TuribaUniversity

SyedAliAbbas

SYNOPSISOFTHEDOCTORALTHESIS

FormationofBrandLoyaltyMatrixforHigherEducationInstitutions(HEIs)

Developedfordoctor’sdegreeinBusinessAdministration(Dr.oec)DoctoralstudyprogrammeBusinessAdministration

Author

SyedAliAbbas

ScientificSupervisorDr.phil.,ProfessorVelgaVēvere

Riga2020

2

SyedAliAbbasSYNOPSISOFTHEDOCTORALTHESISFormationofBrandLoyaltyMatrixforHigherEducationInstitutions(HEIs)The Doctoral thesis consists of 232 pages including 25 tables, 27 figures and 32Appendixes.Thelistofliteraturecontains253sources.ScientificSupervisor

Dr.phil.,ProfessorVelgaVēvereOfficialreviewers

Dr.paed.InetaLuka,TuribaUniversity,professor,LatviaDr.paed.JelenaDavidova,DaugavpilsUniversity,LatviaDr.PhD.MariaKovacova,UniversityofZilina,Slovakia

DefenceoftheDoctoralThesisshallbeheldatthepublicsittingoftheDoctoralBoardforBusinessAdministrationatTuribaUniversityonApril15,2020atTuribaUniversity,GrauduStreet68,Riga.TheDoctoralThesisanditsSynopsisisaccessibleforpublicreviewatthelibraryofTuribaUniversity,GrauduStreet68.ChairpersonoftheDoctoralBoardforBusinessAdministration,TuribaUniversity

Dr.oec.RositaZvirgzdiņaSecretaryoftheDoctoralBoardforBusinessAdministration,TuribaUniversity

Dr.oec.IvetaLiniņa©SyedAliAbbas,2020©TuribaUniversity,2020

3

ANNOTATION

There was a time when branding was limited to Fast MovingConsumerGoodsandmassmanufacturers,buttherecenttimeshaveseentheimportanceofmarketingandbrandmanagementofnovelsectorslikeeducation. So, in the era where institutions aremarketing themselvesaggressivelytogetcustomer/studentattention,itbecomessignificanttooverviewstudents’expectationsaswhatisvaluedbythemthemostandwhatcanmakethemrepurchase/reuseandloyaltotheirchosenbrand.Considering the very fact, this thesis aims to investigate the impact ofbrand awareness of HEI (Higher Education Institutions) and servicequality‐togetherwiththemediatingroleofbrandtrustonbrandloyaltyofHEIsinthelongrun.

Chapter1of the thesisdiscussesbranding inhighereducationinstitutions and an overview of research context i.e. Pakistan’s Highereducation.

Chapter 2 analyses the literature encompassing necessaryconcepts regarding branding, previous studies about higher educationbranding and theoretical models discussing determinants and factorsaffectingcustomer(student)loyalty.

Chapter3bringsanalysisandinterpretationofresearchactivityconducted in the thesis. The study is correlational by design withparametricapproach.Quantitativedataconsistsofstudentsasrespondents,whereas semi structured interviews were conducted from heads ofmarketing and admission committee of various institutes to check theimpactof“Bandawareness”and“ServiceQuality”onbrandloyaltyofstudents.As inferential statistics was employed, Factor analysis and regressionanalysiswereconductedalongwithrequireddescriptiveandreliabilitytestsusingSPSS.Theresultsdepictedthatthoughbothbrandawarenessandservicequalityeffectsbrandloyaltyofeducationalinstitutes,it’stheservicequalitythatcontributesmoretobrandloyaltyinthelongrun,yetbothaspectsworksidebysideandneedtobefocused.

Chapter4ofthethesistakeaidfromliteraturereview,empiricalfindings and expert analysis. Based on this information from previous

4

chapters, the development,working and implications of BrandLoyaltyMatrix(BLM)hasbeendiscussedaspartofScientificNoveltyofthestudy.The developed Brand Loyalty Matrix gives new insights and discussdifferent scenarios limiting the use of both service quality and brandpromotion as per market scenarios in which the HEIs are operating.Recommendationsandsuggestionshavebeenputasnecessaryimplicationsof this BLM, thus aiding Higher education Institutions, students, stateaccreditationbodiesandconsultancyfirmsinmakinginformeddecisions.Also,thebrandloyaltymatrixisoneofitskind,thenoveltyofwhichcanprove out to be valuable and vital as per theoretical contribution infurtherresearchtocome.

TheDoctoralthesisconsistsof232pagesincluding25tables,27figuresand32Appendixes.Thelistofliteraturecontains253sources.

Keywords:brandmanagement,highereducationbranding,brandloyalty of HEIs, service quality, brand trust, brand awareness, studentrelationshipmanagement.

