage brand equity in the digital age. With the increasing significance of digital channels
in brand communications, it is critical for brands to understand how to create a strong brand
identity that resonates with consumers. The study will examine the impact of different branding
strategies on brand equity and provide practical recommendations for marketers to enhance
brand equity.

It will be conducted in large university, providing a cross-cultural perspective on the topic. As

consumer behaviour can vary significantly across different cultures, this study will help
researchers and marketers understand how brand equity operates in different cultural contexts.

It is timely and relevant given the ongoing digital transformation of the world. The emergence
of new technologies and platforms has created new opportunities and challenges for brands to
construct and manage brand equity. Therefore, the outcomes of this study will be highly

5|Page
relevant and useful for both academic researchers and marketing practitioners in understanding
the impact of digital transformation on brand equity and consumer behaviour.

6|Page
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE
REVIEW

7|Page
Chapter 2

Literature review

Study of Leuthesser 1988, A group of connections and behaviours among the brand's
consumers, channel members, and parent pot that allow the brand to get money less volume or
less perimeters than it would without the brand name and gives the brand a strong, sustainable,
and discernible advantage over challengers. Aaker (1991) defines brand value as the worth
individuals identify with a brand as represented in the limitations of brand mindfulness, brand
associations, perceived quality, brand faithfulness, and other personal brand assets. Swait
(1993) The consumer's implicit brand valuation in a request with discerned brands versus a
request with no brand isolation. Brands act as a indication or hint concerning the essence of
product and service quality, trustworthiness, and image/status. According to Kamakuraa and
Russelll 1993 (Lassar etal. 1995), client- based brand equity emerges when the customer is
acquainted with the brand and remembers certain favourable, powerful, and one-of-a-kind
brand connections. Keller (1993) investigated the discriminatory impact of brand
understanding on customer response to brand marketing. Brand knowledge refers to the entire
collection of brand connections related with the brand in long-term consumer memory. Lassar
and colleagues (1995) When in comparison to other brands, consumers' opinion in terms of
overall supermacy of a product bearing that brand name. The five perceptual dimensions of
brand equity are productivity, social view, worth, responsibility, and attachment. Aaker(1996)
(1) fidelity (brand's real or implicit price decoration), (2) fidelity (client satisfaction grounded),
(3) perceived relative quality, (4) perceived brand leadership, (5) perceived brand value
(brand's functional benefits), (6) brand personality, (7) consumers perception of association
(trusted, respected, or believable), (8) perceived isolation from competing brands, (9) brand
mindfulness (recognition & recall), (10) request position (request share), price . The Study done
by Isbel and Martinez, indicate that brand equity confinesinter-relate. Brand mindfulness has a
favourable impact on perceived quality and brand linkages. Brand associations tell a lot about
brand commitment. Finally, the major drivers of overall brand equity are perceived quality,
brand associations, and brand fidelity. The findings additionally support the positive effect of
brand equity on customer responses. Furthermore, the overall model offered is designed to be
experimentally reliable across the nations analysed. There aren't many differences to be found.
According to Irwan, Muhtosim, Bahtiar, Kurniawati4, Willy's research, based on repliers'
understandings of DIGITAL CONTENT MARKETING and pricing fairness, they have a
favourable effect on customer fidelity, which is controlled through Brand equity. Although

8|Page
price fairness lacks the ability to direct effect the client fidelity, it can improve its influence on
client fidelity, which emphasises the significance of brand strength in a service offering.
Relationship equity, on the other hand, has not been acceptable to control Brand equity in
courier service organisations in order to improve client faithfulness value. The study by Veenu,
Richa, and Patel reveals that brand fidelity is closely related to brand mindfulness - hence
mindfulness must eventually be produced among customers. Brand extension, such as
multigrain or whole grain druthers that attract a premium, is powerfully encouraged by brand
fidelity. Brand equity is a crucial predictor of a progressive customer response, which aids in
indurate the critical strategy for marketers. As mindfulness and association are two separate
extents, the outcomes of this study add to the literature on client-centered brand equity while
also improving understanding of the notion. The important directorial recrimination of this
exploration is that, it improves the inquiries of brand equity addressing brand equity as
important strategy for organisations to produce position in request.

