customer based brand equity measurement: a case
TRANSCRIPT
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMHRM/index.asp 27 [email protected]
International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM) Volume 7, Issue 3, Sep–Dec (2016), pp. 27–40, Article ID: IJMHRM_07_03_004
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijmhrm/issues.asp?JType=IJMHRM&VType=7&IType=3
ISSN Print: ISSN 0976 – 6421andISSN Online: 0976 – 643X
Journal Impact Factor (2016): 5.5510 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com
© IAEME Publication
CUSTOMER BASED BRAND EQUITY
MEASUREMENT: A CASE STUDY OF
GRAMEENPHONE LTD
Sabiha Matin
Lecturer, Daffodil International University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
ABSTRACT
The paper aims to measure the Brand Equity of Grameenphone Ltd. (GP) in terms of
Customers based Brand Equity. To measure this, Millward Brown’s Brand Dynamics Pyramid &
Keller’s CBBE (Customer Based Brand Equity) Model have been used. The reason for using more
than one theory to measure the brand equity is to get an authentic result. To measure the Customer
based brand equity, a survey had been constructed in 208 respondents who are users or non-users
of GrameenPhone. In developing the Brand Pyramid of Grameenphone the value given in each
element represents its extent of consumer brand awareness to recall and recognition.
Key words: Brand, Brand Equity, CBBE (Customer Based Brand Equity)
Cite this Article: Sabiha Matin, Customer Based Brand Equity Measurement: A Case Study of
Grameenphone Ltd. International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management, 7(3),
2016, pp. 27–40. http://www.iaeme.com/ijmhrm/issues.asp?JType=IJMHRM&VType=7&IType=3
1. INTRODUCTION
A brand is a name or symbol used to identify the source of a product. When developing a new product,
branding is an important decision. The brand can add significant value when it well recognized and has
positive associations in the mind of the consumers. This concept is referred to as Brand Equity. Brand
Equity is an intangible asset that depends on associations made by the consumers. Strong Brand Equity
provides some benefits to the company. It facilitates a more predictable income stream; it helps to
increases cash flow by increasing market share, reducing promotional costs, and allowing premium
pricing. Moreover, Brand Equity is an asset that can be sold or leased. These benefits by measuring Brand
Equity initiate many companies to follow Branding Strategy. In this study Telecom Industry in Bangladesh
are focused. Many service companies specially, Telecom Industry are now put its concentration in
Branding and Brand Equity. Brand Equity also helps a company to add extra value to its product. In this
study, Brand Equity has been measured for Grameenphone Ltd. (GP) in terms of Customers based Brand
Equity. To measure this, two different recognized theory and models have been used namely, Millward
Brown’s Brand Dynamics Pyramid and Keller’s CBBE (Customer Based Brand Equity) Model. To
measure the Customer based brand equity, a survey had been constructed in 208 respondents who are users
or non-users of GP. From this survey, the dimensions of CBBE have been identified. Moreover some other
related things of customers based brand equity is also find out from this survey. The results are statistically
analyzed with the help of SPSS 16 software. From CBBE model, GP lead a satisfactory score in each
Sabiha Matin
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMHRM/index.asp 28 [email protected]
dimension, whereas, if we go through very specifically, GP got low scores in Brand Performance 5.5
(Competitive Price, 3.78). When it comes to the point of network coverage, GP got very high score in that
particular dimension. I.e. 7 out of 7. The Brand VoltageTM is also have been measured by using a
dichotomous set of questions. The presence of GP is very high that is the result of its marketing
promotions.
2. OVERVIEW OF THE CASE STUDY COMPANY: GRAMEENPHONE LTD.
Grameenphone Ltd. (GP) was the first company to introduce GSM technology in Bangladesh when it
launched its services on 26 March 1997. GP is market leader in the cellular telecommunication industry of
Bangladesh with a market share of 43.66% (Dec 2010) obtained cellular license on November 28, 1996 in
Bangladesh from the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications. GP is a joint venture enterprise between
Telenor Mobile Communication AS (55.8%), a telecommunications service provider in Norway, and
Grameen Telecom Corporation (34.2%), a non-profit sister concern of the internationally acclaimed micro-
credit pioneer Grameen Bank. The other 10% shares belong to general retail and institutional investors.