5

CONTENTS

ANNOTATION......................................................................................................3

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................6

1.UNDERSTANDINGTHENOTIONOFBRANDINGINTHECONTEXTOFHIGHEREDUCATIONINSTITUTIONS................................................201.1.BrandManagement.......................................................................................201.2.BrandingofHigherEducationInstitutions.........................................211.3.RetainingBrandLoyaltyanditsSignificance.....................................231.4.WordofMouth,Satisfaction&Perception..........................................251.5.OverviewofHigherEducationContextinPakistan.......................26

2.ESSENTIALBRANDINGCONCEPTS........................................................28

3.CUSTOMEREVALUATIONFORDEVELOPINGBRANDLOYALTYMATRIX........................................................................................................433.1.Methodology&ResearchDesign.............................................................433.2.TheQuantitativeInvestigationsandBreakdown..................................483.3.RegressionandHypothesisTesting.......................................................59

4.MATRIXFORHIGHEREDUCATIONBRANDLOYALTY.....................65

CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................73

References........................................................................................................79

6

INTRODUCTION

In the erawherepromoting a brandhas becomepriority of everyindustrytoflourishandstrengtheningthebrandhasbecomedeterminantalofsuccess for long‐term growth, the need for proper brand management isbecoming especially significant. A time in which running promotionalcampaignsandpreferringadvertisementbudgetsoverqualitywaslimitedtofastmovingconsumergoods(FMCGs)only,hastakentransitiontothenovelsectorslikeeducation(Simoes&Soares,2010:372),astheseinstitutesareonthevergeofaggressivepromotionalcampaigns(Amzat,2016;Celly&Knepper,2010;Hemsley‐Brown&Goonawardana,2007;Maringe&Gibbs,2009).Forinstitute being big or small, old or new,whether located in Africa or Asia,EuropeorAmerica–thefocustowardsattractingstudentsisatoppriorityofeducationalinstitutes(Elliot&Healy,2001:4)whichismaintainedthroughproperbrandmanagement.Apparently,itlooksasgonearethetimeswhenqualitywasconsideredbycustomers(students)theonlycriteriaforselectinganeducationalinstituteashowwellthebrandisfamiliarandestablishedisakey attribute in their decision‐making process now (Eisend& Stokburger‐Sauer,2013:214).Theywanttheireducationalinstitutetobefamousorhaveanawarenessincommon,sotheycarrywiththematagofanacclaimedandtrustedbrand;thus,helpingtheminjobplacementaswell(Mabkhot,Shaari,&Salleh, 2017). While students and guardians (being customers) prefer arenowned brand as their educational institute (Kayombo & Carter, 2017),higher education institutions (HEIs) are considering this rising trendas anopportunity and making all necessary attempts to brand their institute(Mavondo,Tsarenko&Gabbott,2004;Schertzer&Schertzer,2004:90).

Theotheraspect,however,ofthispromotionorientationcouldbethefactthatqualityproviderinstitutionwhicharelackinginpromotionalrun could become unfamiliar. Therefore, it is important for theseinstitutes/universities to consider the aspect of Brand awareness fortheir respective institutes aswell (Chen andChen, 2014: 143).Havingsaidthisall,thisdiscussionisextendedtothefactthatwhatisthebestcombination of both brand awareness and service quality that cancontribute to ultimate brand loyalty of higher education institutions.

7

Attracting the students through various promotional aspects andapparentclaimsmighthelpuniversitiesinmakingstudentsasone‐timeconsumers, but the need is to find what happens with the loyalty ofeducationalinstitutesinthelongrun,andthisisgoingtobetheresearchproblemtobediscussedinthelatersection.

In short, continuing with business terminology, a company isexpectedtogrowtillthetimethecustomermakesrepetitivepurchase(Dick& Basu, 1994: 111) and in context of higher education institutions therepetitivenessofcustomer’spurchasemeanstheeducationinstitutionisonrighttrack.ThoughZehiretal.(2011)discusstheimpactofestablishedbrandandservicequalityonbuildingbrandloyaltyinautomobileandotherserviceindustries, the need is to analyze the contribution of established andesteemedbrandawarenessandservicequalityonbrand loyaltyofhighereducationinstitutions.Notonlythis,asitisalsoimportanttoanalyzethatisitwhollysolelytheoneattributeoutoftwodiscussedaboveoracombinationoftwoalongwithsomeotherfactors?OrisitafitbetweenthetwoaspectsthatneedtobechosenbyHEIsindifferentscenarios.Whatcanreallywincustomer’s trust andwhat canmake them to repurchase from the samebrandofinstitutions,istheneedofhourformoderndayHEIstoknow.Theseinstitutionsarecompetinginredoceanfosteringperfectmarketcompetition(Lamboy,2011)whereitwillbetheloyaltyofcustomersthatensuresthelong‐termcompetitiveadvantage.Talkingaboutpreviousstudiesinthefieldofhighereducationresearch,thenotablerecentworksincludeAlam,Adnan& Afridi (2018: 5) according to whom internal branding impacts oninstitutionalbrandingeneral.Theauthorshaveemphasizedontheroleofstaffandworkforcetoreflectonoverallinstitutionalbrandimage.Incontrasttotheformers’pointofviewAlametal.(2019)presentfindingsonissueswhich HEIs in Bangladesh are facing as part of their inability to brandrespective institutes. The authors further reveal that students do preferhighlybrandedinstitutesoverqualityeducationthatgivesthisresearchaleadaswellaboutessentialbrandingconceptsi.e.BrandAwareness,BrandTrustandBrandLoyaltyetc.sothatitisbetteranalyzedtonotonlytoattractthesecustomers(students)buteffortsshouldbemadetoretainthemaswell.These are the real concerns which are raised in this research as part ofresearchproblemdiscussedinthesectionbelow.