Brand equity:

Brand equity is a important conception of marketing. Even though expansive study has been
conducted on it, the literature about this topic is mostly fractured and inconclusive.
multitudinous definitions of brand equity have been proposed. utmost of it, in a customer
perspective, are grounded on the assumption that the influence of brands gets in the minds of
customers( Leone etal., 2006). From a fiscal perspective, consider brand equity as the financial
value of a brand to the establishment( Simonn and Sullivann, 1993). The fiscal worth of brand
is, still, the final outgrowth of consumer responses to brands( Christodoulides and de
Chernatony, 2010) and as similar former exploration on brand equity has tended to
concentrate on consumer perspective. Aaker( 1991) and Keller developed the foundation for
consumer- grounded brand equity exploration. From an intellectual psychology approach,
Aaker( 1991,p. 15) defines brand equity as “ a set of brand means and arrears linked to a
brand, its name and symbol that add to or abate from the value handed by a product or service
to a establishment and/ or to that establishment’s guests ”. These means are brand
mindfulness, perceived quality, brand associations, brand fidelity and other personal means.
Keller( 1993) develops an indispensable view and defines the conception of consumer-
grounded brand equity as the discriminational effect of brand understanding on consumer
response to branding promotion. Keller views brand equity in conditions of brand mindfulness
and the strength, favourability and oneness of brand associations that consumers hold in
memory. Following these two approaches, this study uses a consumer- grounded brand equity

9|Page
measure that consists of four crucial constructs brand mindfulness, perceived quality, brand
associations, and brand fidelity. These brand equity confines are extensively accepted and used
by multitudinous experimenters(e.g. Yoo etal., 2000; Kim etal., 2003; Pappu etal., 2005; Lee
etel and Back etel, 2010; Pike etal., 2010; Kim etel and Hyun etel, 2011)

Relationship among different dimensions of brand equity:

This study asserts a link between four characteristics of brand equity. The existence of a brand
hierarchy Justice has been presented as a dimension in the literature (e.g., Maio o Mackaay,
2001; Yooo and Donthuu, 2001; Kellerr at al., 2001). Lehman at al., 2003; Lehman at al., 2006).
Nonetheless, we empirically studied how the factors of brand equity are related in the majority
of our research. As a result, most studies (e.g., Yooo at al., 2000; Pappuu at al., 2005) just
suggest a relationship between brand value features. The old hierarchy, according to the
majority of researchers, is outmoded. Impact models are a useful paradigm for analysing the
causality of brand equity (Cobb-Walgrenat al., 1995; Agarrwal and Raoo, 1996). Yooo and
Donthuu, 2001. Keller at al., 2003; Keller at al., 2006). This sequential process, which includes
cognitive, emotive, and conative stages, has been included into fashionable brand concepts,
such as Keller's customer-based brand equity pyramid (2003).

The proposed framework defines brand equity evolution as a method of consumer education in
which consumers awareness of brand impact on attitudes (e.g., brand association and perceived
quality), which influence attitudinal brand loyalty (Lavidge etel and Steiner etel, 1961; Gordon
at al., 1993; Konecniket et al and Gartner et al, 2007).

Raising brand awareness is the early step in establishing brand equity. Brand awareness is
associated to the Strength of a brand's presence in the thoughts of customers and refer to if or
not customers can remember or acknowledge a brand. Brand equity is also affected by quality
and brand connotations. Keller (2003) defines perceived quality as the sense of overall
excellence of a product or service, whereas brand associations are concepts connected with the
brand name in the minds of consumer (Keller and Lehmann, 2006).

Associating the brand with various memories is what brand awareness includes (Keller, 2003).
As a result, before building a set of brand connections, customers must have brand awareness
(Aaker, 1991). Brand awareness influences the formation and power of brand linkages,
particularly perceived quality

10 | P a g e
Brand loyalty is preceded by quality and brand links (Kelleer and Lehma, 2003). Brand loyalty
is defined as an affection or passionate dedication to a brand (Aakerr, 1991). When consumers
have a more beneficial impression of a brand, loyalty grows.

Perceived
Quality

Brand Brand Loyalty Overall brand

Awareness equity

Brand
Associations

Price Brand Brand Purchase

Premium Extension Preference Intention

According to previous research, huge levels of quality and favourable associations can increase
brand loyalty (Chaudhurii, 1999; Kellerr and Lehmannn, 2003; Pikee at al., 2010).

Relationships among brand equity dimensions and complete brand equity:

This paper combines a individual concept, overall brand equity, inbetween the components of
brand equity and the impacts on consumers' responses, which is similar with other studies (e.g.,
Bravoo at al., 2007; Yasinn at al., 2007; Jungg and Sungg, 2008), and adheres to Yoo at al.
(2000). Overall brand equity, like other definitions of brand equity, seeks to estimate the
increased worth of the focus brand due to the brand name (Yooo atal., 2000). This particular
construct aids in understanding how the constituents of brand equity influence brand equity.
Perceived quality, brand associations, and brand loyalty are anticipated to have the greatest

11 | P a g e
effect on total brand equity. For the production of value, brand awareness is essential but not
sufficient (Maioo Mackay, 2001; Kellerr, 2003). As previously said, brand equity requires
awareness because clients must be aware of the existence of the brand. However, if clients are
aware of the top brands in the market, brand awareness becomes secondary (Maio Mackay,
2001). As a result, brand awareness is thought to have a beneficial, albeit indirect, impact on
overall brand equity.