GP‟s cellular network in the country covers 98% of country's population through 13,000 base stations in
more than 7,200 locations. The entire GP network is EDGE/GPRS enabled that provides its subscribers
access to Internet and data services from anywhere within the coverage area.
3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
3.1. Broad Objectives
To measure the Customer Based Brand Equity of Grameenphone Ltd.
3.2. Specific Objectives
• To measure the brand awareness of the Grameenphone Ltd. and that of its competitors.
• To evaluate the performance of the company and its major competitors.
• To evaluate the brand knowledge of the customers.
• To investigate the brand image of the company and competitors.
• To examine the extent that Brand Feelings, Brand Judgments, Brand Performance, and Brand Salience
account for the variance in Brand Resonance in terms of Grameenphone Ltd.
4. LITERATURE REVIEW
A brand is a name that is allocated to a product. According to American Marketing Association, a Brand is
a name, term, sign, symbol or design to create differentiation amongst the products (Kevin Lane Keller;
2nd edition). Brand equity is widely accepted as a multidimensional concept that consists of brand loyalty,
brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations, and other proprietary assets (Aaker, 1996). The
concept of brand equity emerged in the 1980’s. The trend is famous amongst the marketer’s gentry of large
multinational brands. These businesses are greatly dependent upon the perception, strength and other major
elements of a brand. The concept of brand equity is even more flourished when the manufacturers start to
notice the positive retort from the customers. Customers mean everything to a firm from a marketer’s
perspective. Several firms opt for customer-based branding and hence focus on forming a customer based
brand equity.
How to measure brand equity is very important in assessing the value of brands. Rather than taking the
more traditional approach of measuring brand equity for accounting or strategic reasons, the approach
employed in this article focuses on optimizing brand equity through parsimonious manipulation of the
marketing mix. In a broad sense, most experts consider brand equity to be the set of assets—and
liabilities—associated with brand names and symbols. More specifically, many experts define brand equity
utilizing one of two complementary approaches: Customer-driven approach and Data-driven approach.
Customer Based Brand Equity Measurement: A Case Study of Grameenphone Ltd
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMHRM/index.asp 29 [email protected]
Researchers following the consumer-driven approach to define brand equity remain primarily
concerned with brand building and seek to directly affect brand image and customer loyalty. Conversely,
those following the data-driven approach gauge return on investment and the profitability of marketing
initiatives to determine a brand’s financial value.
Mahajan, Rao, and Srivastava (1991) claimed that a customer-based brand equity could be measured
by the level of customer’s perception. Also operationalized by Lassar et al. (1995) as an enhancement of
the perceived utility and desirability that a brand name confers on a product. According to them, costumer-
based brand equity indicates only perceptual dimensions, not including behavioral or attitudinal such as
loyalty or usage intention, which differs from Aaker’s (1991) who suggested to measure brand equity
including behavioral and attitudinal dimensions. Farquhar (1990) maintained that brand equity is reflected
by the change of consumer attitude while purchasing a product. Aaker (1991) incorporated definitions, the
four dimensions of brand equity namely brand awareness, brand association perceived quality, and brand
loyalty. On the other hand, some researcher related the customer based brand equity with other construct,
e.g. Farquhar and Ijiri (1991) proposed a model by judging the corporation’s marketing efforts on its brand
directly. While Lassar et al (1995) focused on relationship between customer based and financial/ market
based brand equity measurement. Customer-based brand equity in this respect is the driving force for
incremental financial gains to the firm.
Table 1 Definitions of CBBE
Main contributor Concept
Mahajan Rao (1991) Measure customer based brand equity by the level of customer’s perception
Farquhar (1990) Brand equity is reflected by the change of consumer attitude while purchasing a
product.
Aaker ( 1991) Measuring the four dimensions of brand equity: brand awareness, brand
association perceived quality, and brand loyalty.
Keller (1993) Adopted two basic approaches (direct and indirect) to measure customer- based
brand equity emphasizing two constructs: brand awareness and brand image.
The indirect approach to identify potential sources of costumer- based brand
equities. The direct approach focuses on consumer response to different
elements of firm’s marketing program.
