interrelationship of aaker’s customer based brand equity ... · 1.1 review of literature the term...

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Online Open Access publishing platform for Management Research

© Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3.0

Research Article ISSN 2229 – 3795

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 297

Volume 4 Issue 2, 2013

Interrelationship of Aaker’s customer based brand equity dimensions:

offering a model to banking sector Sonu Dua1, Ramandeep Chahal2, Aradhana Sharma2

1- Research Scholar, Punjab technical University, Punjab, India

2- Assistant Professor, KCL Institute of Management and Technology

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

The study examined the dimension of customer based brand equity in banking sector. A

model has been developed to identify those factors which has more influenced in building

brand equity. For this purpose structural equation model has been applied to investigate the

interrelationship of Aaker’s brand equity dimensions in banking sector. The result indicated

that all the dimensions have significantly important for building brand equity in banking

sector. The proposed hypotheses were well supported by the model.

Keywords: Brand equity dimensions, Structural equation model, Banking Sector, Reliability

and Validity.

1. Introduction

A brand is a distinguishing name or symbol intended to identify the goods or services of

either one seller or a group of seller and differentiate those products or services from the

competitors (Aaker, 1991). A brand is simply a promise which is given by organization to

their customers. The Promise associated with a brand is important when consumer cannot

verify those attributes which plays important role in product acceptability before purchasing

(Eric, 2009). And the name given to this concept is Hidden values (Borden, 1942) because

consumer cannot inspect such benefits at the time of purchase. The benefits and importance

of brands require experience to be judged its credibility and the value of the brand and is

found in the memory of consumers within target market (Eric and Paul, 2009). The term

brand equity has also been defined as “the enhancement in the perceived utility and

desirability a brand name confers on a product”. Basically, brand equity stems from the

greater confidence than consumers place in a brand then they do in its competitors. This

confidence translates into consumer loyalty and their willingness to pay premium price for

that brand (Lassar et al, 1995).

Kapferer (1997) mentioned in their study that before 1980, there was totally different

approach towards brand. Companies were focusing on producer product instead of place in

the mind of the customer, but afterwards the focused was changed towards making a place in

the mind of the customer. Kapferer (1997) also identified eight function of brand for the

customer. The first two factors (Identification and Practicality) are mechanical and essence of

the brand, the next three (Guarantee, Optimization and Characterization) are related to reduce

the perceived risk and last three (Continuity, Hedonistic and Ethical) are related with pleasure

of brand.

Interrelationship of Aaker’s customer based brand equity dimensions: Offering a model to banking sector

Sonu Dua, Ramandeep Chahal, Aradhana Sharma

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH


298

Earlier brand has been treated as an off-hand fashion as a part of the product (Urde 1999).

Similarly kotler (2000) also mentioned the branding is major concern area of product

category. Kapferer (1997) also mentioned that brand is a sign whose function is to disclose

the potential qualities of the product. Branding is always attached with the tangible goods, but

it is as important for service industry. For manufacturing or trading concern physical product

is a brand; in similar fashion for service industry service organization or service provider is

brand. For instance, the branding efforts for physical products can be materialized through

various marketing strategies such as packaging, labeling etc., but in case of services it is

difficult to materialize, because service are less standardized and are composed of various

attributes, the value must be inferred by the customer (Cobb-welgren, Ruble & Donthu, 1995).

Here comes the importance of brand equity which discusses the crucial issues related to

service industry (Keller, 1993, Aaker, 1996, Dyson et al., 1996).For service industry , brand

equity provides greater advantage in terms of higher profits and loyal customer, which could

save the organization from competitor attacks. (Berry, 2000). A service can be considered as

value service if it provides satisfaction to the customer. Once the service brand value is

created in the mind of perspective customer then this will directly lead to customer loyalty.

(Aaker 1991, Kapferer 1995)

1.1 Review of literature

The term brand equity can be studied from two different perspectives i.e. financial and

customer based. (Lassar, 1995) The first perspective is related with the financial asset value

that creates to the business, but in this study there will be no focus on financial perspective.

The second perspective is customer baser based, in which customer response to brand name

is evaluated. (Lassar,1995). Brand equity is considered as value which the consumer

associates with the brand. (Aaker 1991).Aaker has developed the conceptual framework for

measuring customer based brand equity with the help of four dimensions: Brand awareness,

brand loyalty, perceived quality of brand and brand associations.