Because it is vital to build a positive picture of the brand in the minds of consumers, total brand
equity will be determined by quality (Farquhar, 1989). In addition to, Quality perceived may
bring better brand differentiation and superiority. As a result, it is claimed that the better will
be the alleged quality of the brand, the higher the possibility of increased brand equity (Yooo
at al., 2000; Kimm and Hyunn, 2011).

In the same way, brand associations enable firms to distinguish and place their products while
also establishing good attitudes and perceptions about their brands (Deann, 2004). As a result,
brand equity may increase (Yooo at al., 2000; Chenn, 2001). Finally, Yooo at al. (2000)
recognised brand loyalty as a crucial determinant of brand equity (Atilgan at al., 2005; Yasinn
at al., 2007). Loyal clients are more likely to respond positively to a brand. As a result, brand
loyalty will aid in the growth of brand equity.

Overall brand equity effects on consumers’ responses:

Because of the effect on consumer responses to brands, constructing a solid brand with positive
equity has a favourable impact on business performance. This study looks into four of these
client responses: Price premium willingness, perception of extensions, brand liking, and
purchasing purpose are all factors to consider. Willingness to purchase a premium price denotes
how much money a costumer is ready to give for a comparison of brand to various different
brands that provide comparable benefits. According to literature, customer willingness to pay
a price premium is significantly influenced by brand equity (Lassarr at al., 1995; Netemeyerr
at al., 2004). Brand equity makes customers less susceptible to price rises and very keen to pay
a price premium because they sense few unique worth in the product that no substitute can
supply (Chaudhurii, 1995; Seitz at al., 2010).

Companies with greater brand equity can also disseminate their brands successfully
(Rangaswamyy at al., 1993). Few of the primary reason is that linking a new good with a
popular brand name provides customers with a sense of acquaintability and trust, which
improves their perception of the extension even if they are unfamiliar with it (Milbergg and

12 | P a g e
Sinnn, 2008). The significant support for understanding and affect transfer from the first brand
to the extension demonstrates the crucial role that brand equity plays in costumer evaluations
of brand extensions (Czellarr, 2003). As a result, according to the following idea, Consumer
responses to future extensions are projected to be more positive for enterprises with greater
equity.

Consumers' brand preferences are also impacted by brand equity. Strong brands, according to
the literature, earn preferable appraisals in addition to a higher overall preference (Hoefflerr
and Kellerr, 2003). Customers that people who place a higher value on a brand are more likely
to buy it. purchase it (Aakerr, 1991). According to research, brand equity has a favourable
influence on customers' brand selections and buy inclinations. Cobb-Walgrenn at al. (1995),
for example, discovered that, In two categories, hotels and home cleaners, brands with higher
equity generated higher brand preferences and purchase intentions. . Similar findings are
described by Tolbaa and Hassann (2009). We also propose a connection between brand
preference and purchasing intent (Hellierr at al., 2003). To explain the links between attitudes,
intentions, and behaviour, the idea of reasoned action has been applied (Fishbeinn and Ajzenn,
1975).

This concept says, customer purchase intention is influenced by the positive perception towards
a brand.

As previously noted, the play of brand equity in global marketing has received little attention.
Yooo and Donthuu (2002) explored the generalizability of Yoo's at al. (2000) brand equity
development process model across American and Korean populations as one of the cognitive
psychology-based studies. Following this work, Jungg and Sungg (2008) examined and
compared consumer-based brand equity of clothing products across three consumer groups
(Americans in the US, South Koreans in the US, and South Koreans in Korea). Both studies
used student samples, and differences between groups were identified. Furthermore, Hsiehh
(2004) developed a survey-based approach for evaluating brand equity across borders, whereas
Buill at al. (2008) concentrated on the dimension of brand equity and its cultural invariance.
Broyless at al. (2010) recently investigated if a brand equity model created with Americans
could be used to Chinese consumers. This research found some important disparities among
students using a fresh sample, but the authors feel the concept holds up in the cross -cultural
environment analysed. To summarise, few studies have examined brand equity across different
countries and/or traditions. Furthermore, these publications are largely aimed at the North

13 | P a g e
American and Asian markets. As a result, further research is needed to fully understand the
brand equity generation process and its influence on overall customer responses.