Farquhar & Ijiri
(1991)
Judging the corporation’s marketing efforts on its brand directly.
Lassar et al, 1995
Relationship between customer based and financial/ market based brand equity
measurement. Customer-based brand equity in this respect, is the driving force
for incremental financial gains to the firm.
4.1. CBBE
Customer Based Brand Equity (CBBE) model by Kevin Lane Keller, incorporate recent theoretical
advances and managerial practices in understanding and influencing consumer behavior. It helps to answer
the most frequently asked questions:
• What makes a strong Brand?
• How do you build a strong Brand?
CBBE model provides a unique point of view as to what brand equity is and how it should best be
built, measured, and managed. After reviewing the most important four dimensions of Brand Performance,
Brand Imagery, Brand Judgments, and Brand Feelings the ultimate Brand Resonance will come out. Upon
which the part of the theoretical model is stood out, where it is shown that the higher the value of these
four dimensions are, the more the resonance is with the brand. This analysis also shown by a regression
analysis based on Grameenphone’s data.
Sabiha Matin
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMHRM/index.asp 30 [email protected]
4.2. Brand Keys
Emphasizes a clinical psychological approach that combines emotional values and rational ratings of
attributes to evaluate the brand’s engagement with consumers. Researchers begin with a record of existing
and potential customers, structured into segments by the client. Working with a sample of 75 to 100
customers for each segment, Brand Keys conducts interviews online, by e-mail, cellular phone, or other
methods to ensure a private and comfortable interview environment for the brand’s customers.
4.3. IPSOS-ASI
Measures brand equity by assessing three brand drivers—attitudinal equity, consumer involvement, and
price and value perceptions. The vendor begins with a list of existing customers, structured into segments
by the client. Working with a sample of 300 to 1,000 respondents, Ipsos-ASI conducts one-on-one
interviews online, by telephone, mail, or in person. The company’s proprietary Equity*Builder model
allows the company to analyze the equity components found in Figure III below. Although the company
can measure these factors with a pre-determined questionnaire, clients may also add customized questions
to gauge specific areas of interest.
Figure 1 The Equity Builder Components of Brand Equity
4.5. Brand Dynamics™
Millward Brown’s proprietary tool called Brand Dynamics™ measures a brand’s consumer equity, i.e.,
consumers’ predisposition to purchase a brand, as distinct from other factors such as patents, production
efficiencies, distribution strengths, etc., which contribute to a brand’s financial equity. The Brand
Dynamics™ Pyramid (Exhibit 5) depicts the strength of relationship consumers have with the brand. The
Pyramid is constructed for the brand, based on consumer interviews. Each interviewee is assigned to one of
the levels in the pyramid depending on his/her responses to a set of questions. The Pyramid indicates as to
how many consumers have a relationship with the brand at five key stages.
Customer Based Brand Equity Measurement: A Case Study of Grameenphone Ltd
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMHRM/index.asp 31 [email protected]
Bonding
Advantage
Performance
Relevance
PresenceWeak relationship;
Low share of category expenditure
Strong relationship;High share
of category expenditure
I know something about it
It caters for me
It is satisfactory
Is it better in some way
Nothing else beats it
Source: “BrandDynamics™, http://www.markenlexicon.com/d_texte/verfahren_brand_dynamics.pdf
Figure 2 Brand Dynammics of Millward Brown
5. METHODOLOGY
The report is descriptive in nature as the purpose of this research is to measure the brand equity of
Grameenphone Ltd based on Consumer Perception. Next Cross Sectional Survey Designs was used as it
involves the collection of information from the targeted population elements only once. Moreover from the
two designs under Cross Sectional Design, Single and Multiple, here Single Cross-Sectional design was
used as only one sample of respondents is drawn from the target population. To conduct the research the
size of the target population (customers) is not known, as presently there are six major Mobile Operators in
Bangladesh and they all have different segments of customers. Total of 208 samples have been surveyed. 7
point Likert Scale has been used to measure the variables of constructs of the Customer Based Brand
Equity models. Moreover, to identify the percentage of the elements of Brand Dynamics Pyramid,
Dichotomous Question containing Yes or No also have been used.
6. DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
6.1. Demographic Status of the Respondent
In the second phase of the study, 208 respondents were interviewed. All the respondents have been
interviewed randomly on the basis of Grameenphone Users and Non-Users. The information collected
from the customers has revealed the following facts after the analysis:
6.1.1. Current Mobile Operator of the Respondents
From the 208 sample 50% of the total respondents are the user of GP. Whereas 33% are from Airtel, 20%
are from Banglalink, 12% from Robi, and 3% are from City cell. In this Graph, It has been shown the
Frequency and Percentage of the respondents who use these 5 telecom operators as their Prime Operator.
Many of the respondents are using more than one mobile operator at a time, where there are one prime
operator and another is for alternative use. The graph shown below focuses on the respondent’s prime
operator.
Sabiha Matin
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMHRM/index.asp 32 [email protected]
Table 2 Current mobile operator of the respondents
Figure 3 Current Mobile Operators of the respondents
6.1.2. Current Alternative Mobile Operator of the Respondents
From the Graph given above we can get a picture of the respondents who uses the Mobile Operator Brands
for their Prime use. But the graph given below shows the percentage of the respondents who use those
same Mobile Operator Brands but as an alternative. In this study the number is about 50 of the total
respondents. Only 12% of the respondents from those 50 are using GP as an alternative whereas the
percentage is very high in terms of Banglalink, Airtel and Robi, 36%, 28%, and 24% respectively. It can be
concluded that the users of GP are much more loyal followed by Bangalink, Robi and Airtel as they choose
GP as their first concern. 36% of the respondents who are the users of Banglalink are using Banglalink
Operator as an alternative. That is, those users can be switched to other mobile operator if they will get
better option.
Mobile Operator Frequency Percent
Grameenphone 103 50
Banglalink 42 20
Robi 24 12
Citycell 6 3
Airtel 33 16
Total 208 100
Customer Based Brand Equity Measurement: A Case Study of Grameenphone Ltd
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMHRM/index.asp 33 [email protected]
Table 3 Current mobile operator of the respondents (Alternative mobile operator)
Figure 4 Current alternative mobile operator of the respondents
6.1.3. Ranking of the Mobile Operators on the basis of Respondents Preference
The respondents were asked to rank the Mobile Operators from first to Sixth Position based on their
perception to the particular brand. The figure given below represents the results, where 70% of the total
respondents ranked GP in the first position, where 15% of the respondents ranked Airtel in the first
position. So from the data given in this figure we can generate another figure which is showing the rank
order at a glance. The figure is given below. We get a surprising result from this figure. If we consider
frequency of the respondents, 146 respondents prefer GP as ranking it as First in order whereas there were
only 103 GP users in the respondents. That means, although some of the respondents are not using GP, but
they prefer it as their first preference. On the other hand, only 20 respondents ranked Banglalink in the first
position, whereas there were total 42 Banglalink users as. That means, although they are using Bangalink
as their prime operator brand, but they prefer GP or the brands when it comes to a questions of ranking on
the basis of preference. Moreover, this portion of the consumers of Banglalink may switch to another
operator, if they will get better offer.
Mobile Operator Frequency Percent
Grameenphone 6 12
Banglalink 18 36
Robi 12 24
Airtel 14 28
Total 50 100
Sabiha Matin
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMHRM/index.asp 34 [email protected]
Table 4 Preference for the Mobile Operators (Ranking)
Table 5 Ranking of the Mobile Operators in Bangladesh by the respondents
Serial
no.
Mobile Operator Brand Rank Order
1. Grameenphone First
2. Airtel Second
3. Banglalink Third
4. Robi Fourth
5. Teletalk Fifth
6. Citycell Sixth
6.2. Measuring Brand Equity Builder Model
The company’s (IPSOS-ASI) proprietary Equity*Builder model allows the company to analyze the equity
components found in Table 15 below. In this study, under three dimensions, Attitudinal Equity,
Involvement and Price and Value, there are nine sub elements based on which questionnaires had been
developed. In this table the Mean value of each element are given with the construct mean. Utilizing the
company’s proprietary weighting analysis model, Ipsos-ASI compares the client’s brand to competitors’
and creates index scores at the component- and aggregate-levels to highlight specific areas for recognition
or improvement. These valuations identify drivers that demonstrate potential to serve as a strategic
foundation for improved brand positioning.