Brand awareness includes whether the organization is able to create that position which may

take place position of the product on the top of mind (K.H. Kim et al.2008). Brand awareness

also represents customer ability to identify a brand in their memory, and this concept is

considered as brand recall. (Aaker, 1991).Besides this Aaker and Keller also identified some

of the other important aspects in brand awareness: brand dominance, brand knowledge and

brand opinion. (Aaker, 1991) (Keller,1996). Brand knowledge and brand opinion can be used

to explore the concept of brand recall. (Keller,1993) stated that brand recognition is most

important aspect of brand awareness and customer based brand equity occurs when the

customer is fully aware about the product and holds some strong association in the memory.

Brand recall refers to when consumer can correctly generate the brand from memory

(Tuominen, 2000). The importance of brand recognisition and brand recall is totally depends

upon the decision taken by the customer at the time of purchase. (Keller, 1993)

Brand loyalty is considered as one of the important concept of brand equity. Aaker, (1991)

defined loyalty the attachment that a customer has to a brand. Gremler (1996) defined the

loyalty in different levels. Behavioral loyalty is directly linked with consumer behaviour in

market place. Cognitive loyalty comes into mind of the customer when the actual purchase is

made. (Oliver, 1999) defined the loyalty” a commitment from the consumer to purchase

again product near the future, despite situational influences and marketing efforts that could

change the mindset of the customer. Bachler (2004) explained the loyal customer is one

whose purchase decision is insensitive to pricing and shows their loyalty toward the

organization.





299

Perceived quality is also one of the most important component of brand equity (Aaker,1991)

perceived quality does not mean only the actual quality of the product but more related with

evaluation parameters assumes by the consumer to the product quality (Zeithaml, 1988).

Perceived quality also deals with customer perception of the brand of total quality. According

to Muller and wood (1998) combination of quality of service and product is crucial in

determining the brand equity. Zeithmal (1988) has breaken down the concept into two parts

i.e. Intrinsic attributes and Extrinsic attributes. Intrinsic attributes are related with the

physical attributes of the product and extrinsic attributes is related with the indispensible

branding attributes such as brand name, quality, stamp of quality etc.

Brand association is also one of the most integral as well as accepted component of brand

equity. Association represents the basis for purchase as well as brand loyalty. (Aaker, 1991,

1992). Brand association is related with product related thoughts, feelings perception, images,

beliefs, attitude etc (Keller, 2006). Chen (2001) has categorized brand association into two

categories such as product association and organization association. Product association

includes functional as well as non functional attributes (intangible attributes) are as follows:

social image, perceived value, trustworthiness, differentiation, country of origin.

Organization association includes corporate ability association, corporate social responsibility

etc.

2. Objective of the study

The primary objective of the study is to examine the interrelationship of Aaker’s (1991)

customer based brand equity dimensions in banking sector. The focus of this research is to

develop a valid and reliable model with the help of multiple dimensions of brand equity

constructs using confirmatory factor analysis.

2.1 Hypothesis for the proposed framework

H1: Brand awareness has significant positive effect on brand equity.

H2: Brand Association has significant positive effect on brand equity.

H3: Perceived quality has significant positive effect on brand equity.

H4: Brand Loyalty has significant positive effect on brand equity.

Figure 1: Conceptual Model on Interrelationship of Aaker’s Customer based brand equity

Dimensions in banking sector





300

3. Research methodology

The framework is based upon the four dimensions of brand equity i.e. Brand awareness,

Brand Loyalty, Perceived quality and Brand Association. The entire constructs were

measured using Five point Likert scale. The statements were collected with the help of

reviews. And data was collected through structured questionnaire from 150 respondents. The

study conducted were cross sectional in nature and follows causal research design. Mainly

three private banks were taken for the study. Self administered questionnaire were used for

the data collection. Data analysis of this research is processed by using (SPSS) 16.0 and

AMOS 20 statistical software.

