An executive summary for
managers and executive
readers can be found at the
end of this article
Assembling and validating
the macro-model
Brand equity construct
170 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 3, 1999, pp. 170-184 # MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1061-0421
Measuring brand power:
validating a model for
optimizing brand equity
Woon Bong Na
Assistant Professor, Department of Advertising, School of Business,
Pusan University, Pusan, South Korea
Roger Marshall
Associate Professor, Nanyang Business School, Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore
Kevin Lane Keller
E.B. Osborn Professor of Marketing, Amos Tuck School of Business
Administration, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, USA
Keywords Brand equity, Korea, Marketing mix, Market share
Abstract Rather than taking the more traditional approach of measuring brand equity for
accounting or strategic reasons, the approach taken here is concerned with optimizing
brand equity through parsimonious manipulation of the marketing mix. To this end a
macro-model is first developed; this model is then operationalized and tested (in terms of
predicted versus actual brand share) in three Korean markets. The contribution of the
paper lies in the development of a methodology through which management can
efficiently build brand power in their markets. The statistical methods (factor analysis
and preference regression) are commonly used in commercial research and the research
requirements to build such a model are quite modest ± the proposed model makes a
theoretical contribution but can also be used as a practical managerial tool.
There is a great deal of published research about brand equity; most of it
deals either with attempting to value brand equity or with trying to
understand more about the structure and composition of the construct for
marketing purposes. In this paper a macro-model is first assembled by
combining and adapting several existing partial models, then the model is
validated by collecting and analyzing appropriate market data. The objective
is to reach an understanding of how best to optimize brand equity through the
most parsimonious use of marketing tools. Thus several suggestions made in
the literature are met: to improve our conceptualization of the brand equity
construct (Monroe and Krishnan, 1985; Shocker et al., 1994; Zeithaml,
1988); to establish the operationalisable indicators of brand equity from the
consumer perspective (Biel, 1993; Keller, 1993); to conduct empirical
research in order to develop valid benchmarks for the direct approach to
measuring customer-based equity (Keller, 1993; Park and Srinivasan, 1994);
and to conduct validation work to justify brand equity measurements and
methodology (Urban and Hauser, 1980).
In the work that follows, the ``brand power'' model is first briefly illustrated
and justified, then the empirical research undertaken is described in detail.
The brand power model
The very extensive literature attempting to conceptualize the brand equity
construct is summarized in several recent publications. Keller (1993) wrote
of two stages of equity-development, labeled ``awareness level'' and ``image
level'', that stem from consumers' needs and wants and lead to a brand
evaluation within a product/service category, which, coupled with purchase,
is the manifestation of brand equity.
Awareness is fairly simply described and measured by recognition and
recall, but image is a far more complex construct with which to deal. What

