The strength, impact and value of a brand are embodied, fairly concisely, in the concept of ‘brand equity’. However, there are different views on how to express and measure brand equity, whether from a consumer (customer) perspective or a firm perspective. Metrics based on a consumer viewpoint (measured in surveys) raise particular concern as to what actual effects they have in the marketplace. Datta, Ailawadi and van Heerde (2017) have answered to the challenge and investigated how well Consumer-Based metrics of Brand Equity (CBBE) align with Sales-Based estimates of Brand Equity (SBBE). The CBBE metrics were adopted from the model of Brand Asset Valuator (Y&R) whereas SBBE estimates were derived from modelling market data of actual purchases. They also examined the association of CBBE with behavioural response to marketing mix actions [1].

In essence, brand equity expresses an incremental value of a product (or service) that can be attributed to its brand name above and beyond physical (or functional) attributes. Alternately,  brand equity is conceived as the added value of a branded product compared with an identical version of that product if it were unbranded. David Aaker defined four main groups of assets linked to a brand that add to its value: awareness, perceived quality, loyalty, and associations beyond perceived quality. On the grounds of this conceptualization, Aaker subsequently proposed the Brand Equity Ten measures, grouped into five categories: brand loyalty, awareness, perceived quality / leadership, association / differentiation, and market behaviour. Kevin Keller broadened the scope of brand equity wherein greater and more positive knowledge of customers (consumers) about a brand would lead them to respond more favourably to marketing activities of the brand (e.g., pricing, advertising).

The impact of a brand may occur at three levels: customer market, product market and financial market. In accordance, academics have followed three distinct perspectives for measuring brand equity: (a) customer-based — an attraction of consumers to the “non-objective” part of the product offering (e.g., ‘mindset’  as in beliefs and attitudes, brand-specific ‘intercept’ in a choice model); (b) company-based — additional value accrued to the firm from a product because of a brand name versus an equivalent product but non-branded (e.g., discounted cash flow); financial-based — brand’s worth is the price it brings or could bring in the financial market (e.g., materialised via mergers and acquisitions, stock prices)[2]. This classification is not universal:  for example, discounted cash flows are sometimes described as ‘financial’; estimates of brand value derived from a choice-based conjoint model constitute a more implicit reflection of the consumers’ viewpoint. Furthermore, models based on stated-choice (conjoint) or purchase (market share) data may vary greatly in the effects they include whether in interaction with each competing brand or independent from the brand ‘main effect’ (e.g., product attributes, price, other marketing mix variables).

A class of attitudinal (‘mindset’) models of brand equity may encompass a number of aspects and layers: awareness –> perceptions and attitudes about product attributes and functional benefits (+ overall perceived quality), ‘soft’ image associations (e.g., emotions, personality, social benefits) –> attachment or affinity –> loyalty (commitment). Two noteworthy academic studies have built upon the conceptualizations of Aaker and Keller in constructing and testing consumer-based measures:

• Yoo and Donthu (2001) constructed a three-dimension model of brand equity comprising brand loyalty, brand awareness / associations (combined), and perceived quality (strength of associations was adopted from Keller’s descriptors of brand image). The multidimensional scale (MBE) was tested and validated across multiple product categories and cultural communities [3].
• Netemeyer and colleagues (2004) demonstrated across products and brands that perceived quality, perceived value (for the cost), and uniqueness of a given brand potentially contribute to willingness to pay a price premium for the brand which in turn acts as a direct antecedent of brand purchase behaviour [4]. Price premium, an aspect of brand loyalty, is a common metric used for assessing brand equity.

Datta, Ailawadi and van Heerde distinguish between two measurement approaches: the consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) approach measures what consumers think and feel about the brand, while the sales-based brand equity (SBBE) approach is based on choice or share of the brand in the marketplace.

The CBBE approach in their research is applied through data on metrics from the Brand Asset Valuator model developed originally by Young and Roubicam (Y&R) advertising agency (the brand research activity is now defined as a separate entity, BAV Group; both Y&R and BAV Group are part of WPP media group). The BAV model includes four dimensions: Relevance to the consumers (e.g., fits in their lifestyles); Esteem of the brand (i.e., how much consumers like the brand and hold it in high regard); Knowledge of the brand (i.e., consumers are aware of and understand what the brand stands for); and  Differentiation from the competition (e.g., uniqueness of the brand)[5].

The SBBE approach is operationalised through modelling of purchase data (weekly scanner data from IRI). The researchers derive estimates of brand value in a market share attraction model (with over 400 brands from 25 categories, though just 290 brands for which BAV data could be obtained were included in subsequent CBBE-SBBE analyses) over a span of ten years (2002-2011). Notably, brand-specific intercepts were estimated for each year; an annual level is sufficient and realistic to account for the pace of change in brand equity over time. The model allowed for variation between brands in the sensitivity to their marketing mix actions (regular prices, promotional prices, advertising spending, distribution {on-shelf availability} and promotional display in stores) — these measures are not taken as part of SBBE values but indicate nonetheless expected manifestation of higher brand equity (impact); after being converted into elasticities, they play a key role in examining the relation of CBBE to behavioural outcomes in the marketplace.