8

ProblemStatementTakingleadfromintroductionpartanddiscussingtheimpactof

claimsbyhighereducationinstitutionsbeingbigbrand,beingrenownedortrustedbrandandclaimingasabrandofwhichpeopleareaware,itisimportant to figure outwhether the admitted students considertheirdecisionwiseandaimtorepeatpurchaseinthenearfutureoronetimepromotion,claimed,knownandfamiliarqualityofservicesbyHEIsaregoodenough to retainstudents in the long run.WhathappenstothetrustfactorafterwardswhichisinitiallydevelopedbyHEIat the time of admissions? Asmostly it is observed that students’ lostinterest in the due course and are seen complaining about not gettingwhattheywerepromisedfor.ThisisgenerallytheproblemwithquiteafewaggressivelybrandedHEIs,andneedistoanalyzethecontributionofestablished brand awareness of HEI in developing brand loyalty. Docustomersasstudents/guardians/parents/decisionmakers/opinionmakers/influencerscontinuetousetheservicesorratetheservicessameasthesewereguaranteedortheeducationalinstitutionsfailedtoupdatethemselveswithchangingdynamicsofcompetition.Thetrustfactorisanotheraspectwhich can keep on reducingwith every passing semester or it can beincreasedifthebigbrandshavebeenabletosustaincompetitiveadvantageovertheircounterparts.AsperJoseph,Mullen&Spake(2012:7),theintegralaspect of service quality that ranges from quality teaching to studentcounselling and from infrastructure to efficient job placements aregenerallymissedandtheinstitutionsmissingontheseaspectslosetheircustomer loyalty. So, theneed is to tackle thisproblemand to suggesthighereducationinstitutionsthebestfitofbothimportantandintegralaspectsofbrandloyaltyi.e.BrandAwarenessandServicequality.

Thedifferentscenariosinwhichtheseinstitutionsshouldbehaveaccordinglyandthesituationswhereanalterationofstrategybecomesamusttakesustoformulateobjectivesofthestudywhicharediscussedinthenextsection.

AreaofResearch

HighereducationBrandloyalty.

9

ObjectoftheResearchImpactofbrandawarenessandservicequalityonbrandloyalty

ofHigherEducationInstitutions(HEIs).

HypothesisBrandAwarenessandServiceQuality increasestudent truston

theHEIs,whichinturnaffectsstudents’commitmentandenhancesHEIs’brand loyalty, while in comparison service quality contributes moretowardsHEIs’longtermbrandloyalty.

Themain hypothesis is supported by the following supportinghypothesis,whichwillbetestedempirically.H1:Brandawareness(BA)positivelyaffectsBrandtrust(BT).H2:Servicequality(SQ)hassignificantimpactonBrandTrust(BT)H3:BrandTrust(BT)hassignificantimpactonBrandLoyalty(BL).H4:Brandawareness(BA)haspositiveimpactonbrandloyalty(BL).H5:Servicequality(SQ)hassignificantimpactonBrandLoyalty(BL)H6:Brand trust (BT)playsamediatingrolebetweenBrandawareness(BA)andBrandloyaltyH7:Brandtrust(BT)playsamediatingrolebetweenServicequality(SQ)andBrandloyalty(BL).

GoaloftheStudy

TomakecomparativeanalysisoftheeffectofBrandAwarenessandServiceQualityonHEIs’brandloyaltyandtodevelopBrandLoyaltyMatrixforHigherEducationInstitutions,whichmayfurtheraidHEIstofocusontheirbrandpositioningandrepositioningandenableotherstakeholdersi.e.students,stateaccreditationbodiesandconsultancyfirmstoproceed with informed decision making and developing strategiesaccordingly.