The nature of brand equity
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 3, 1999
has become clear in recent work on the topic, however, is that image cannot
be assessed by attribute measurement alone, but must include measurement
of consumers' perceptions of the value and benefits attainable by using the
brand ± an altogether more abstract, all-encompassing measurement is
required than typical attitudinal measurements (Aaker, 1991; Arnold, 1992;
Keller, 1993; Kirmani and Zeithaml, 1993; Park et al., 1986). So, the
antecedent factors of brand image should range in levels of abstraction from
the very concrete attribute data to the more ephemeral perceptions of benefits
and values. Zeithaml (1993) further suggests that these three levels of factors
should interact. These perceptions, that lead to the formulation of a
distinctive image in the consumers' minds, can be gleaned from a variety of
sources, both extrinsic and intrinsic to the specific product or service in
question; this is a typical assumption of the associative network theory from
which the basic idea is drawn (Arnold, 1992; Biel, 1993; Keller, 1993). The
image-level conceptualization can be combined with Keller's first,
awareness, stage to form an integrated model of brand power (Figure 1).
Measurement and operationalization
Estimating brand image power
The nature of brand equity, and the image upon which equity is based, is that
it is a chunk of information that may be used heuristically by consumers to
simplify choice decisions (Biel, 1993; Chernatony, 1991; Kirmani and
Zeithaml, 1993). This chunk is developed over time by each consumer, and
will be constructed of multiple aspects of the brand. Thus a multi-attribute
approach to measuring brand equity is needed. Srinivasan (1976) first
proposed a modification to the typical multi-attribute model, which can then
be used to predict first choice. He noted that brands that have similar
Brand Awareness Power Dimension
Recognition level
Recall level
Brand Image Power Dimension
Intrinsic sources Extrinsic sources
✓Corporate level Price✓
✓Product category level Level of advertising✓
✓Brand-specific level Warranty✓
Low abstraction Attributes Low abstraction
Benefits
High abstraction Values High abstraction
Brand Attitudes Brand associations
Brand Image
Brand Equity
Satisfaction Loyalty Brand extension
Figure 1. Brand power model
171
 attributes often have different market shares, so consequently he proposed
that an ``overall utility'' measurement approach be adopted. This idea is
encapsulated here by including the three levels of attributes, benefits and
values. This idea is well supported in the literature (Biel, 1993; Park and
Srinivasan, 1994). A compensatory, multi-attribute model is used, as there is
also a substantial literature suggesting that this model should prove adequate
for most situations. It is claimed that they are not only often most appropriate
but also provide a reasonably accurate approximation of non-compensatory
models (Johnson and Meyer, 1984; Roberts and Lattin, 1991; Shocker and
Srinivasan, 1979).
Typical multi-attribute If a typical, compensatory, multi-attribute model is used to measure brand
model equity the mathematical form will include all the antecedents of brand
equity, rather than the evaluative criteria used in measuring attitude; thus:
BIPij = Skk-1wikxjk (1)
where:
BIPij = the overall brand image power of alternative j to decision-maker I
i = a decision-maker (I = 1,2,3...I),
j = an alternative brand (j = 1,2,3,...J),
k = a function of attributes, benefits, values (k = 1,2,3,...K),
xjk = the score of alternative j on a function of an attribute/benefit/value k,
wik = the relative importance of a function of an attribute/benefit/value k to
decision-maker i.
Achieving overall brand In this model, the meaning of both the ``x'' and ``w'' variables are of
perception importance. Hauser and Urban (1977) describe the processing of attributes as
compression of a large number of attributes into a smaller number of
evaluation criteria. The central idea is that brands can then be represented as
a set of points in a multidimensional space, where the axes are described by
the evaluation criteria, that sum to overall brand perception (Aaker, 1991;
Arnold, 1992; Biel, 1993; de Chernatony and McWilliam, 1990; Farquhar,
1989; Keller, 1993; Lilian and Kotler, 1983; Zeithaml, 1988). Two methods
used for this type of data reduction are non-metric multidimensional scaling
and factor analysis. Reported research has found factor analysis superior to
MDS in terms of interpretability and predictability of the factors, whereas
direct scaling has the problem of high multicollinearity in raw attribute data
that makes it unsuitable for working with statistical preference models
(Hauser and Koppelman, 1979; Shocker and Srinivasan, 1979). It has also
been noted (Green and Wind, 1973) that at least eight products are required
to derive a satisfactory two-dimensional map (more specifically, the number
of dimensions should be less than one-third of the number of products used);
hence factor analysis is used here.
The ``w'' variable is concerned with the inference of the weight of the factor-
variables. Mainly because direct scaling does not use true multidimensional
methods (scaling of all parameter values is not done simultaneously), using
derived measures tends to lead to higher predictive validity (Beckwith and
Lahmann, 1975; Braun and Srinivasan, 1975; Hauser and Koppelman, 1979;
Parker and Srinivasan, 1975; Shocker and Srinivasan, 1979). Equation 1 is,
then, revised as follows:
BIPij = Skk-1wjkxjk (2)