14 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY

15 | P a g e
Chapter 3

Research methodology:

The data was collected in both ways primary data and secondary data. Primary data was
collected for research topic impact of brand equity on customer purchase decision. Primary
data is information collected directly from the source. In research, primary data is data collected
specifically for the research question or hypothesis at hand, rather than data that has been
previously collected for another purpose.

Primary data can be collected through various methods, including surveys, experiments,
observations, and interviews. Surveys involve asking questions to individuals or groups of
people to gather data about their beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, or characteristics. Experiments
involve manipulating variables and observing the effects on a particular outcome. Observations
involve systematically watching and recording behaviors, events, or phenomena. Interviews
involve asking questions to individuals to gather data about their experiences, opinions, or
perspectives.

Primary data is often more reliable and accurate than secondary data, which is data that has
been collected by someone else for a different purpose. This is because primary data is collected
particularly for the research question or hypothesis at hand, and therefore, can be more targeted
and relevant.

When collecting primary data, it is critical to make sure that the data collection method is
suitable for the research question or hypothesis being tested. It is also important to ensure that
the data collection process is ethical and that participants are fully informed about the purpose
of the research and their rights as participants.

Once primary data has been collected, it needs to be analyzed to draw meaningful conclusions.
This involves organizing and summarizing the data, identifying patterns or trends, and
interpreting the results in relation to the research question or hypothesis.

Secondary data was collected for knowing the relationship between different brand equity
dimensions with overall brand equity. Secondary data refers to information that has already
been collected, compiled, and published by someone else, for a different purpose than the one
for which it is being used. It can be obtained from a variety of sources, including government
agencies, academic institutions, market research firms, and other organizations.

16 | P a g e
Secondary data can take many forms, including numerical data (such as census data or sales
figures), text-based data (such as books, articles, and reports), and multimedia data (such as
images, videos, and audio recordings). Some common examples of secondary data sources
include:

Government publications and reports, such as statistical yearbooks, census reports, and
economic indicators.

Academic publications, such as research articles, dissertations, and conference proceedings.

Market research reports, such as industry analyses, consumer surveys, and trend reports.

Company reports, such as annual reports, financial statements, and marketing materials.

There are several advantages to using secondary data. First, it is often readily available and can
be obtained relatively quickly and inexpensively. Second, it can provide a broader perspective
on a topic by incorporating data from a variety of sources. Third, it can allow for comparisons
over time or across different geographic regions. Finally, it can be used to supplement primary
data collected through surveys or other methods.

However, there are also some limitations to using secondary data. First, it may not be specific
enough to the researcher's needs, and may not include all the variables needed for the study.
Second, the data may be outdated, inaccurate, or biased. Third, the data may have been
collected for a different purpose, and therefore may not be directly applicable to the research
question.

To overcome some of these limitations, researchers should carefully evaluate the quality and
relevance of the secondary data they use, and consider using multiple sources to triangulate
findings. They should also be aware of any potential biases or limitations in the data and ta ke
these into account when interpreting the results. Overall, secondary data can be a valuable tool
for researchers, but it should be used wisely and critically.

The structure in Figure 1 with few changes has been evaluated by collecting data in Christ
University.

Stimuli:

To investigate the impact of brand equity on customer responses, We have asked respondents
to choose a brand of their favourite choice and rate them according to the questions on a scale
of 1-5, in which 1 is completely disagree and 5 means completely agree

17 | P a g e
The selection procedure took construct equivalence into account (Craigg and Douglass, 2005).
The goods categories and brands chosen are well-known, extensively available, and familiar to
Indian customers. People from all over the country interpret product categories similarly, and
the advantages in terms of functionality are similar. Our technique assured that these elements
were conceptually, functionally, and categorically equivalent.

Sample and procedure:

To establish diverse diversification comparability, statistics were obtained utilising a survey at

Christ University in the city of Ghaziabad (India) utilising quota sampling (based on age and
gender).

The observational study employed a single questionnaire, which included an assessment of

brand equity. The form was given in English. Every participant finished a questionnaire form
and evaluated on their favourite brands. Respondents have to be knowledgeable of the specific
brand on their questionnaire form in order to be qualified for the study. There were 106
completed questionnaires. The non-valid questionnaires form were eliminated, leaving 81 valid
questionnaires. The sample profile reflected the populace of Christ University, which is similar
to the overall national populace of India. More than 60% per cent of participants are between
the ages 17 and 24; 40 per cent are between the ages 24 and 29. Males account for 63 per cent
of participants. Statistics for both independent and dependent variables was collected from the
same respondents.