3.1 Data Analysis and Interpretation: SEM-Analysis Procedure

The SEM process consists of two stages: Validating and measurement model and fitting the

structural model. The validation of measurement model is accomplished through (a)

confirmatory factor analysis and the estimation of structural model is accomplished through

(b) path analysis. Anderson and Gerbing recommended these two stages. It is necessary to

analyses the structural part of the model with satisfactory reliability and validity

3.2 (A) Conducting CFA to test the Measurement Model

The reliability analysis of the all the constructs such as brand awareness, brand association,

perceived quality and brand loyalty indicates high reliability as it is above 0.6, which is a

good signal for proposed model.

Table 2: Reliability analysis of constructs

S. No Constructs Cronbach’s α

1 Brand awareness (BAWW) 0.78

2 Brand association (BASS) 0.81

3 Perceived quality (PQQ) 0.84

4 Brand loyalty (BLL) 0.79

5 Brand Equity (BEE) 0.82

Source: Output Generated from SPSS 16.0

3.3 Validity Analyses

The validity of model could be checked with the help of various following tools of validity

measure.

3.3.1 (a) Discriminant Validity

Two issues has been taken care while performing the structural equation modeling: (a)

Average variance explained (AVE) should be greater than Maximum shared variance (MSV)

( b) Average variance explained (AVE) should be greater than Average shared variance

(ASV).

1. From the below Table No. It can be concluded that Average variance explained

(AVE) of Brand association (BASS) 0.510 is greater than Maximum shared variance

(MSV) of the same construct i.e. 0.457. Similarly Average variance explained (AVE)

of Perceived quality (PQQ) is 0.521, Brand Loyalty (BLL): 0.595, Brand association

(BAWW): 0.535; Brand equity (BEE): 0.609 is Greater than the Maximum shared





301

variance (MSV) of Perceived quality (PQQ) 0.457, Brand Loyalty (BLL): 0.156,

Brand Loyalty (BLL): 0.504, Brand equity (BEE): 0.011

2. And the second issue of Discriminate validity analysis is Average variance explained

(AVE) should be greater than Average shared variance (ASV). Again from the above

table it can be concluded that Average variance explained (AVE) of Brand association

(BASS), Perceived quality (PQQ), Brand Loyalty (BLL), Brand association

(BAWW), Brand equity (BEE): ( i.e. 0.510, 0.521, 0.595, 0.535, 0.609) is greater

than the Maximum shared variance (MSV) of BASS, PQQ, BLL, BAWW, BEE ( i.e.

0.457, 0.504, 0.156, 0.504, 0.011) respectively.

3.3.2 (b) Convergent validity

Three issues have been taken care while performing the structural equation modeling:( a)

Alpha should be greater than 0.7 ( b) Average variance explained (AVE) should be greater

than 0.5 ( c) Alpha should be greater than Average variance explained (AVE).

1. The alpha value of all constructs (BASS: 0.78, PQQ: 0.85, BLL: 0.79, BAA: 0.81,

BEE: 0.82) is higher than 0.70.

2. The Average variance explained (AVE) of BASS, PQQ, BLL, BAWW, BEE ( i.e.

0.510, 0.521, 0.595, 0.535, 0.609) is greater than the 0.5

3. The alpha value of all constructs (BASS: 0.78, PQQ: 0.85, BLL: 0.79, BAA: 0.81,

BEE: 0.82) is higher than The Average variance explained (AVE) of BASS, PQQ,

BLL, BAWW, BEE ( i.e. 0.510, 0.521, 0.595, 0.535, 0.609).

Table 3: Details of various validity issues

CR AVE MSV ASV BASS PQQ BLL

BAW

W BEE

BASS 0.805 0.510 0.457 0.254 0.714

PQQ 0.845 0.521 0.504 0.277 0.676 0.722

BLL 0.810 0.595 0.156 0.113 0.395 0.368 0.771

BAW

W 0.772 0.535 0.504 0.267 0.630 0.710 0.395 0.732

BEE 0.823 0.609 0.011 0.008 0.082 0.100 0.071 0.107 0.780

Source: Output generated from Stats tool package: Validity Master

CR-Composite Reliability; AVE-Average variance explained; MSV- Maximum shared

variance; ASV- Average shared variances

3.3.3 (c) Construct validity: The validity of various constructs could be seen with the help

of various parameters.

Table 4: Goodness of fit indices for individual constructs

S.