172 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 3, 1999


Possible methods of
deriving the weights
Preference regression is
most appropriate method
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 3, 1999
where:
BIPij = the overall brand image power of alternative j to decision-maker i,
i = a decision-maker (i = 1,2,3...i),
j = an alternative brand (j = 1,2,3,...J),
k = a function of attributes, benefits, values (k = 1,2,3,...K),
xjk = the factor score j on a perception dimension k of a function of attribute/
benefit/value,
wik = the derived relative importance of a function of an attribute/benefit/
value k to decision-maker i.
Weight derivation
There are several possible methods of deriving the weights. Conjoint
analysis was designed for this type of task, but measurement becomes
extremely tedious for designs incorporating large numbers of features.
Similarly, the card-sort task can lead to somewhat unrealistic product
profiles (i.e. given that consumers have prior perceptions of brands on
multiple attributes, orthogonal designs that combine brand names with
attributes are likely to result in unrealistic profiles), hence the technique is
not used here.
PREFMAP (Carroll and Chang, 1967) is also a possible method that also has
drawbacks in the present situation. The main problem with this method is
that although it can perform monotonic or metric regression of attributes
versus preferences for individuals when they rate many products (say, eight
or more), it fails when respondents rate only an evoked set of alternatives.
Urban and Hauser (1980) suggest that, because PREFMAP works on average
ratings and preferences in this circumstance and therefore sacrifices degrees
of freedom, it cannot be as accurate as an equivalent regression across
consumers. LINMAP is yet another alternative but, as this method uses non-
metric procedures, no statistical properties of the estimates or of the
goodness-of-fit statistic for the overall model are available (Shocker and
Srinivasan, 1979).
The most appropriate method appears to be, then, preference regression.
Other researchers have also concluded thus (Pessemier, 1975; Malhotra,
1993; Urban, 1975; Urban and Hauser, 1980). In particular, Urban and
Hauser recommend the use of a simple rank-ordering scale, which
overcomes the problems of respondents' scale allocation and rounding errors
experienced by constant-sum and dollar-metric scales. In addition, a global
assessment of satisfaction will also be gathered here. Using the calculated
elasticities, one can then predict changes due to modifications in the
independent variables and thus allow marketers to optimize their marketing
efforts to enhance their brand equity.
Model calibration
Let Bc be the set of all brands available to consumer c, and BPbc the
perception that consumer c receives from brands b ( Bc. Then the
probability of selecting brand b,Pbc, is:
Pbc = P(BPbc > BPjc) (j b)(Bc (3)
= P(Vbc + ebc > Vjc + ejc)
= P(Vbc ± Vjc > ejc ± ebc)
173
 where Vbc(b(Bc) and eb(b(Bc) are the systematic and random components
of perception, respectively. Only differences between perception can affect
choice, as adding a constant or multiplying the utility function by a scalar
does not change the choice probabilities. Assuming that the random term has
the appropriate independence and distribution properties yields a
multinomial logit model with choice capabilities characterized by:
exp Vb c†
Pbc ˆ 4†
 exp Vjc †

where Vbc denotes determinalistic components. Substituting the expression

for Vbc into Equation 4, the measured brand image power can be expressed
thus:
expkkˆ1 Wik Xjk
Pbc ˆ 5†
 exp kkˆ1 Wik Xjk†

Advantages of the model The appeal of this model is that it explicitly models stochastic behavior at the
segment level in a manner which requires no metric assumptions about
rankings. A further advantage of a logit model is that elasticities can be
calculated in much the same manner as discussed above. For the model
postulated in Equation (5), the elasticity of consumer c's demand for
alternative s, P'BIPbc, from a 1 percent change in brand entity k, Ak, is:
Ecsk = (1-P'BIPsc)bkAk (6)
where Ecsk = elasticity of probability of purchase for c for alternative s of
brand entity k,
P'BIPsc = probability of BIP of consumer c's demand for alternative s,
bk = estimates of logit analysis, Ak, and
Ak = brand's perceived dimensions factor score.

Multi-step brand power

Modeling choice as a two- The final stage of the calibration process is to quantitatively define the
stage process overall model. It is hypothesized that consumers mostly follow a two-stage
process when making choice decisions from a large set of alternatives; they
first select the brands in the evoked set, then choose from among them.
Furthermore, modeling choice as a two-stage process has been shown to
improve forecasting performance (Laroche and Brisoux, 1989; Laroche and
Sadokierski, 1994; Woodside and Trappey, 1991). Within the context of the
brand image construct the evoked set can be incorporated thus:
Brand Power = F(brand awareness, Brand Image Power)
If it is further assumed that the function is multiplicative (Moore, 1993;
Owen, 1993), then Aaker and Biel (1993) can be followed and brand power
can be expressed thus:
Brand Power = f(brand awareness) * f(BIP)
The choice probability of Brand Power follows:
exp aXbc  kkˆ1 Wik Xjk †
Pbc ˆ 7†
 exp aXbc  kkˆ1 Wik Xjk †

where aXbc = the brand awareness of consumer `c' in category `b' and BIP =
Brand Image Power, from Equation (3).