10

TasksoftheStudyThe following are the tasksorganized to achieve thedescribed

goalofthestudy: to study scientific literature encompassing student loyalty,servicequality,brandawarenessandtrustfactors;

toreviewpreviousstudiesonHEIbrandingforcontributionintheexistingfield;

tooverviewPakistan’sHEIsector/market; to evaluate customers’ (students’) expectations about factorsresponsiblefortheirbrandloyaltyinordertochoosethebestfit of brand awareness and service quality to increase brandloyalty;

employing validated questionnaires as part of primaryresearch to record respondent’s viewas input to results andconductinginterviewsfromtheexpertsinthefield;

work out Branding orientedmodels andModel for BrandingHigher Education Institutions to reach the development ofbrandloyaltymatrixforHEIs.

Limitationsofthestudy

The Higher Education branding is such a diverse field that itsimpactmayvaryfromcourse(studyprogram)tocourse,countrytocountrywithvaryingdemographicsandcultures,havinglessormorepopulationandotherpsychographicfeatures.So,thesefactorsmightshowdeviationsastheresearchcontextisPakistan’shighereducationsector.Also,HEIsbeingstateorprivatecanaccountfordifferentmonetarysufficiency,howeverthesamedepthanddiversity in the fieldpoints togeneralizability thatrevolvesaroundbrandingandloyaltyasanessentialparameterforHEIs.Thisgeneralizabilityaspectallowstheusageandaidofresults–aspartofbrandloyaltymatrix,fortheseHEISstopositionthemselvesandworkouttheloyaltyrequirementaccordingly.

11

ResearchPeriod;2016–2019Stage1Researchperiod is from2016 to2019. InNovember2016, the

authorconductedpreliminarydiscussionwithexpertsinPakistanregardinggrowingneedofbrandinginHigherEducationSectorandliteraturereviewstartedencompassingbasetheoriesandpreviousresearchinthefield.

Stage2Infall2017,thediscussionaboutsuitabilityoftopicwascarried

outwitheminentresearchersinPrague,CzechRepublicandduringthismobility program the researchmethodswerediscussed, and validatedquestionnairewas selected to proceedwith the study,whichwas sentelectronicallytopartofthepopulationforpilotstudy.Bythemeantimein June 2017, necessary statistical skills to perform empirical analysiswerelearntduring“quantitativeresearchmethods”courseinOslo,NorwayandchoiceofstatisticaltestswasdiscussedwithprofessorsfromOsloandSpain.

Stage3The author continued researching the literature review and

emergingtrendsintheselectedfieldandpublishedrelatedarticles,beforeanotherpedagogyassignmentin2018inPoznan,Polandmadeauthortomasterhisstatisticalskills.Theliteraturereviewhadbeencompletedbythenandquestionnairewasfinalizedwithlittlemodifications.InApril2018thefinalversionofexpert interviewswasconducted,anddatacollectioncompleted.ThepilotstudyresultswerethenpresentedinDoctoralseminarinPoznan,inJune2018.TheacceptabilityandvalidityofpilotresultsandfindingsfromexpertviewsaidedinevaluationofBrandLoyaltyMatrix.

Stage4ByDecember2018,completionofempiricalresultsachieved,and

research results were presented in Conference in Berlin in December2018,andinDoctoralSeminaratTuribauniversityinJanuary2019.Thethesiswriteupwas completed in the samemonth and research outputwasfurtherapprobatedasaresultofexpertdiscussionandinconferencetitled“EmergingTrendsinEconomics,CultureandHumanities”atRigainApril2019.

12

ResearchMethodsThe theoretical base of the doctoral thesis is comprised of

establishedscientifictheoriesandacclaimedmodelsinthefieldofbrandingand higher education. The empirical results consist of mixed methodapproach i.e. quantitative and qualitativeA validated questionnairewasemployedforevaluatingcustomers’(students’)responseinassessingthecontributionofindependentvariablesonmediatingandoutcomevariable.The data analysis was processed via SPSS and methods used weredescriptive, Cronbach’s alpha for reliability, factor analysis for datareductionandcompletesetofregressionanalysis forhypothesis testing.Also,AMOSsoftwarewasfurtherutilizedtodoublecheckthescoresfactorloadingsaswereobtainedfromSPSS.Expertinterviewswereconductedaspartofqualitative analysisbyusing recursiveabstractionmethod, so tobackthestatisticalfindingsandtolinkitsimplicationindevelopingbrandloyaltymatrixasanoutcomeofthisresearch,inameaningfulway.Further,theevaluationofMatrixwasconductedbyexpertsinthefield.Descriptivestatisticswasemployedtoanalysetheirevaluation.Thedetailexplanationoftheresearchmethodsispresentedinchapter3ofthisThesis.Theoretical&MethodologicalBaseforResearch

Scientific Literature and articles on knowledgebase concerningBrandManagementanditssignificanceisstructuredonviewofAmericanSociety of Marketing (AMS) and on the scientific works of authors asMurphy,1987;Aaker,1996;Hoyer&Brown,2001;Keller,1993;Stephen,1993; Kapferer, 2004; Alkhawaldeh, et al., 2017; Schiffman, Bendall,O’Cass,Paladino&Kanuk,2005;etal.