Ethical considerations:

Ethical considerations are an important aspect of any research project. They involve ensuring
that the study is conducted in a way that respects the rights and dignity of all participants, and
does not cause harm or risk to their well-being. The following are some key ethical
considerations that researchers should be aware of:

Informed consent: Participants are fully informed about the essence of the study, the procedures
involved, and the possible risks and benefits. They are allowed to ask questions and to choose
whether or not to participate.

Confidentiality: Participants' personal information has been kept confidential and not disclosed
without their permission. I took appropriate measures to protect participants' privacy and
ensure that their data is secure.

18 | P a g e
Risk of harm: I ensure that the study does not pose any physical, emotional, or psychological
harm to the participants. Any potential risks are identified and minimized.

Inclusion and diversity: Included participants from diverse backgrounds and avoided any bias
or discrimination based on factors such as race, gender, or ethnicity.

Researchers should follow ethical guidelines and principles that are relevant to their field and
location. For example, in the United States, the guidelines for ethical research involving human
subjects are set out in the Common Rule, which outlines the requirements for obtaining
informed consent, protecting privacy and confidentiality, and minimizing risks to participants.
Other countries and regions may have their own specific ethical guidelines.

It is critical for researchers to be aware of these guidelines and to seek guidance from an ethics
committee or IRB if they are uncertain about any aspect of the study. By following ethical
considerations, researchers can ensure that their study is conducted in a responsible and
respectful manner, and that the rights and wellness of all participants are safeguarded.

19 | P a g e
 Chapter 4
Data Analysis

20 | P a g e
Chapter 4
Data Analysis:
1. Age (demographic)

2. Gender (demographic)

3. Income (demographic)

21 | P a g e
Descriptive Statistics:

Relationship between Brand Awareness and Perceived Quality

HO – There is no significant impact of brand awareness on Perceived Quality.

H1 – There is significant impact of brand awareness on Perceived Quality

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
1 .710a .503 .497 .33935
a. Predictors: (Constant), BRAND AWARENESS

ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 9.456 1 9.456 82.116 <.001b
Residual 9.328 81 .115
Total 18.784 82
a. Dependent Variable: Perceived Quality
b. Predictors: (Constant), BRAND AWARENESS

22 | P a g e
 Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.301 .334 3.897 <.001
BRANDAWAREN .675 .074 .710 9.062 <.001
ESS
a. Dependent Variable: Perceived Quality

The Model Summary table shows an R Square Value of .503 , indicating that 50.3 of the
variation in Brand Awareness has a impact on Perceived Quality.

The Anova Table provides the F statistic (82.116) and its associated p-value (<.001). This p-
value is less than the common significance level of 0.05, indicating that the model is
statistically significant, and the predictors do significantly impact the variation in Perceived
Quality.

The Co-efficient table presents the standardized coefficients (Beta) and significance (p -value)
of independent variable. For brand awareness, the Beta is .710, and the p -value is <0.01. P-
value are less than the 0.05 significant level, indicating that independent variable has significant
impact on perceived quality.

In conclusion, based on the findings of the analysis, Hypothesis 1 is supported. The data
suggests that Brand awareness significantly influence Perceived Quality.

Relationship between Brand awareness and Brand Associations.

Ho – There is no significant effect of brand awareness on Brand Associations.

H1 – There is significant effect of brand awareness on Brand Associations.

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
1 .489a .239 .229 .50333
a. Predictors: (Constant), BRAND AWARENESS

23 | P a g e
 ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 6.434 1 6.434 25.396 <.001b
Residual 20.521 81 .253
Total 26.955 82
a. Dependent Variable: Brand Association
b. Predictors: (Constant), BRAND AWARENESS

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.514 .495 3.058 .003
BRANDAWAREN .557 .110 .489 5.039 <.001
ESS
a. Dependent Variable: Brand Association

The Model Summary table shows an R Square Value of .495, indicating that 49.5 of the
variation in Brand Awareness has a impact on Brand Association

The Anova Table provides the F statistic (25.396) and its associated p -value (<.001). This p-
value is less than the common significance level of 0.05, indicating that the model is
statistically significant, and the predictors do significantly impact the variation in Brand
Association.

The Co-efficient table presents the standardized coefficients (Beta) and sign ificance (p-value)
of independent variable. For brand awareness, the Beta is .489, and the p-value is <0.01. P-
value are less than the 0.05 significant level, indicating that independent variable has significant
impact on Brand Association.

In conclusion, based on the findings of the analysis, Hypothesis 1 is supported. The data
suggests that Brand awareness significantly influence Brand Association.

Relationship between Perceived Quality and Brand association with Brand Loyalty

Ho – There is no significant impact of Perceived Quality and Brand Associations on Brand

Loyalty

24 | P a g e
H1 – There is significant impact of Perceived Quality and Brand Associations on Brand
Loyalty.