No

Parameters BASS PQQ BLL BEE BAWW

1 Comparitive Fit Index CFI 1.0 0.99 0.96 1.0 1.0

2 Goodness of Fit Index GFI 1.0 0.98 0.97 1.0 1.0

3 Adjusted Goodness of Fit 0.99 0.95 0.84 0 0





302

Index AGFI

4 Root Mean Square Error

of Approximation ,RMEA

0.00 0.45 0.15 0 0

5 Root Mean Square

Residual, RMR

0.001 0.16 0.02 0.006 0.005

Source: Output generated from AMOS 20

From the above table no.3, finally it is clearly shown that the parameters are absolutely valid

according to the premises of construct validity; hence the structural equation modeling can be

easily performed to check the applicability of the model.

3.3.4 (d) Nomological validity

It is tested by examining whether the correlations between the constructs in the measurement

model make sense. The construct covariance helps in determining the significant level of all

constructs with each other and positive correlations are used to assess nomological validity.

Table 5: Covariance and correlation of all constructs with each other

Construct Covariance Correlation P

PQQ <--> BLL 0.368 0.001

PQQ <--> BAWW 0.510 0.001

PQQ <--> BASS 0.621 0.001

PQQ <--> BEE 0.295 0.001

BLL <--> BAWW 0.395 0.001

BLL <--> BASS 0.395 0.001

BLL <--> BEE 0.071 0.001

BAWW <--> BASS 0.512 0.001

BAWW <--> BEE 0.214 0.001

BASS <--> BEE 0.345 0.001

Note: P<0.05 Output generated from AMOS 20

The above table shows that all construct covariance are highly significant and the value of all

relationship falls in permissible limits and secondly all the construct are positively related and

the value are also as per permissible limits.

Table 6: CFA Result

CFA Result of the Indicator Variables

Construct Scale Item Factor Loadings Composite

Reliability

A) Perceived Quality 1- PQ1

2- PQ2

3- PQ3

4- PQ4

5- PQ5

0.81

0.75

0.81

0.77

0.79

0.86

B) Brand Loyalty 1- BL1

2- BL2

3- BL3

0.89

0.73

0.89

0.81

C) Brand Awareness 1- BAW1

2- BAW2

3- BAW3

0.85

0.81

0.83

0.77

D) Brand Association 1- BAS1 0.82





303

2- BAS2

3- BAS3

4- BAS4

0.79

0.79

0.78

0.81

E) Brand Equity 1- BE1

2- BE2

3- BE3

0.89

0.87

0.83

0.82

Source: Output Generated from AMOS 20.0

As reported in table no: 1.5 (a), the factor loadings were highly significant and exceeded the

0.5 levels, and the requirement for the measurement reliability were met with the composite

reliability that has also reached at cut off point 0.6. Now this would be considered for factor

analytic investigation. The composite reliability is calculated through sum of the individual

item loadings divided by squared sum of loadings plus the sum of error variance for the

measures. This measure of internal consistency is similar to cronbach’s alpha

3.5 (B) Conducting Path Analysis

Table 7: Goodness of fit indices on structural linear model

Name of Index Judgement

Value

Literary Contribution

Comparitive Fit Index CFI >0.90 Bentler (1995)

Goodness of Fit Index GFI >0.85 Hu and Betler (1999)

Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index AGFI >0.80

Parsimonious Goodness of Fit Index >0.50 Mathwick (2001)

Root Mean Square Error of

Approximation ,RMEA

<0.08 Browne and Cudeck

(1993)

Root Mean Square Residual, RMR <0.05 Hair et.al (1998)

Source: Taken From Various Reviews

Table 8: Goodness of fit indices of proposed structural linear model

S.No Name of Index Results

1 Chi-square 180.243

2 Degree of freedom 125

3 Chi-square/ Degree of freedom 1.44

4 Comparitive Fit Index CFI 0.95

5 Goodness of Fit Index GFI 0.89

6 Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index AGFI 0.84

7 Normed Fit Index NFI 0.85

8 Incremental Fit Index IFI 0.95

9 Root Mean Square Error of

Approximation ,RMEA

0.03

10 Root Mean Square Residual, RMR 0.05

Source: Output Generated from AMOS 20.0

After testing reliability and validity of the constructs, the next step is related with path analysis,

which helps in examining the overall fit measures. Analysis of path model (Chi-

Square=180.243, CFI= 0.95, GFI= 0.89, AGFI=0.84, NFI=0.85, IFI=0.95, RMSEA=0.03,

RMR=0.05) yielded a reasonable fit to data. The goodness of fit indices, which are less