174 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 3, 1999


Criteria for selection of
products
Generating list of attributes
Items incorporated into
questionnaire
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 3, 1999
Research design
Two product categories were first selected; a data-collection framework was
generated through focus group interviews, then the database was assembled
from a house-to-house personal interview process. The data thus generated
were then reorganized and reclassified and input to the model. The details of
the research design are described here in two sections; data generation and
the data preparation process. After this section, the results are presented in
terms of the calculated outputs from the model and their validation.
In order to maximize conditions for the model to be properly tested, the test
products were selected to fit a number of criteria. First, the product
categories need to be quite different from each other for the sake of
generalizability; second, an oligopolistic industry structure makes the use of
market share data possible for validity purposes. Also important was that
advertising expenditures and market penetration of the companies' products
have to be high enough for an image of the brand to be assumed to have
formed in the customers' minds (Kirmani and Zeithaml, 1993). The
industries should also be mature enough that the target markets recognize all
brands in the product category. The products finally selected were toilet
tissue and men's suits in South Korea. The ``Good Morning'' toilet tissue
brand is a market leader that has two international competitors (``Poppy'' by
Kleenex and ``Viva'') and two local (``Rucky'' and ``Shine''). The ``Indian''
brand men's suit mainly competes against several other local brands,
``Hifive'', ``Hunt'', ``Weekend'', ``Towngent'', and ``Parkland''.
Data generation
The first step is to find and operationalize the indicators of brand knowledge,
which are hypothesized in the brand power model illustrated above to be a
function of brand awareness, image and satisfaction. Focus groups, using
professional facilities and facilitators, were utilized for this purpose. Each
session was audio-recorded, and one of the authors and the brand manager
for the relevant product group observed from behind one-way glass. Two
groups of eight participants for each product were selected by gender, social
class and age ± to represent actual consumers in the target audience.
Each item from the verbatim comments generated on the brands by the focus
group participants was then ``trimmed'' (sentences synopsized into short
statements representing a single, specific facet of the product) then all these
items were sorted into attributes, benefits or values. This process was
undertaken to ensure that a complete list had been generated, and was
completed by one researcher and the relevant brand manager with no
difficulty or disagreement. Tissue is apparently judged by 11 attribute items
(e.g. ``not easily torn''), three benefit items (e.g. ``feels soft in use'') and six
value items (e.g. ``modern image''). Men's suits generated seven attribute
items (e.g. ``well-known brand''), four benefit items (e.g. ``comfortable'')
and seven value items (e.g. ``can be recommended with confidence''). Thus,
as expected, the structure of brand equity was found to be very dependent on
product category.
The next stage in data generation was to incorporate the generated items into
a questionnaire. Other than screening demographics, a preference ranking of
the brands was sought (after Urban and Hauser, 1980). Additionally, Likert-
type scales were used to give a validating measure of preference and an
overall measure of satisfaction.
Door-to-door interviews were conducted by professionals on a quota sample
of 810 respondents. The quotas were designed to represent the sample, based
175
 on heavy-user data already available. (Tissue: three age-groups, 70
respondents; suits: 100 men and 100 women from three age groups.) A
screening question concerning unaided and aided awareness of the brands in
the market was further used to ensure that participants were truly users.

Scale development and data preparation

Consumers make overall Cronbach's Alpha was first calculated for each of the scales (Tissue = 0.93,
judgments Suits = 0.92) and found to exceed the criteria outlined in Bearden et al.
(1991). One of the more persistent findings of prior research has been that
consumers tend to make overall judgments when evaluating brands, rather
than consider large numbers of attributes. Thus the overall consumers'
verbatim criteria were reduced here, by factor analysis, to a smaller number
of representative attributes (Urban and Hauser, 1980). To minimize
information loss and multicollinearity the Principal Component extraction
method was used (Nunnally, 1978), and to minimize the chance of deriving a
single, large, effective factor, a varimax rotation scheme was used. For
tissues, three factors emerged (eigenvalues 8.43, 1.38, 1.28) that together
explain 55.4 percent of the variance. The Suit data yielded four factors
(eigenvalues 7.93, 1.26, 1.09, 1.05) that explain 63 percent of the variance.
Tables I and II show the factor loadings for the three products.
Further factor analysis As a verification measure, a further factor analysis was performed on a
random subset of each data set. The resultant analysis confirmed the stability
of the original analysis. A final verification measure was to subject the data
to experts' judgments of what scale items should be associated into a factor.
The judgments of two independent experts are shown in Table III, and
demonstrate a 75 percent agreement with the factor solution for tissue and 84
percent for the suit. This level of agreement is usually considered satisfactory
(Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Biel, 1993; Kirmani and Zeithaml, 1993).
Given the importance of the above factor solutions, a further check of their
validity is appropriate. According to Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990), dis-
crimination is achieved when each between-factor correlation is less than 1,