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
1 .629a .396 .388 .42570
2 .645b .416 .401 .42119
a. Predictors: (Constant), PerceivedQuality
b. Predictors: (Constant), PerceivedQuality, BrandAssociation

ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 9.618 1 9.618 53.073 <.001b
Residual 14.679 81 .181
Total 24.297 82
2 Regression 10.105 2 5.053 28.481 <.001c
Residual 14.192 80 .177
Total 24.297 82
a. Dependent Variable: BrandLoyalty
b. Predictors: (Constant), PerceivedQuality
c. Predictors: (Constant), PerceivedQuality, BrandAssociation

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.219 .426 2.863 .005
PerceivedQualit .716 .098 .629 7.285 <.001
y
2 (Constant) 1.019 .438 2.325 .023
PerceivedQualit .615 .115 .541 5.371 <.001
y
BrandAssociati .158 .096 .167 1.657 .101
on
a. Dependent Variable: BrandLoyalty
The Model Summary table shows an R Square Value of .416, indicating that 41.6 of the
variation in brand association and perceived quality has a impact on brand loyalty

The Anova Table provides the F statistic (28.481) and its associated p-value (<.001). This p-
value is lower than the common significance level of 0.05, indicating that the model is

25 | P a g e
statistically significant, and the predictors do significantly impact the variation in Brand
Loyalty.

The Co-efficient table presents the standardized coefficients (Beta) and significance (p-value)
of independent variable. For perceived quality, the Beta is .541, and the p-value is <0.01. P-
value are less than the 0.05 significant level, indicating that independent variable has significant
impact on Brand Loyalty. For Brand Association, the Beta is .167, and the p-value is .101. P-
value are more than the 0.05 significant level, indicating that independent variable don’t have
significant impact on Brand Loyalty.

In conclusion, Acoording to outcomes the analysis, Hypothesis 1 is supported. The data

suggests that Perceived Quality and Brand Association significantly influence Brand Loyalty.

Impact of Brand Loyalty on Price Premium

Ho – There is no significant effect of Brand Loyalty on Price Premium

H1 – There is significant effect of Brand Loyalty on Price Premium

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
1 .275a .076 .064 1.22836
a. Predictors: (Constant), BrandLoyalty

ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 9.999 1 9.999 6.627 .012b
Residual 122.219 81 1.509
Total 132.219 82
a. Dependent Variable: PricePremium
b. Predictors: (Constant), BrandLoyalty

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 5.397 1.080 4.996 <.001

26 | P a g e
 BrandLoyalt -.642 .249 -.275 -2.574 .012
y
a. Dependent Variable: PricePremium

The Model Summary table shows an R Square Value of .076, indicating that 7.6 of the variation
in Brand Loyalty has a impact on Price Premium.

The Anova Table provides the F statistic (6.627) and its associated p-value (.012). This p-value
is more than the common significance level of 0.05, indicating that the model is statistically
not significant, and the predictors do not significantly impact the variation in Price Premium

The Co-efficient table presents the standardized coefficients (Beta) and significan ce (p-value)
of independent variable. For brand loyalty, the Beta is -.275, and the p-value is .012. P-value ir
more than the 0.05 significant level, indicating that independent variable doesn’t have
significant effect on Price Premium.

In conclusion, Acoording to outcomes the analysis, Hypothesis 0 is supported. The data

suggests that Brand awareness significantly influence Brand Association.

Impact of Brand Loyalty on Brand Extension

Ho – There is no significant effect of Brand Loyalty on Brand Extension

H1 – There is significant effect of Brand Loyalty on Brand Extension

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
1 .300a .090 .079 .85600
a. Predictors: (Constant), BrandLoyalty

ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5.884 1 5.884 8.030 .006b
Residual 59.351 81 .733
Total 65.235 82
a. Dependent Variable: BrandExtension
b. Predictors: (Constant), BrandLoyalty

27 | P a g e
 Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.735 .753 2.305 .024
BrandLoyalt .492 .174 .300 2.834 .006
y
a. Dependent Variable: BrandExtension

The Model Summary table shows an R Square Value of .090, indicating that 9.0 of the variation
in Brand Loyalty has a impact on Brand Extension.

The Anova Table provides the F statistic (8.030) and its associated p -value (0.006). This p-
value is less than the common significance level of 0.05, indicating that the model is
statistically significant, and the predictors do significantly impact the variation in Brand
Extension

The Co-efficient table presents the standardized coefficients (Beta) and significance (p-value)
of independent variable. For brand loyalty, the Beta is -.300, and the p-value is .006. P-value is
less than the 0.05 significant level, indicating that independent variable have significant effect
on Brand Extension.