304

sensitive to sample size, indicated good fit. The value of GFI and NFI are above the cut-off

criterion which could be seen in Table no-2.1 (b). And similarly CFI and Incremental fit

Indices are also above the permissible value. Furthermore the value of RMSEA and RMR also

falls in the guidelines of acceptability. Now model is fit enough to perform further analysis

4. Summary of Hypotheses testing

Table 9: Result of structural model for hypotheses testing

Hypotheses Standardized Beta (t) Significant level Hypotheses

Support

Perceived Quality to

Brand Equity

0.058 (4.91) 0.001 Supported (Yes)

Brand Loyalty to

Brand Equity

0.051 (5.60) 0.001 Supported (Yes)

Brand Awareness to

Brand Equity

0.059 (4.29) 0.001 Supported (Yes)

Brand Association

to Brand Equity

0.043(5.63) 0.001 Supported (Yes)

Note: significant p ≤ .05

Output Generated from AMOS 20.0

H1 Stated that Perceived quality has direct positive effect on brand equity, as table no-2.2 (b),

indicated that effect of perceived quality on brand equity is hypothesized direction and it was

statistically significant. (Standardized Beta=0.058, p <0.01) Accordingly this hypothesis was

strongly supported.

H2 It was hypothesized that Brand Loyalty has direct positive effect on brand equity, as table

no-2.2 (b), indicated that effect of Brand Loyalty on brand equity is hypothesized direction

and it was statistically significant. (Standardized Beta=0.051, p <0.01) Accordingly this

hypothesis was strongly supported.

H3 predicted that Brand awareness has direct positive effect on brand equity, as table no-2.2

(b), indicated that effect of Brand awareness on brand equity is hypothesized direction and it

was statistically significant. (Standardized Beta=0.059, p <0.01) Accordingly this hypothesis

was strongly supported.

H4 It was hypothesized that Brand Association has direct positive effect on brand equity, as

table no-2.2 (b), indicated that effect of Brand Association on brand equity is hypothesized

direction and it was statistically significant. (Standardized Beta=0.043, p <0.01) Accordingly

this hypothesis was strongly supported.

5. Conclusion

The empirical findings of the study confirm that the proposed model and the actual results

has no significant difference. The mechanism that is followed in this paper through which

independent variable (Perceived quality, brand awareness, Brand Loyalty and Brand

association) are able to positively influence to Brand equity. In India, where banking sector

are spreading on large scale, more and more private players are going to take this opportunity

by entering into this sector within two years. So with the help of this very simple model,

companies can easy attract their potential customers. Perceived quality plays an integral role

especially for new companies, similarly brand awareness takes some time but it requires





305

higher attention of management so that most of the people may consider the brand while

searching for their product. Brand association generally deals with functional part of the

organization, which may directly lead to brand loyalty

5.1 Scope for future research

The study is confined in limited geographical area and based upon the data of three banks.

Researcher may explore this model into wide geographical area along with more banks. Even

there is also a scope of studying this model with the help of marketing mix variable.

6. References

1. Aaker, D.A., (1996), Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California

management review, 38(3), pp 102-120.

2. Aaker, D., (1996), Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California

management review, 38 (3), pp 102-120.

3. Anderson, J. & Gerbing, D. W., (1982), Some methods for respecifying measurement

models to obtain unidimensional construct management. Journal of marketing

research, 19(4), pp 453-460.

4. Berry, L.L., (2000), Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the academy of

marketing science, 28, pp 128-37.

5. Bentler P. M. & Bonett D. G., (1980), Significance tests and goodness of fit in the

analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, pp 588-606.

6. Borden, N. H., (1942), The economic effects of advertising. Chicago: Richard D.

Irwin.

7. Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R., (1993), Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit: In

Bollen K. A. and Long J. S. (Eds.). Testing Structural Equation Models.” New-bury

Park: Sage, pp 136-162.

8. Chen, A.C.H., (2001), Using free association to examine the relationship between the

characteristics of brand associations and brand equity. Journal of product & brand

management 10 (7), pp 439 – 451.