6.2.1. Attitudinal Equity
From the following table, it can be concluded that, GP got the highest value in attitudinal equity, where the
close competitor of GP is Banglalink. Moreover, under this attitudinal equity dimension GP is very much
good in Familiarity, Popularity, Unique service or promotions, or even quality of the services. But the fact
is that, GP got low value (5.75) in Relevance component. That means respondents are very much agree
with its popularity, familiarity and all other things, but they are not or somewhat agree with the
components of relevance. The services provided by GP are not much more relevant to its customers.
Whereas, Robi and Airtel got the higher value than GP (6.29 and 6.21 respectively) for this component,
though, its low scores in quality, uniqueness, and familiarity.
Mobile
Operator
1st Preferred 2nd Preferred 3rd Preferred 4th Preferred
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Grameenphone 146 70 59 28 3 1 0 0
Banglalink 20 10 55 26 66 32 67 32
Robi 10 5 34 16 42 20 69 33
Citycell 0 0 0 0 15 7 24 12
Airtel 32 15 48 23 62 30 33 16
Teletalk 0 0 12 6 20 10 14 7
Total 208 100 208 100 208 100 207 100
Customer Based Brand Equity Measurement: A Case Study of Grameenphone Ltd
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMHRM/index.asp 35 [email protected]
Table 6 Brand Equity Index
6.2.2. Involvement
In the Involvement dimension, there are two components, Brand Sensitivity and Brand substitutability,
where Brand sensitivity means, how much the customers care about the brand in the category and Brand
Substitutability means the extent of switching to other brand from the current brand. In this study, again
GP got the highest value (6.98) in the former component that means, when purchasing a mobile service
operator; GP got the consideration in compare to other brands. Here Robi, got lowest value (5.89) it means,
the consumers of Robi, are not much brand sensitive. They could switch to another brand if they would get
better service or options. So the construct mean for Brand Substitutability and Brand Sensitivity, GP is
leading followed by the other brands.
6.2.3. Price and Value
In the last dimension of Brand Equity* Builder Model the components are, Price comparison and Price
evaluation. From the SPSS output, we can see that, the result is now fully reversed. Although the
consumers of GP are not very much price concern but when it comes to the question of price comparison,
they were not agreed to the price strategy followed by GP. On the same dimension Banglalink got very
high marks (6.915), where it means, the consumers of Banglalink are very happy with the pricing strategy
of Banglalink
6.2.4. Performance of GP on CBBE Model
Kevin Lane Keller developed a Customer based brand equity model widely known as brand pyramid. The
CBBE model postulates that customers go through a process which starts from knowing the brand to
building a strong bond with the brand. Following table represents the scores of the four mobile phone
operators on the different constructs of the brand pyramid. Each of the brand equity constructs has been
measured with at least two variables on a seven point likert scale The measured variables for each
constructs, their corresponding mean values and the mean values of the constructs (calculated by averaging
the scores of the corresponding measured variables) are presented in the following table.
Brand
Equity
Constructs
Variables GP Robi BL Airtel
Mea
n
Const
Mean
Mean Const
Mean
Mean Const
Mean
Mean Const
Mean
Attitudinal
Equity
Familiarity 6.75 6.405
107
5.88 5.6082
67
4.79 5.8428
58
5.39 5.5696
88 Popularity 6.62 5.25 6.74 5.91
Quality 6.21 5.21 5.74 5.42
Relevance 5.75 6.29 5.48 6.21
Uniqueness 6.70 5.42 6.48 4.91
Involvement Brand
sensitivity
6.98 6.955 5.89 6.005 6.78 6.83 6.14 6.01
Brand
substitutabilit
y
6.93 6.12 6.88 5.88
Price and
Value
Price
Comparison
3.62 5.198
35
6.70 6.5166
67
6.83 6.915 6.12 6.56
Price
Evaluation
3.78 6.33 7.00 7.00
Sabiha Matin
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMHRM/index.asp 36 [email protected]
Table 9 CBBE Constructs of GP
The table shows that GP has good scores on all the constructs with scores of minimum 5.5 to maximum
6.7 on seven point scale. The value of 6.7 in Salience construct reflects the output of the extensive
promotional programs of the brand and its long presence in the market. Interestingly the scores on Brand
Performance is 5.5 which is relatively lower. If we dig deep in the construct and examine the variables
used for measuring the Performance of the brand, we can see that the brand cut very high scores on
network coverage (6.7) and quality of customer care centers (6.52). However, the scores on the variable
competitive call rate and excellence of value added services are 3.78 and 4.84 which are comparatively
lower than the scores on the other two variables. The scores of the constructs Brand Image, Brand
Judgment, Brand Feelings, and Brand Resonance are 6.2, 6.3, 5.5 and 5.8 respectively. The scores of the
other three brands are also presented in the above table.