In conclusion, Acoording to outcomes the analysis, Hypothesis 1 is supported. The data

suggests that Brand awareness significantly influence Brand Association.

Perceived
Price
Quality Premium

Brand Brand Loyalty

Awareness

Brand
Brand
Associations Extension

28 | P a g e
 Chapter 5
Discussions &
Implications

29 | P a g e
Chapter 5

Discussion and implications:

There is minimal empirical research in the brand equity literature that concentrates on the links
between consumer-based brand equity and consumer responses. The current research suggests
and to further understand these relationships, put a model to the test. This design evaluated how
the fundamental characteristics of brand equity can contribute here. It also investigated the
effect of overall brand equity on how much a consumer want to pay price premium, attitudes
regarding brand extensions.

According to the findings, there is a sequence of events in the building of brand equity. First,
brand awareness has a beneficial impact on perceived quality and brand connotations.

Second, two of the study's brand association elements, perceived value and brand personality,
had a effective and optimistic influence on brand loyalty. In contrast, organisational affiliations
have little effect on brand loyalty. Contrary to popular assumption, perceived quality has a
negative impact on brand loyalty. This outcome is in line with previous research (e.g., Bravo
at al., 2007). Finally, with the exception of brand personality associations, perceived quality,
brand loyalty, and brand associations all improve total brand equity. Despite the fact that all of
these attributes contribute to greater brand equity, it was determined that brand loyalty has a
dominant impact on brand equity, which is in line with previous studies.

The data further support the notion that brand equity has a favourable effect on c ustomer
responses. The vast majority of articles imply that brand equity has a positive impact on
consumer responses. This study found that the price premium buyers are willing to pay for a
brand is positively connected to its overall brand equity. Similarly, total brand equity increases
customers' perceptions of potential brand extensions. Brand equity, according to this viewpoint,
not only promotes greater acceptance of brand extensions, but it also guards against potential
dilution or unfavourable effects. Finally, brand equity enhances brand preference as well as
purchasing intentions.

The proposed general approach proved empirically across the focal nations. There were only a
few differences. The models' agreement shows that the correlations between the brand equity
characteristics and the influence of overall brand equity on customer response was similar.

30 | P a g e
5.1 Managerial implications:

These findings have significant research and managerial consequences. Secondly, the
methodology improves brand equity addressed research few of the deficiencies of previous
consumer-based brand equity studies. It also tackles the absence of knowledge surrounding the
number of dimensions, as earlier research has not determined whether awareness and
associations are different dimensions. Furthermore, it addresses the repercussions of linkages
between brand equity components.

This research also helps develop a greater comprehension of the process of generating brand
equity from an international perspective, which is crucial. First, since there are more brands
competing in foreign markets, and second, because there are few studies that examine brand
management and brand equity from a global standpoint (Wong and Merrilees, 2007). The
findings provide concrete proof of the advantages that brand equity can provide to enterprises.
Brand equity is a good predictor of positive consumer reaction. As a result of the findings,
firms now have concrete proof of the advantages that brand equity may deliver. Positive
consumer reaction is well predicted by brand equity. Based on the outcomes, managers can
receive helpful insights into brand building initiatives. The data show that the various
dimensions of brand equity are intertwined. This is in line with traditional consumer decision-
making models and brand-building concepts that support for a hierarchy of impacts. Capturing
the interplay between these components, as Lehmann at al. (2008) point out, is a important
task. Managers should begin by increasing brand awareness to be able to increase perceived
quality and establish positive brand associations. Any influencing drivers, including marketing
mix actions, should be implemented to broaden one’s understanding. One sort of brand linkage
should also be given special consideration: perceived value. In various theories, this variable
is regarded a basic component of consumer-based brand equity (Netemeyer at al., 2004) and
has the largest impact on brand loyalty. Ultimately, brand loyalty contributes the most
positively to overall brand equity, thus marketing management should make customer loyalty
one of its top priorities. Finally, brand managers should take note of the comparative analysis.
Marketing brands globally has been a widespread activity for many businesses as a result of
globalisation processes.

One type of brand linking that should be given specific care is perceived value. This variable
is recognised as a fundamental component of consumer-based brand equity in several theories
(Netemeyer at al., 2004) and has the greatest impact on brand loyalty. Finally, brand loyalty

31 | P a g e
adds the most favourably to overall brand equity, thus marketing management should prioritise
customer loyalty. Finally, brand managers should keep the comparison analysis in mind. As a
outcome of globalisation processes, numerous businesses have become involved in global
brand marketing.