ThedefinitionsanddescriptionofessentialconceptsinBrandingarecomprisedon thescientificwork/articlesofOppong&Phiri,2018;Aaker&Keller,1990;Zakaria,Basset&Said,2009,Miller,Muir,2004;Rowley,Dawes2000;VanOsselaer,Janiszewski,2001;Ghodeswar,2008;D'Astous& Boujbel, 2007; Valette‐Florence & De Barnier, 2013; Moorman,Deshpande&Zaltman1993;Davis,2002;Oliver,1999;etal.

ScientificLiteratureandarticlesonHigherEducationBranding;Abbas,Hussain&Rasool,2019;Hemsley‐Brown&Alnawas,2017;Alam,

13

Adnan&Afridi,2018;Chapleo,2010;Temple&Shattock,2007;Hemsley‐Brown&Goonawardana,2007;Duesterhaus&Duesterhaus,2014;etal.

AssessmentofkeyfeaturesinBrandpromotioncampaignswereanalyzedthoroughlyonthescientificnotionofAIDAmodel(Strong,1925)usingliterature(Kotler,2002;Lavidge&Steiner,1961;Kennedy,1982;etal.).

Scientific Literature on analysis of the customer’s behavior ofloyaltyanditsdimensionsisbaseduponCustomerLoyaltyModel(Aaker,1996;Dick&Basu1994;Bloemer&Lemmink,1992;Oliver,1999;etal.).

Students’ as customers view and desirability for a renownedbrandandtheirdecisionmakingascustomersisbaseduponthescientificliteratureof;Cardoso,Carvalho&Santiago,2011;Jongbloed,2003;etal.).

NoveltyoftheResearch

1.Thematrix, termedasBrandLoyaltyMatrix (BLM)hasbeendevelopedwhichcanassistHEIsandotherstake‐holderstopositionandrank variousHEIs as per their current standing. ThisMatrix can trackfutureperformanceoftheseHEIsaswell,whichisoneofitskindinhighereducationsetting.

2.TheempiricalcomparisonsbetweenservicequalityandbrandawarenessaccountsfornewinsightsanddevicewaysforHEIstolimitanddevotetheirattentionandexpenditurestothemostbeneficialaspectofthetwo.Thiscomparisoncouldbefoundinautomobileandotherindustries,butinhighereducationsector–aimedatloyalty,itopensnewhorizonsofanalysiswhichisadjustableandcoherentwithvaryingtargetmarketsandregions.

3.Definitionsworkedout.The following definitions have been created and defined by

authoraspartofnovelcontributionduringtheprocessofthesis: HigherEducationBrandLoyalty“ThePowerofaneducationalbrandtoretainstudentforfutureofferings and enable the students as customers to spreadpositivewordofmouthabouttheinstitute”.

HEIasGenerationBrand

14

“The impact of an educational brand that ensures its loyaltyacrossgenerations”.As,loyaltyaccountsforrepurchasebehaviorofcustomers,inhighereducationsettingthegenerationbrandappears to be the one which is referred or suggested orrecommended by prior consumers/users to the forthcominggenerationwithinthecircleoftheirinfluence.

HEI–BrandLoyaltyMatrix“AmatrixallowingstakeholderstoidentifybrandpositioningofHEISandmakingnecessarydecisionsaccordingly”.Thedecisionmakingmayrangefromstrategicdecisionmakingtoconsumerdecisionmaking;dependinguponstakeholders’characteristics.Whilestudentbeingstakeholderscanmakeinformeddecisionmaking about selecting their educational institute and StateaccreditationsentitiesbeaidedwithdevelopmentofrulesandparametersforHEISonitsbasis,theinstitute’smanagementandmarketingconsultantsmightoptforcorrectivemeasuresforre‐brandingofrespectiveHEIs.

PracticalContributionoftheResearch1.Thedevelopedmatrixfurtherbenefitstoforeseerevolutionary

changefromcurriculatostafftraining,andfrominfrastructuralreformstostrategicalalliancesetc.Itcanaidstrategicmanagementprocessrightfrom formulating, implementing and evaluating stage, which can bepracticedinuniquedimensionforHEIs.

2. As the higher education branding is a demanding topic, thisthesisbearspotentialtobringvaluableadditionintheentireeducationsystemofsampleregion,courtesythequantitativeandqualitativefindings.

3.Theauthor’sresearchshallpromotethe implementationandexecutionofqualityeducationservicesforBrandManagementofHigherEducation Institutions; irrespective of the nature being state owned,privateorsemigovernmentinstitutes.