No. Item F1 F2 F3
1 Easily available 0.809 0.148 0.029
2 Reliable 0.719 0.220 0.304
3 Traditional 0.714 0.291 0.289
4 Heavily advertised 0.692 0.241 0.010
5 Good brand name 0.684 0.226 0.196
6 Well-known brand 0.645 0.259 0.319
7 Feels soft in use 0.582 0.444 0.130
8 Feels soft to touch 0.494 0.283 0.358
9 Not easily torn 0.122 0.692 0.198
10 Satisfactory 0.164 0.686 0.058
11 Firm color 0.222 0.683 0.075
12 Rolled well 0.198 0.636 0.217
13 Properly cut 0.356 0.630 0.188
14 Highly absorbent 0.352 0.584 0.155
15 No dust produced 0.218 0.540 0.324
16 Natural pulp 0.420 0.514 0.249
17 Gives youthful feeling 0.134 0.187 0.754
18 Good for gift 0.166 0.097 0.728
19 Modern image 0.210 0.276 0.701
20 Neat image 0.395 0.396 0.500

Table I. Factor loadings for tissue

176 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 3, 1999

 No. Item F1 F2 F3 F4
1 Expresses personality 0.746 0.160 0.292 0.139
2 Feels satisfactory 0.743 0.222 0.232 0.164
3 Gives confidence 0.732 0.233 0.137 0.257
4 Feel proud of it 0.704 0.398 0.172 ±0.770
5 Suitable for my age 0.622 0.219 0.296 0.079
6 High-quality brand 0.609 0.418 0.206 ±0.253
7 Well-known brand 0.205 0.761 0.213 0.018
8 Reliable 0.355 0.739 0.185 0.057
9 Recommendable 0.346 0.649 0.261 0.028
10 Familiar to me 0.135 0.648 0.184 0.436
11 Good for gift 0.297 0.575 0.303 0.071
12 Comfortable 0.187 0.553 0.384 0.010
13 Easily available 0.146 0.073 0.774 0.147
14 Nice color 0.256 0.273 0.770 0.014
15 Good design 0.250 0.291 0.692 ±0.075
16 Modern style 0.238 0.259 0.671 0.074
17 Wide selection 0.186 0.341 0.569 0.123
18 Proper price 0.164 0.085 0.108 0.874
Table II. Factor loadings for suits

Tissue Suit
Item Agree Disagree Item Agree Disagree
1 * 1 *
2 * 2 *
3 * 3 *
4 * 4 *
5 * 5 *
6 * 6 *
7 * ±
8 * 7 *
± 8 *
9 * 9 *
10 * 10 *
11 * 11 *
12 * 12 *
13 * ±
14 * 13 *
15 * 14 *
16 * 15 *
± 16 *
17 * 17 *
18 * ±
19 * 18 *
20 *
Table III. Inter-judge agreement on factors items

by an amount greater than twice the standard error. Table IV contains the
relevant data; the appropriate computation reveals that discriminant validity
has been achieved in both cases.
Convergent validity, on the other hand, is achieved by having a high level of
within-factor correlation. The simplest test here is to consider the Cronbach's
alphas already described. The average alpha is 0.852; the range of within-
factor alphas is from 0.665 to 0.899, which provides good evidence that
convergence has also been achieved.

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 3, 1999 177

 Product Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Tissue Factor 1 1.000
Factor 2 0.360 1.000
(0.009)
Factor 3 0.336 0.315
(0.070) (0.015) 1.000
Suits Factor 1 1.000
Factor 2 0.411 1.000
(0.010)
Factor 3 0.366 0.382 1.000
(0.008) (0.009)
Factor 4 0.197 1.197 0.172 1.000
(0.033) (0.025) (0.010)

Table IV. Between-factor correlations and standard errors, to allow calculation

of discriminant validity

Test of face validity A final test of (face) validity at this stage entails a more subjective approach.
Dividing the factor scores for each brand by the mean factor scores across all
brands created indexed factor scores. This way, a relative sense of how each
factor describes a brand is provided. The author and relevant brand manager
then compared the indexed scores to the real market situation to check that
reality was represented. There were no discrepancies noted.
At this stage it seemed appropriate to name the factors. As the items were
collected after categorization into values, benefits and attributes, it could be
assumed that the factors should represent this schema. In fact, this is not
necessarily the case, as there could be underlying reasons why some value,
for instance, may be more related to a benefit than some other value.
Nevertheless, the original classification does show to a point, as can be seen
from Tables I and II. The Tissue factors illustrate the above point well, as
Factor 2 clearly represents Tissue attributes and Factor 3 Tissue values,
whilst Factor 1 is a mixture of both. The authors made a value judgment and
called it Tissue attributes 2. The suit market is relatively straightforward,
with Factor 1 representing Suit benefits, Factor 2 Suit values. Factor 3 is also
clearly Suit attributes and so is the single-item (price) Factor 4.