9. Chen, H.C. & Green, R. D., (2009), Marketing mix and branding: competitive

hypermarket strategies. International Journal of management and marketing research,

2(1), pp 17-33.

10. Cobb-Walgren, C.J. Ruble, C.A. & Donthu, N., (1995), Brand equity, brand

preference, and purchase intent. Journal of Advertising, XXIV, pp 25-40.

11. Eric, A.G. & Paul, W.A., (2009), Perspectives on brand equity. Darden business

publishing, University of Virginia.

12. Gremler, D. & Brown S.W., (1996), The loyalty ripple effect: appreciating the full

value of customers. International journal of service industry management, 10(3), pp

271-293.





306

13. Hair F Joseph et.al (2011), Multivariate data analysis. Pearson New Delhi.

14. Hu L. & Bentler P. M., (1999), Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure

analysis: Conventional Criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling,

6(1), pp 1-55.

15. Jalilvand, M. R. & Samiei, N., (2011), The effect of brand equity components on

purchase intention: An application of Aaker’s model in the automobile industry.

Journal of international business and management, 2(2), pp 149-158.

16. Kapferer, (1997). Strategic Brand Management. Great Britain, Kogan, pp.58-62.

17. Keller, K. L., (1996), Brand equity and integrated communication. in: E. Thorson and

J. Moore (eds), Integrated communications: Synergy of persuasive voices, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum associates, pp 103-132.

18. Keller, K.L., (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based

brand equity. Journal of marketing, 57, pp.1-22.

19. Kim, K. H. Kim, K. S. Kim, D. U. Kim, J. H. & Kang, S. H., (2008), Brand equity

in hospital marketing. Journal of business research, 61, pp 75–82.

20. Lassar, W. Mittal, B. & Sharma, A., (1995), Measuring Customer-Based Brand

Equity. Journal of consumer marketing, 12 (4), pp 11-19.

21. Mathwick C. Malhotra N. & Rigdon E., (2001), Experiential value: conceptualization

measurement and Application in the catalog and Internet shopping environment.

Journal of retailing, pp 39-56.

22. Oliver, R. L., (1999), Whence consumer loyalty. Journal of marketing, 63, pp 33–44.

23. Teuminen, Pekka., (2000), Customer based brand equity: delivering value for the firm,

trade and customer. Turku school of Economics and Business Administration. Series

A-1:2000. Turko pp 305-316.

24. Urde, Mats., (1999), Brand Orientation: A Mindset for Building Brands into Strategic

Resources. Journal of marketing management, 15, pp 117-133.

25. Yoo, B. & Donthu, N., (1999), Developing and validating multidimensional

consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of business research, 52(1), pp 1–14.

26. Yoo, B. & Donthu, N. Lee, Sungho., (2000), An examination of selected marketing

mix elements and brand equity. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 28(2),

pp195-211.

27. Zeithaml, V.A., (1988), Consumer perceptions of price, Quality, and Value: A means-

end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of marketing, 52(3), pp 2-22.





307

Annexure-1: Questionnaire

S.No Construct and Measures Review

Contribution

Perceived Quality

1 This bank uses high technology for its services

(Lassar,1995))

(Yoo et al, 1999)

2 Product/Services of this bank are of good quality

3 Product/Services of my bank are very reliable

4 My bank provides excellent product/Service features

5 The services of bank are effective

Brand Awareness

1 I am fully aware about the services/Products of my bank (Yoo et al ,1999)

2 My bank is easily recognized as compare to others

3 The staff of my bank is more knowledgeable

Brand Association

1 My bank gives me feeling of social approval

(Chen,2009)

2 People really admire the services of my bank

3 I like the bank very much

4 This bank creates distinction picture in the mind of the

customer

Brand Loyalty

1 I am loyal to this bank

(Jalilvand,2011)

2 I am always interested in learning more facts about my

bank

3 I will recommend the services to other people also

4 In future, I would like to avail more services from this

bank.

Brand Equity

1 I will prefer to buy the product of this bank instead of any

other, even if they are the same

(Yoo et al ,2000)

2 Even if another brand has same features as my bank, I

would prefer my bank.

3 If there is another bank as good as my bank, I prefer to my

bank.

interrelationship of aaker’s customer based brand equity ... · 1.1 review of literature the term...

Documents