TargetBeneficiariesConsideringtherichscopeofthestudy,thetargetbeneficiariesof

thisthesiscompriseof:

15

higher education institutions to have room for strategicallyrethinkingbyevaluatingtheircurrentposition,bringingradicalorneededreformsandstrengtheningormaintainingtheirbrand;

students/guardiansasconsumerstofindtheappropriateandquality‐orientedbrandastheireducationaldestination;

accreditationbodiestoemployandenhancenecessaryobligationsforHEIstomaintainandbeingadaptabletoqualitystandards;

researchandconsultancyfirmstokeeptrackofHEIsperformanceanddesigningmaintenanceandremedialplansforHEIs,whenrequired;

statebyhavinganacclaimedandrecognizededucationalsystemworldwide–furtheraidingincountrybrandingaswell.

ScopeoftheThesisandstructure

Introduction analyses the topicality, problem, and tasks of thestudy.Thissectionformsallthenecessarybasistojustifytheimportanceofanalyzingbrandloyaltyinhighereducationsetting.

Chapter 1 discusses the research context mentioning HigherEducationscenarioinPakistan.DetailsincludingnumberandtypeofHEIs,students’enrolment,theaccreditationbodyandacademiclegislationshavebeenpresentedsotogivereaderanideaaboutthetrendsandperspectivesregardingHighereducationandbrandingpracticesrelatedtoit.

Chapter2encompassestheliteraturereviewinthechosenfieldofhighereducationbranding.Definitionsaboutthestudyvariablesandscientificcontributionabouttheconstructshavebeendiscussedtodevelopstatisticalhypothesis.Also,adetailedmentionofpreviousstudiesgivesaclearprogressofthesisinitsdesireddirection,whileemphasizingupontheimportanceofthefieldandgapanalysisaswell.Thechaptertakinglead from previous studies and literature then marks the essentialtheoriesregardingbrandingandHighereducationBrandinginparticular.The description of AIDA model to deify the significance of BrandAwarenessanduseofCustomerLoyaltyModelbyAakermakesaperfectplatformforintendedstatisticalorientation.Also,theinclusionofHigherEducationBrandManagementmodel triggers theneed for focusing on

16

LoyaltydevelopmentforHEIs,whichisoneofthecoreobjectivesofthisstudy.Thischaptersetsatoneforrequiredstatisticalanalysisinthethesis.

Chapter 3 gives an overview of research methodology, thequestionnaireandresults.Itconfirmsthestatisticalhypothesisbyusageofdescriptive,reliability,andinferentialstatisticaltests.Theinferentialstatistics comprise Factor analysis and regression modelling, whereasCronbachAlphaanalysishasbeenusedforreliabilityanalysis.Theauthorhasshowncorrespondenceofstatisticalfindingswithotherresearchesinthepast.Thesefindingsarethenbackedbyanalysisofexpertinterviews;conductedfromtheprofessionalsinthefield.Theconclusionrevealsthatboth brand awareness and service quality have an impact on Brandloyaltywhiletheimplicationofbothcanbevariedaspervaryingdemand.However,incontrastservicequalityprovesouttobemoreimpactfull.

Chapter4bringsthepureresearchintoactionbydevelopingthebrandloyaltymatrixasacoreoutcomeoftheresearch.Thismatrix,giventhe name as HEI–BLM (Higher education Brand loyalty matrix) isdevelopedtofulfiltheneedsofvariousstakeholders.ThesestakeholdersmayplaceaspecificHEIindifferentcontextsontheexistingleveloftheirbrandawarenessandbrandloyalty.TheimplicationsandworkingoftheMatrix have been further matched with experts’ opinion. The variousstages of this matrix development have been separately discussed byauthortogivereadersasoundunderstandingaboutitsformation.

ConclusionandRecommendationsectionaccountsforsummarizedremarksonthestudy.Thispartalsoreflectstheoutcomesfromresearchresultswiththeirconnectionfromtheoreticalbasisaswell.Thecorrectivemeasurestobetakenbystake‐holdersandimplicationforfutureresearchhasbeendiscussedasfinishinglineofthestudy.ThesisProposedforDefence

1) The greater the brand management of higher educationinstitutions,thehigherthebrandloyalty.

2) ThebestfitofesteemedservicequalityofeducationalservicesandawarenessgenerationthroughadsandpromotionalmeansboostoveralltrustandeffectsbrandingofHEIinapositiveway,

17

consideringthepresent‐daystudentnotonlydemandsqualityservicebutarenownededucationalbrandaswell.

3) BrandawarenessandservicequalitycontributetobrandloyaltyofHigherEducation Institutions; however, quality of servicesserves thepurpose in the long runwithout compromisingonrequiredlevelofpromotion,whichaltogetherleadtoawareness.