Quantification
Satisfaction chosen as Two potential dependent variable constructs were captured, satisfaction and
dependent variable preference. As expected, the constructs do correlate (0.691 for Tissue and
construct 0.126 for Suits, p < 0.0001). To establish which construct has most bearing
on the scales, a regression analysis was run for both and the R2 values
compared. Satisfaction is clearly superior (R2 for satisfaction = Tissue,
0.573, Suits 0.548. R2 for preference = Tissue 0.252, Suits 0.201). Previous
studies have linked satisfaction to purchase, so satisfaction is consequently
used here. Normal preference regression can now be used, using the factor
scores as discussed in an earlier section, to analyze the relationship between
the factors and overall satisfaction. There should be no problem with
multicollinearity, as the scores used are derived from factor analysis.
However, adding factor variables one at a time to ensure that both the R2 and
adjusted R2 increase with each factor added provides a further check. The
preference regression models are shown in Table V.
The results of the brand power model suggest that over 50 percent of the
variance is explained; the beta coefficients are all significant and have good

178 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 3, 1999


Calculating the importance
weights
Testing validity of brand
image power
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 3, 1999
Model R2
Tissue = 5.428 + 0.529* Attl +0.432*Att2+0.403*Val 0.573
(165.4) (16.4) (13.1) (12.2)
Suit = 4.572+0.321*Attl+0.282*Att2+0.551*Benft+0.514*Val 0.548
(305.5) (21.4) (18.9) (36.8) (34.4)
Notes: a) Models significant to p < 0.001, all b coefficients also significant. b) Figures
in parentheses represent T statistics.
Table V. Preference regression models of brand image power for two product
categories
explanatory power. It seems that the factor construct is well balanced and
exhibits criterion-related validity.
From these regressions, the importance weights can be calculated by adding
all b coefficients and proportionalizing each variable (Urban and Hauser,
1980), The resultant values are displayed in Table VI, and provide an
additional opportunity to check validity. If the products are considered as
being functionally or symbolically-oriented, then the factor weights should
reflect this. Men's suits certainly fit into the symbolic category. Although
tissues are functionally weighted relative to suits, it is a surprise that values
should figure at all. Biel (1993) asserts, however, that in undifferentiated
markets values tend to come to the fore; it seems likely that this is what has
happened here.
Results
Measuring brand image power
The intermediate stage to calculating brand power is to measure brand image
power(BIP), using Equation (2) developed above. After calculating the
brand-specific means of the factor scores and inputting the data, the value of
BIP for each consumer is assessed and compared to their overall satisfaction.
To test the predictive ability of BIP, a parsimonious rule is applied, where, if
there is any difficulty in judging a consumer's preference correctly, it is
treated as a missing case. Thus suppose Consumer 2 had recently purchased
Brand 1 three times, and her calculated BIP was 63 for Brand 1, 45 for
Brand 2 and 44 for Brand 3. Yet as her overall satisfaction measure was the
same for both Brand 1 and Brand 2, the case is regarded as ``missing data''.
In this way the data set is slightly reduced, but all judged data sets are
``clean'' and not biased in support of the model. Urban and Hauser (1980)
suggest that a prediction for preference from 40-80 percent is good; by their
standards the results shown in Table VII are outstanding. Unfortunately the
purchase data for suits are not available, but the prediction of purchase for
tissues is also satisfactory.
Tissue Suit
Factor Weight Factor Weight
Attribute 1 39.2 Attribute 1 19.2
Attribute 2 31.4 Attribute 2 16.9
Value 29.4 Benefit 33.0
Value 30.8
Total 100.0 Total 100.0
Table VI. Weighted preference regression model
179
 Cases Missing Effective Correct Incorrect
Preference
Tissue 210 80 130 114 (87.6%) 16 (12.7)
Suits 600 237 363 281 (77.4%) 82 (22.6%)
Purchasing
Tissue 210 48 162 117 (72.2%) 45 (27.8%)
BrassieÁres 420 25 395 239 (60.5%) 156 (39.5%)
Table VII. Preference and purchase predictive performance of the BIP model

Elasticity
The practical value of the model can be further enhanced by considering the
elasticity attached to each factor for each brand, following the suggestion of
Roberts (1983) and Wells (1993). Thus, for example, for Brand 2 in the
Tissue market, the three factors have elasticities as follows: F1 = 0.00997, F2
= 0.0128, F3 = 0.0023. Factor 2 indicates where corporate resources should
be placed to enhance the brand equity and, consequently, sales.