---

• Datta et al. seem to include in a SBBE approach estimates derived from (a) actual brand choices and sales data as well as (b) self-reported choices in conjoint studies and surveys. But subjective responses and behavioural responses are not quite equivalent bases. The authors may have aimed reasonably to distinguish ‘choice-based’ measures of brand equity from ‘attitudinal’ measures, but it still does not justify to mix between brands and products consumers say they would choose and those they actually choose to purchase. Conjoint-based estimates are more closely consumer-based.

• Take for instance a research by Ferjani, Jedidi and Jagpal (2009) who offer a different angle on levels of valuation of brand equity. They derived brand values through a choice-based conjoint model (Hierarchical Bayes estimation at the individual level), regarded as consumer-level valuation. Vis-à-vis the researchers constructed a measure of brand equity from a firm perspective based on expected profits (rather than discounted cash flows), presented as firm-level valuation. Nonetheless, in order to estimate sales volume they ‘imported’ predicted market shares from the conjoint study, thus linking the two levels [6].

---

 

Not all dimensions of BAV (CBBE) are the same in relation to SBBE: Three of the dimensions of BAV — relevance, esteem, and knowledge — are positively correlated with SBBE (0.35, 0.39, & 0.53), while differentiation is negatively although weakly correlated with SBBE (-0.14). The researchers reasoned in advance that differentiation could have a more nuanced and versatile market effect (a hypothesis confirmed) because differentiation could mean the brand is attractive to only some segments and not others, or that uniqueness may appeal to only some of the consumers (e.g., more open to novelty and distinction).

Datta et al. show that correlations of relevance (0.55) and esteem (0.56) with market shares of the brands are even higher, and the correlation of differentiation with market shares is less negative (-0.08), than their correlations with SBBE (correlations of knowledge are about the same). The SBBE values capture a portion of brand attraction to consumers. Market shares on the other hand factor in additional marketing efforts that dimensions of BAV seem to account for.

Some interesting brand cases can be detected in a mapping of brands in two categories (for 2011): beer and laundry detergents. For example, among beers, Corona is positioned on SBBE much higher than expected given its overall BAV score, which places the brand among those better valued on a consumer basis (only one brand is considerably higher — Budweiser). However, with respect to market share the position of Corona is much less flattering and quite as expected relative to its consumer-based BAV score, even a little lower. This could suggest that too much power is credited to the name and other symbols of Corona, while the backing from marketing efforts to support and sustain it is lacking (i.e., the market share of Corona is vulnerable).  As another example, in the category of laundry detergents, Tide (P&G) is truly at the top on both BAV (CBBE) and market share. Yet, the position of Tide on SBBE relative to BAV score is not exceptional or impressive, being lower than predicted for its consumer-based brand equity. The success of the brand and consumer appreciation for it may not be adequately attributed specifically to the brand in the marketplace but apparently more to other marketing activities in its name (i.e., marketing efforts do not help to enhance the brand).

The degree of correlation between CBBE and SBBE may be moderated by characteristics of product category. Following the salient difference cited above between dimensions of BAV in relation to SBBE, the researchers identify two separate factors of BAV: relevant stature (relevance + esteem + knowledge) and (energized) differentiation [7].

In more concentrated product categories (i.e., the four largest brands by market share hold a greater total share of the category), the positive effect of brand stature on SBBE is reduced. Relevance, esteem and knowledge may serve as particularly useful cues by consumers in fragmented markets, where it is more necessary for them to sort and screen among many smaller brands, thus to simplify the choice decision process. When concentration is greater, reliance on such cues is less required. On the other hand, when the category is more concentrated, controlled by a few big brands, it should be easier for consumers to compare between them and find aspects on which each brand is unique or superior. Indeed, Datta and colleagues find that in categories with increased concentration, differentiation has a stronger positive effect on SBBE.

For products characterised by greater social or symbolic value (e.g., more visible to others when used, shared with others), higher brand stature contributes to higher SBBE in the market. The researchers could not confirm, however, that differentiation manifests in higher SBBE for products of higher social value. The advantage of using brands better recognized and respected by others appears to be primarily associated with facets such as relevance and esteem of the brand.

Brand experience with hedonic products (e.g., leisure, entertainment, treats) builds on enjoyment, pleasure and additional positive emotions the brand succeeds in evoking in consumers. Sensory attributes of the product (look, sound, scent, taste, touch) and holistic image are vital in creating a desirable experience. Contrary to expectation of Datta and colleagues, however, it was not found that stature translates to higher SBBE for brands of hedonic products (even to the contrary). This is not so good news for experiential brands in these categories that rely on enhancing relevance and appeal to consumers, who also understand the brands and connect with them, to create sales-based brand equity in the marketplace. The authors suggest in their article that being personally enjoyable (inward-looking) may overshadow the importance of broad appeal and status (outward-looking) for SBBE. Nevertheless, fortunately enough, differentiation does matter for highlighting benefits of the experience of hedonic products, contributing to a raised sales-based brand equity (SBBE).

Datta, Ailawadi and van Heerde proceeded to examine how strongly CBBE corresponds with behavioural responses in the marketplace (elasticities) as manifestation of the anticipated impact of brand equity.