4) The brand loyalty matrix may enable the HEIs’ decisionmakingbodiestoassesstheirmarketstandingasabrandandcan further design, implement and execute strategies i.e.identify and reorganize their target markets, evaluate andreconsider their product (course curriculums) offerings/portfolios, themaintenance and updating of infrastructuralreforms, fostering the training and development needs,ensuring and maintaining better customer relationshipmanagementandformulationandrecreationofpromotionalcampaignsetc.thuscontributingtobrandloyaltyofHEIs.

ApprobationoftheResearchResults

Thelistofscientificpaperspublishedduringthestudyincludesthefollowing:

Abbas, S. A (2019). Brand Loyalty of higher Education Insti‐tutions.MarketingandManagementofInnovations,1,pp.46–56,http://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2019.1‐04. Database: Web ofScience(ESCI),ClarivateAnalytic,EBSCO

Abbas, S. A. (2017). Legal Regulations and Branding HigherEducation Institutions.Asian JournalofSocialScienceStudies,2(3),pp.27–30,https://doi.org/10.20849/ajsss.v2i3.195

Abbas,S.A.(2016).TeachingandLearning–AComplementaryStudyonEffectiveTeachingandLearning.AsianEducationStudies,1(2),pp.87–92,https://ssrn.com/abstract=2844400

Abbas, S. A (2014). Brand Management of Higher EducationInstitutions. International Journal of Innovative & AppliedResearch, 2(6), pp. 151–172, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2461648

18

OtherPapers Abbas, S. A (2018). Extrovert Followership and its ImpactonAgreeableLeadership.International JournalofEducationalLeadership and Management, 6(2): pp. 154–179,http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijelm.2018.3111, Database: WebofScience(ESCI),ClarivateAnalytic,EBSCO,ERICEJ1185804

Abbas,S.A.(2018).Entrepreneurshipandinformationtechno‐logy businesses in economic crisis. Entrepreneurship andSustainabilityIssues,5(3):pp.682–692.https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2018.5.3(20), Database: Scopus, Web of Science (ESCI),ClarivateAnalytic

Theconferencesparticipated Presented research results, presentation “Effect of BrandAwareness and Service Quality on Brand loyalty of HigherEducation Institutions”. EU Economics, Finance and BusinessProcesses and Trends. 10th May 2019, Kaunas at VytatusMagnusUniversity

Presented research results, presentation “Factors AffectingBrandloyaltyofhighereducationInstitutions”.XXInternationalScientificConferenceonSocialSciences,26thApril2019,RigaatTuribaUniversity

Presentedresearchresults,presentation“AssessmentofStudents’BrandLoyalty inHigherEducation Institutions”. InternationalConference on Emerging trends in Economics, Culture andHumanities. 24th to 26thApril, 2019 in Riga at University ofCultureandEconomics

Presentedresearchresults,published“ComparativeAnalysisofthe effectiveness of Brand Awareness and Service Quality ineffecting Brand Loyalty of higher Education Institutions”.International Conference on Social Science, Humanities andEducation,21stto23rdDecember,2018atBerlin

Presented pilot study results, presentation “Brand Loyalty ofHigher Education Institutions in Pakistan”. Doctoral Seminar

19

Conference at PoznanUniversity of Economics, Poland (June29,2018)

Thetheoreticalandempiricalresearchresultswerediscussedin

the scientificmeeting (pre‐defense of the thesis) on 1st April 2019 atTuribaUniversity. PedagogicalAssignments

Besides,theauthorhasbeeninvolvedinpedagogicalassignmentsat Poznan University of Economics and taught Business Statistics andQuantitativeMethodstoBachelorandErasmusstudents.Also,undertheERASMUSmobility the author has taughtManagerial DecisionMaking,HRMandMarketResearchatUniversityofEconomicsandManagement,Prague.

20

1.UNDERSTANDINGTHENOTIONOFBRANDINGINTHECONTEXTOFHIGHEREDUCATIONINSTITUTIONS

This chapter includes the literature regarding essential concepts,definitionandexplanationaboutBrandingasaprimestep forhypothesisdevelopment.Also,issuesencompassingwhatisbrandmanagement,itsneedinHighereducationsector,thechallengesandthesignificanceofloyaltyinhighereducationemergeouttobethefocusofdiscussion;thus,contributingto the foundation and essence of the study. To add to it, an overview ofPakistan’shighereducationwillbepresentedforadequateunderstandingofresearchcontext.

1.1.BrandManagement

Considering, the significance of branding as one of the mostvaluable intangibleassets,brandinghasbecomea top‐notchoption forfirmsandmanagement(Keller&Lehmann,2006:742).Brandscontinuetoactasdurableandlonglastingunlessanduntiltheykeepprovidingthevaluewhichcustomerexpectsfromthem(Murphy,1987).