32 | P a g e
 Chapter 6
Conclusions,
Limitations and
Future Research

33 | P a g e
Chapter 6

Limitations and future research:

The current study has some shortcomings that point to future research options. First and
foremost, this study was undertaken in two distinct countries: the United Kingdom and Spain.

When attempting to generalise findings to other contexts, they must be evaluated with caution.
Future research should investigate how findings might be used in different countries and
traditions. Similarly, in order to determine whether the results are generalizable, more study
should explore the degree to which the examined relationships may arise in other goods,
services, and brands. Second, more brand equity outcomes could be incorporated into the
framework to gain a better knowledge of the brand equity generation process and its
repercussions. Furthermore, the findings are based on consumer perceptions. Future research
could connect these perceptual assessments to behavioural outcomes or observable indicators,
and hence to corporate financial performance.

Cross-cultural comparison: Conducting similar studies in different countries and traditions

can help to establish the generalizability of the findings. Future studies can investigate
whether the same relationships exist in different cultural contexts and whether or not there are
any distinctions in the factors that contribute to brand equity.

Extension of the model: The present study focused on a specific set of results of brand equity.
Future research can expand the model to include additional outcomes such as customer
loyalty, brand awareness, and perceived quality. This will provide a more comprehensive
understanding of the brand equity creation process and its consequences.

Behavioural outcomes and financial performance: In addition to consumers' perceptions,

future studies can also link perceptual measures of brand equity with behavioural outcomes
such as purchase behaviour, word-of-mouth communication, and brand switching.
Additionally, examining the association between brand equity and financial performance can
provide insights into the economic impact of brand equity on firms.

Other products, services, and brands: While the present study focused on a specific product
category and brand, future research can investigate the applicability of the findings to other
product categories, services, and brands. This will provide a more general understanding of
the factors that contribute to brand equity creation and its consequences across different
industries and product types.

34 | P a g e
REFERENCES

35 | P a g e
References:

Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity. Capitalizing on the Value of Brand Name, The
Free Press, New York, NY.

Aaker, D.A. (1996), “Measuring brand equity across products and markets”, California
Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 102-20.

Agarwal, M.K. and Rao, V.R. (1996), “An empirical comparison of consumer-based measures
of brand equity”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 237-347.

Atilgan, E., Aksoy, S. and Akinci, S. (2005), “Determinants of the brand equity. A verification
approach in the beverage industry in Turkey”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 237-48.

Bravo, R., Fraj, E. and Martı´nez, E. (2007), “Family as a source of consumer-based brand
equity”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 188 -99.

Broyles, S.A., Schumann, D.W. and Leingpibul, T. (2009), “Examining brand equity
antecedent/consequence relationships”, The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 145-61.

Broyles, S.A., Leingpibul, T., Ross, R.H. and Foster, B.M. (20 10), “Brand equity’s
antecedent/consequence relationships in cross-cultural settings”, Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 159-69.

Buil, I., de Chernatony, L. and Martı´nez, E. (2008), “A crossnational validation of the

consumer-based brand equity scale”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 17 No.
6, pp. 384-92.

Byrne, B.M. (2006), Structural Equation Modeling with EQS. Basic Concepts, Applications,
and Programming, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Cadogan, J. (2010), “Comparative, cross-cultural, and crossnational research: a comment on

good and bad practice”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 601 -5.

36 | P a g e
Chaudhuri, A. (1995), “Brand equity or double jeopardy?”, Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 26-32.

Chaudhuri, A. (1999), “Does brand loyalty mediate brand equity outcomes?”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 136-46. Chen, K.J. (2001), “Using free
association to examine the relationship between the characteristics of brand associations and
brand equity”, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 439 -51.

Christodoulides, G. and de Chernatony, L. (2010), “Consumer-based brand equity

conceptualisation and measurement”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 52 No. 1,
pp. 43-66.

Cobb-Walgren, C., Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N. (1995), “Brand equity, brand preference and
purchase intent”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 25 -40.

Craig, C.S. and Douglas, S.P. (2005), International Marketing Research, 3rd ed., John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester. Czellar, S. (2003), “Consumer attitude towards brand extensions: an
integrative model and research propositions”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 97-115.

Dean, D.H. (2004), “Evaluating potential brand associations through conjoint analysis and
market simulation”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 506 -13.

03_I Buil, 2013, The influence of brand equity on consumer responses

37 | P a g e
ANNEXURES

38 | P a g e
Annexures:

PRESENTATION IN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE CERTIFICATE:

39 | P a g e
Plagiarism Check Certificate:

40 | P a g e
Below attached is a copy of the questionnaire that was circulated for the data collection

41 | P a g e
42 | P a g e
43 | P a g e
44 | P a g e
45 | P a g e