Brand Equity
Constructs
Variables GP Robi BL Airtel
Mean Const
Mean Mean
Const
Mean Mean
Const
Mean Mean
Const.
Mean
Salience Top of the mind brand
6.62 6.7 5.25 5.6 6.74 5.8 5.91 5.7
Extent of familiarity of the brand GP to the
respondents
6.75 5.88 4.79 5.39
Brand
Performan
ce
Quality of network coverage of the brand GP to the
respondents
7.00 5.5 5.67 6.0 4.05 5.8 4.18 5.7
Extent of excellence of features and value added
services offered by the brand GP
4.84 6.08 6.26 5.82
Competitive call rates offered by the brand GP 3.78 6.33 7.00 7.00
Quality of the services provided by the customer
care centre of the brand GP
6.52 5.79 5.95 5.91
Brand
Image
extent of the reliability of the brand GP to the
respondents
6.83 6.2 6.67 5.9 6.52 6.1 6.00 5.1
extent of the responsiveness of the User Brand to
the need of the respondents
5.89 6.17 6.21 4.73
extent of keeping customers interests in heart of the
User's brand
5.37 5.42 5.48 4.36
Feeling of specialty GP 6.66 5.42 6.00 5.24
Brand
Judgment Favorable attitude toward the User's Brand 6.64 6.3 6.17 5.7 5.52 5.9 6.18 6.1
Extent of satisfying customer need User's Brand 5.75 6.29 5.48 6.21
Probability of recommending the User's Brand to
others
6.41 5.63 5.48 7.00
Advantages of the User's Brand over other brands 6.25 4.79 6.48 6.27
Uniqueness of the User's Brand 6.70 5.42 6.48 4.91
Brand
Feelings Feeling of warmth about the User's Brand 5.14 5.5 5.88 5.4 6.48 6.1 6.79 6.5
Feelings of fun about the User's Brand 4.34 5.88 6.48 6.15
Feelings of excitement about the User's Brand 4.65 5.13 6.48 6.39
Sense of confidence about the User's Brand 6.44 4.71 5.74 6.79
Feelings of Social approval User's Brand 6.70 5.17 5.43 6.42
Brand
Resonance
extent of feeling deep connections with others who
uses the User's Brand
6.74 5.8 6.42 5.9 5.69 4.2 6.52 5.2
extent of talking about the User's Brand (word of
mouth) to others
6.30 5.96 4.69 5.61
extent of visiting websites of the User's Brand 4.06 4.33 1.52 2.70
extent of following news about the User's Brand 6.05 6.75 4.90 5.88
Customer Based Brand Equity Measurement: A Case Study of Grameenphone Ltd
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMHRM/index.asp 37 [email protected]
6.2.5. Consumer Based Brand Equity (CBBE) Model of Grameenphone
From the data give above the table here this Brand Pyramid is generated. In this Brand Pyramid of
Grameenphone the value given in each element represents its extent of consumer brand awareness to recall
and recognition. In this CBBE model, GP has remarkable score in judgmental factor. It got highest value in
Brand Salience that means consumers, both the user and non-user of GP are very much aware of the brand.
GP can take action based on this CBBE model. It could improve its performance and feelings of consumers
toward the brand that will lead to rise up the ultimate Brand Resonance.