Measuring brand power

The final stage of the process is to measure brand power at segment level by
multiplying BIP by awareness. Only the tissue results are shown (in Table
VIII), as the market share data were not available for men's suits.

Discussion
Soft attributes become The main point of this paper has been to show that brand equity can be
more important measured and, to a large extent, understood in terms of its antecedent factors.
There are several points about the taxonomy of brand equity discovered en
route that should be mentioned. It has been discussed in the literature, for
instance, that intrinsic and extrinsic cues are interrelated in the consumer's
mind and used during product evaluation. This becomes evident from an
inspection of the factor analyses. Similarly, Biel (1993) claims that as the
functional differences (hard attributes) between brands become more trivial,
then soft, or intangible, attributes will become more important. If the
``value'' dimension in the present context is equated to soft attributes, and
the ``attributes'' to hard, then there is plenty of supporting evidence here.
Again, Keller's idea regarding the three levels of attributes (attributes,
benefits and values) has been shown to be useful in discovering all the
relevant antecedents of brand equity.

Top of Brand Predicted Actual

BIP mind power market share M.S. Difference
Tissues
Brand 1 16.97 0.014 0.238 1.3 6.9 ±5.6
Brand 2 22.16 0.233 5.163 28.9 47.2 ±18.3
Brand 3 23.78 0.504 11.985 67.1 40.0 +27.1
Brand 4 14.29 0.033 0.472 2.6 5.8 ±3.5

Suits
Brand 1 16.91 0.09 1.522 29.5 n/a n/a
Brand 2 16.90 0.03 0.507 9.8 n/a n/a
Brand 3 12.67 0.001 0.013 0.2 n/a n/a
Brand 4 15.29 0.03 0.459 8.9 n/a n/a
Brand 5 15.83 0.001 0.016 0.3 n/a n/a
Brand 6 19.52 0.135 2.635 51.2 n/a n/a
Table VIII. Brand power and market share for each brand