Results indicated that when relevant stature of a brand is higher consumers respond favourably even more strongly to price discounts or deals  (i.e.,  elasticity of response to promotional prices is further more negative or inverse). Yet, the expectation that consumers would be less sensitive (adverse) to increased regular prices by brands of greater stature was not substantiated (i.e., expected positive effect: less negative elasticity). (Differentiation was not found to have a positive effect on response to regular prices either, and could be counter-conducive for price promotions.)

An important implication of brand equity should be that consumers are more willing to pay higher regular prices for a brand of higher stature (i.e., a larger price premium) relative to competing brands, and more forgiving when such a brand sees it necessary to update and raise its regular price. The brand may benefit from being more personally relevant to the consumer, better understood and more highly appreciated. A brand more clearly differentiated from competitors with respect to its advantages could also benefit from a protected status. All these properties are presumed to enhance attachment to a brand, and subsequently lead to greater loyalty, making consumers more ready to stick with the brand even as it becomes more expensive. This research disproves such expectations. Better responsiveness to price promotions can help to increase sales and revenue, but it testifies to the heightened level of competition in many categories (e.g., FMCG or packaged goods) and propensity of consumers to be more opportunistic rather than to the strength of the brands. This result, actually a warning signal, cannot be brushed away easily.

• Towards the end of the article, the researchers suggest as explanation that they ignored possible differences in response to increases and decreases in regular prices (i.e., asymmetric elasticity). Even so, increases in regular prices by stronger brands are more likely to happen than price decreases, and the latter already are more realistically accounted for in response to promotional prices.

Relevant stature is positively related to responsiveness to feature or promotional display (i.e., consumers are more inclined to purchase from a higher stature brand when in an advantaged display). Consumers also are more strongly receptive to larger volume of advertising by brands of higher stature and better differentiation in their eyes (this analysis could not refer to actual advertising messages and hence perhaps the weaker positive effects). Another interesting finding indicates that sensitivity to degree of distribution (on-shelf availability) is inversely associated with stature — the higher the brand stature from consumer viewpoint, larger distribution is less attractive to the consumers. As the researchers suggest, consumers are more willing to look harder and farther (e.g., in other stores) for those brands regarded more important for them to have. So here is a positive evidence for the impact of stronger brands or higher brand equity.

The research gives rise to some methodological questions on measurement of brand equity that remain open for further deliberation:

1. Should the measure of brand equity in choice models rely only on a brand-specific intercept (expressing intrinsic assets or value of the brand) or should it include also a reflection of the impact of brand equity as in response to marketing mix activities?
2. Are attitudinal measures of brand equity (CBBE) too gross and not sensitive enough to capture the incremental value added by the brand or is the measure of brand equity based only on a brand-intercept term in a model of actual purchase data too specific and narrow?  (unless it accounts for some of the impact of brand equity)
3. How should measures of brand equity based on stated-choice (conjoint) data and actual purchase data be classified with respect to a consumer perspective? (both pertain really to consumers: either their cognition or overt behaviour).

Datta, Ailawadi and van Heerde throw light in their extensive research on the relation of consumer-based equity (CBBE) to behavioural outcomes, manifested in brand equity based on actual purchases (SBBE) and in effects on response to marketing mix actions as an impact of brand equity. Attention should be awarded to positive implications of this research for practice but nonetheless also to the warning alerts it may signal.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Notes:

[1] How Well Does Consumer-Based Brand Equity Align with Sales-Based Brand Equity and Marketing-Mix Response?; Hannes Datta, Kusum L. Ailawadi, & Harald J. van Heerde, 2017; Journal of Marketing, 81 (May), pp. 1-20. (DOI: 10.1509/jm.15.0340)

[2] Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities; Kevin L. Keller and Donald R. Lehmann, 2006; Marketing Science, 25 (6), pp. 740-759. (DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1050.0153)

[3] Developing and Validating a Multidimensional Consumer-Based Brand Equity Scale; Boonghee Yoo and Naveen Donthu, 2001; Journal of Business Research, 52, pp. 1-14.

[4]  Developing and Validating Measures of Facets of Customer-Based Brand Equity; Richard G. Netemeyer, Balaji Krishnan, Chris Pullig, Guangping Wang,  Mahmet Yageci, Dwane Dean, Joe Ricks, & Ferdinand Wirth, 2004; Journal of Business Research, 57, pp. 209-224.

[5] The authors name this dimension ‘energised differentiation’ in reference to an article in which researchers Mizik and Jacobson identified a fifth pillar of energy, and suggest that differentiation and energy have since been merged. However, this change is not mentioned or revealed on the website of BAV Group.

[6] A Conjoint Approach for Consumer- and Firm-Level Brand Valuation; Madiha Ferjani, Kamel Jedidi, & Sharan Jagpal, 2009; Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (December), pp. 846-862.

[7] These two factors (principal components) extracted by Datta et al. are different from two higher dimensions defined by BAV Group (stature = esteem and knowledge, strength = relevance and differentiation). However, the distinction made by the researchers as corroborated by their data is more meaningful  and relevant in the context of this study.