Figure 5 CBBE Model of Grameenphone Ltd
6.3. Regression Analysis
Using the constructs of the Keller’s CBBE model, a regression analysis has been conducted on the
responses of the users of GP. Here, the Brand Resonance has been used as the dependent variable and the
other constructs (salience, performance, image, judgment and feeling) have been assumed to be the
independent variables. The purpose of the regression analysis is to measure the importance of the
independent variables on the dependent variable.
6.3.1. Coefficient of Determination R2
Coefficient of determination R2, measure or show how much of the variance in one variable can be
explained or predicted by the variance in another .The objective of R2 is to test the integrity of the data in
order to fit the outcome of the calculated variance.
It is used to determine how well the regression line fit the data. It measure what percent of a change in
the dependent variable (Brand Resonance) can be explained by the change in the independent variables
(Salience, Performance, Judgment, Feelings, and Imagery). The value of R2 will be in the range of 0 and 1.
If R2 equals to 0, it represents that there is no relationship between dependent to independent variables
while, if R2 equals to 1, it represents a perfect relationship between variables. Therefore, the line is best
fitted.
Sabiha Matin
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMHRM/index.asp 38 [email protected]
The formula for coefficient of multiple determination is
Sum of squares due to regression
R2 =
Sum of square total
The result of multiple regression analysis among five (5) independent variables and the dependent
variable (Brand Resonance) can be shown in Table 17. The R value is .692, which is the correlation of five
(5) independent variables with dependent variables was taken in to account. It is shown that the coefficient
of multiple determination is R2 = .479 . This means that 47.9 % variation in the dependent variable (Brand
Resonance) is explained by independent variables that are Salience, Performance, Judgment, Feelings, and
Imagery. Note that the adjusted R2 is lower than the unadjusted R2. In this part it related to the number of
variable in the equation.
Table 8 Model Summary of Regression Analysis of GP
a. Predictors: (Constant), Feelings, Salience, Performance, Image, Judgment
6.3.2. Regression Analysis of Coefficient
Coefficient test is shown in Table 18. It helps us to identify which is the most important variable among
five (5) independent variables. The column under the standardized coefficients is shown that the highest
number in beta (ββββ) is .459 for judgment which is significant at o.ooo level. It indicates that Judgment is the
most important independent variable among five (5) independent variables. The result of the coefficient is
shown that Salience and Image are also important independent variables that have the ability to explain
brand resonance because the standardized coefficients are .314 and .261 respectively.
Table 9 Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity
Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) -2.775 .964 -2.879 .005
Salience -.385 .152 -.314 -2.537 .013 .350 2.854
Performance .295 .119 .227 2.478 .015 .640 1.562
Image .485 .205 .261 2.372 .020 .442 2.261
Judgment .769 .201 .459 3.819 .000 .372 2.691
Feelings .297 .122 .196 2.425 .017 .824 1.213
a. dependent variable: resonance
Mod
el R
R
Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error
of the
Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
Change
F
Change df1 df2
Sig. F
Change
1 .692a .479 .452 .69326 .479 17.813 5 97 .000
Customer Based Brand Equity Measurement: A Case Study of Grameenphone Ltd
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMHRM/index.asp 39 [email protected]
7. CONCLUSION
On basis of the previous discussion and the findings in this study, it can be concluded that
telecommunication providers should conduct Brand Equity Measurement professionally. Grameenphone
is operating in a market that has recently opened up for more competitors to enter, resulting in a substantial
drop in profitability because of price erosion. This has resulted in a market where price itself can no longer
be used as a mean to differentiate one company from the others. Furthermore, the market of Bangladesh
shows a tremendous potential, and the mobile penetration is expected to rise from today’s 20-25% to 80%
within 2015 – resulting in 123 million subscribers. In this competitive era, Brand itself can be an option for
competitive advantage. In this study, it also have been found that the consumers in the service category are
very much Brand Sensitive, that means, they vary much care about the brand choice. If Grameenphone will
measure its brand it would get an authentic picture of its brand position. Moreover, this brand equity also
helps this company to add up a remarkable portion in its revenue. So, if Grameenphone is able to build
brand equity, this will lead to a sustainable competitive advantage. This is found by this study that
judgment of the consumer bases on rational perspectives of the brand performance has enormous influence
in building Brand Equity. It can focus its Marketing and Branding strategy based on the judgmental
approaches of its customers.