180 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 3, 1999

 Two contributions to brand
equity theory
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 3, 1999
There are two contributions to understanding brand equity theory here. First
is the construction of an operationalizable macro-model of brand equity. This
is memory-based research; the approach of treating the brand as an
information chunk and constructing the model within an information-
processing framework has proved to be fruitful. The second contribution lies
in the validation of the model with market data.
Finally, the development of the elasticities of the factors within the model
has practical value. This approach has as its focus not the more traditional
intention of estimating the worth of brand equity, but rather the intent to
develop a managerial tool that will enable marketers to optimize brand
equity in the most parsimonious way.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A.L. (1993), Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertising's Role in
Building Strong Brands, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hilldale, NJ.
Arnold, D. (1992), The Handbook of Brand Management, The Economist Books, London.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1990), ``Trying to consume'', Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 17, September, pp. 127-40.
Bearden, W.O., Netemyer, R.G. and Mobley, M.F. (1991), Handbook of Marketing Scales:
Multi-items Measures for Marketing and Consumer Behavior Research, Sage Publications,
Newbury Park, CA.
Beckwith, N.E. and Lehmann, D.R. (1975), ``The importance of halo effects in multi-attribute
attitude models'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 12, August, pp. 265-75.
Biel, A.L. (1993), ``Converting image into equity'', in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A.L. (Eds), Brand
Equity & Advertising's Role in Building Strong Brands, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hilldale, NJ, pp. 67-82.
Braun, M.A. and Srinivasan, V. (1975), ``Amount of information as a determinant of consumer
behavior toward new products'', Combined Proceedings, American Marketing Associa-
tion, pp. 373-8.
Carroll, J.D. and Chang, J.J. (1967), Relating Preference Data to Multidimensional Scaling
Solutions via a Generation of Coombs' Unfolding Model, Bell Telephone Laboratories,
Murray Hill, NJ.
de Chernatony, L. (1991), Strategic Brand Planning: The Way for Brands to Succeed in the
1990s, Working paper, City University Business School.
de Chernatony, L. and McWilliam, G. (1990), ``Appreciating brands as assets through using a
two-dimensional model'', International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 111-19.
Farquhar, P.H. (1989), ``Managing brand equity'', Marketing Research, September, pp. 24-34.
Green, P.E. and Wind, Y. (1973), Multi-Attribute Decision in Marketing, The Dryden Press,
Hinsdale, IL.
Hauser, J.R. and Koppelman, F.S. (1979), ``Effective marketing research: an empirical
comparison of techniques to model consumers' perceptions and preferences'', in Shocker,
A.D. (Ed.), Analytic Approaches to Product and Marketing Planning, Marketing Science
Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Hauser, J.R. and Urban, G.I. (1979), ``A normative methodology for modeling consumer
response to innovation'', Operations Research, Vol. 25, July/August, pp. 579-619.
Johnson, E. and Meyer, R. (1984), ``Compensating choice models of non-compensating
processes: the effect of varying context'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11,
January, pp. 528-41.
Keller, K.L. (1993), ``Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22.
Kirmani, A. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1993), ``Advertising, perceived quality, and brand image'',
in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A.L. (Eds), Brand Equity & Advertising: Advertising's Role in
Building Strong Brands, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hilldale, NJ, pp. 143-62.
181
 Laroche, M. and Brisoux, J.E. (1989), ``Incorporating competition into consumer behavior
models: the case of the attitude-intention relationship'', Journal of Economic Psychology,
Vol. 10, September, pp. 343-62.
Laroche, M. and Sadokierski, R. (1994), ``Role of confidence in a multi-brand model of
intention for a high-involvement service'', Journal of Business Research, Vol. 29,
pp. 1-12.
Lilian, G.L. and Kotler, P. (1983), Marketing Decision Making: A Model-Building Approach,
Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Malhotra, N.K. (1993), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Monroe, K.B. and Krishna, R. (1985), ``The effect of price on subjective product evaluations'',
in Jacoby, J. and Olson, J. (Eds), Perceived Quality, Lexington Books, MA, pp. 209-32.
Moore, J. (1993), ``Building brands across markets: cultural differences in brand relationships
within the European community'', in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A.L. (Eds), Brand Equity &
Advertising: Advertising's Role in Building Strong Brands, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hilldale, NJ, pp. 31-50.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Methods, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Owen, S. (1993), ``The Landor image power survey: a global assessment of brand strength'', in
Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A.L. (Eds), Brand Equity & Advertising's Role in Building Strong
Brands, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hilldale, NJ, pp. 11-30.
Park, C.S. and Srinivasan, V. (1994), ``A survey-based method for measuring and
understanding brand equity and its extendibility'', Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 31, May, pp. 271-88.
Park, C.W., Jaworski, J. and MacInnis, D.J. (1986), ``Strategic brand concept-image
management'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, October, pp. 621-35.
Parker, B.R. and Srinivasan, V. (1976), ``A consumer preference approach to the planning of
rural primary health care facilities'', Operations Research, Vol. 24, September,
pp. 991-1025.
Roberts, J.H. (1983), ``A grounded model of consideration set size and composition'', in Srull,
T. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Provo,
UT, pp. 749-85.
Roberts, J.H. and Lattin, J.M. (1991),``Development and testing of a model of consideration set
composition'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, November, pp. 429-40.
Shocker, A.D., Srinivastava, R.K. and Ruekert, R.W. (1994), ``Challenges and opportunities
facing brand management: an introduction to the special issue'', Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 31, May, pp. 149-58.
Shocker, A.D. and Srinivasan, V. (1979), ``Multi-attribute approaches to product concept
evaluation and generation: a critical review'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16,
May, pp. 159-80.
Srinivasan, V. (1976), ``Network models for estimating brand images'', Research Paper No.
344. Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, CA.
Urban, G.L. (1975), ``PERCEPTOR; a model for product positioning'', Management Science,
Vol. 21, April, pp. 858-71.
Urban, G.L. and Hauser, J.R. (1980), Design and Marketing of New Products, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Wells, W.D. (1993), ``Brand equity, elephants and birds: a commentary'' in Aaker, D.A. and
Biel, A.L. (Eds), Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertising's role in Building Strong
Brands, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hilldale, NJ, pp. 343-56.
Woodside, A.G. and Trappey, R.J. (1991), ``Incorporating competition in attitude-accessibility
models of consumers' primary store choice'', Symposium on Patronage Behavior and
Retail Planning, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), ``Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end
model and synthesis of evidence'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, July, pp. 2-22.
&

182 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 3, 1999