REFERENCE
[1] Aaker DA, 1991.Managing Brand Equity,The Free Press, New York.
[2] Aaker DA and Keller, 1992. The Effect of sequential introduction and brand extensions, Journal of
Marketing Research.
[3] Aaker, A, David, 1992. The value of Brand Equity, Journal of Business Strategy. Vol 13
[4] Aaker, A. David, 1996. Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets, California Management
Review, Spring
[5] Bentler, PM, 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models, Psychological Buletin
[6] Caldwell , Niall and Joao R. Freire, 2004.The differences between branding a country, a region and a
city: Applying the Brand Box model. Journal of Brand Management.
[7] Datta, PR, 2003. The Determinant of Brand Loyalty, Journal of American Academy of Business, 3, pp-
138-144
[8] Doyle, Peter,2001. Building Value-based branding strategist, Journal of strategic Marketing.
[9] Esch, Franz-Rudolf et al, 2006. Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and relationships affect
current and future purchases, Journal of Product & Brand Management ,13/2.
[10] Gounares, S and Vlasis Stathakopoulos, 2004. Antecedent and consequences of brand equity
management. Journal of Brand Management, April.
[11] Johansson, Johny and Ilenka A. Reihanen, 2005. The esteem of Global Brands, Journal of Brand
management, June.
[12] Jones, Peter and David Hilker, 2002. Customer Perception of Service Brand: A case study of J.D.
Wetherspeons, British Food Journal vol 104 no 10.
[13] Keller Lane, Kevin, 1993. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-based Brand equity,
Journal of Marketing, Jan: 57
[14] Keller Lane, Kevin, 2001. Building Customer-Based Brand Equity. Marketing Management.
[15] Kim Gon Woo and Hong Bumm Kim, 2004. Measuring Customer based restaurant Brand Equity.
Cornell Hotel and restaurant administration quarterly, May.
[16] Kim Bumm Hong and Woo Gon Kim,2004. The relationship between brand equity and
firm’sperformance in luxury hotels and chain restaurants, Tourism management.
Sabiha Matin
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMHRM/index.asp 40 [email protected]
[17] Lassar, et al, 1995. Measuring customer Based Brand Equity. Journal of Consumer Marketing. Vol 12.
[18] Martin M, Ingrid and David W Stewart, 2001. The Differential impact of Goal Congruency on attitudes,
intentions, and transfer of brand equity, Nov,38.
[19] Mattiesen, Insa, Ian Phau, 2005. The Hugo Boss connection : Achieving Global Brand Consistency
across country. Journal of Brand Management
[20] Deepti Verma and Chetna Verma, A Study on Attractiveness Dimensions of Employer Branding in
Technical Educational Institutions. International Journal of Marketing & Human Resource Management
(IJMHRM), 6(1), 2015, pp.36–43.
[21] Mattila, A. S. and Enz, C.A, 2002. The role of emotions in service encounters, Journal of Services
Research, 4(4), 268-277.
[22] Nelson, Susan, 2005. Beyond Branding, Journal of Brand Management. October.
[23] Netmeyer et al, 2004. Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity,
Journal of Business Research.
[24] Odin, Yorick et al, 2001. Conceptual and operational aspects of brand loyalty, An Empirical
investigation, Journal of Business Research,53.
[25] Pappu, Ravi,2005. Consumer-based Brand equity: improving the measurement, Journal of Product and
Brand management.
[26] V.Anandavel, Dr.A.Selvarasu, Economic Value added Performance of BSE--SENSEX Companies
Against its Equity Capital. International Journal of Management (IJM), 3(2),2012, pp.108-123.
[27] Park Su Chan, and V, Srinivasan, 1994.A survey- based method for measuring and understanding Brand
Equity and its extendibility, Journal of Marketing Research.
[28] Van Riel et al, 2005. Marketing antecedents of industrial brand equity: An empirical investigation in
specialty chemical. Industrial Marketing Management, 24.
[29] Washburn, JH. And Plank, RE, 2002. Measuring brand Equity: an evaluation of a consumer-based
brand equity scale. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol.10 no 1. pp,46-61.
[30] Yoo,B. and Donthu,N, 2001. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer- based
brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1),1-14.