Nowadays,tobuildastrongimagehasalwaysbeenanimportantaspectofproductandbrandmanagement.Themorethestrongerbrandiscreated,thegreaterwillbetherevenuegenerationbothinshortandlongterm(Kapferer,2004;Keller,1993).So,theultimategoalforcreatingbrandvalueistocomeupwiththebrandsthatlastfordecades(Aaker,1996).Asfarasconsumerbehaviortheoryisconcerned,abrandisdefinedasamarkthatdifferentiatesabrandedidentityfromothers,whichcouldbeasymbol,slogan,mark, tag line, specificdesign, colorfulpatternorabestpossiblecombinationofallofthese(Schiffmanetal.,2005).Historically,initiationofbrandingasaconceptcanbelinkedtothelateninetiethcenturywhendeveloping branded consumer products were on a row (Priporas &Kamenidou, 2011). As per Wolpert (1999), it all started with puttingidentificationmarksongoodsandservicesasatokenofprideandqualityby respective tradesmen and artisans and that occurred nearly amillenniumago.Thephenomenonofthis identificationkeptpace in16th

21

centuryandwasusedassymbolsbybrickmakersinancientEgypt,whileby the end of 18th century these symbols were replaced by pictures ofanimalsandplacesoforigintomakeupforproducer’sname(Clarke2009).Theissuanceoftrademarksasalegalbindingcameafter1857whenFranceapproved a law about brandswhereas in terms of Arabworld, Tunisiapassedaspeciallawabouttrademarksin1889(AlMaamari,2013).

Thepost‐industrialrevolutionresultedintechnologicaladvancementandmassproduction, thus increasingdemand forbrand identificationas aneedatthenmoderntimes.Theoretically,theadventofword“branding”inliteratureoccurredasaresultofpaperwrittenbybanksin1950andnowthesignificanceofithasbecomeamustforsustainingandattainingcompetitiveadvantage for all modern‐day firms (Priporas & Kamenidou, 2011: 271).Therefore,meeting thedemandof perfect competition in higher educationsectoraswell,brandmanagementissomethingnottobeoverlooked.

1.2.BrandingofHigherEducationInstitutions

Aroundtheworld,thereexistnumerousuniversitiesandcollegeswhich are applyingmarketing andbrandmanagement practices to gaincompetitiveadvantage(Hemsley‐Brown&Oplatka,2006;Asaad,Melewar,Cohen,&Balmer,2013).Ashighereducationreferstoservice,thereforeallthemarketingprinciples of services canbe applied toHigherEducationInstitutions.InthisscenarioofEducationservices,thecustomerswillbethestudents, employers and public as being beneficiary of higher educationservices.Further,followingtheprincipleoftargetmarketandsegmentation,theprimaryconsumersinthiscasearestudents(Kantanen,2007:57).

Thereisnodisagreementonthefactthatundergoingconsistentbrandmanagementisvaluabletouniversities(Duesterhaus&Duesterhaus,2014;Hemsley‐Brown&Goonawardana,2007),howeverthereisstilllotto be done for research comprising of university’s image, reputation,identity and in totality about university as a brand (Arpan, Raney, &Zivnuska,2003;Melewar&Akel,2005).Reflectingthepriorresearch,theuseofupdatedcommunicationtoolsinhighereducationbrandingimpactnotonlythestakeholders(Chapleo,2011:112)butalsotheemployees

22

workingforitsbetterment(Judson,Aurand,Gorchels,&Gordo,2009).AsaccordingtoHemsley‐Brown&Oplatka(2006),Nguyen&LeBlanc(2001)&Rindfleish(2003)therecanbeexperiencedrelevanceofbrandloveinhighereducationresearchandfuturestudiesshould includethisbrandlovemechanismaboutHEIsaswell(Vaette‐Florence,Guizani&Merunka,2011;Batra,Ahuvia&Bagozzi,2012), thisbrand loveprovesout tobevitalindeterminingloyaltyofstudents.

TakingintoconsiderationthedevelopmentofbrandidentityofanHEI,promotionaltoolssuchasbrandsymbols,brandnameandmissionstatements are used to create a distinct identity (Bosch et al., 2006;Melewar&Akel,2005).AsperMelewar&Akel(2005)highereducationcorporateidentityisbaseduponfourfollowingsubconstructsI.e.culture,market conditions, behavior and communication& visual identity, butBoschetal.(2006)stressesthatverbalexpressionsisanotherkeydeterminantofHEIbrandidentityalongwithvisualexpressions.

ThechallengesforHigherEducationInstitutions’brandingarenumerous that ranges from brand architectures (Hemsley‐Brown &Goonawardana, 2007) to varying demands of stakeholders (Waeraas &Solbakk,2009).Thoughthebrandingofeducationservicesmayencounternumberofchallengescontrarytoacommercialserviceprovider(Vijander,2007), Chapleo (2010) suggests the use of commercial brandingmethodologies. Secondly,most of the educationbrandinghasn’tbeen thefocusandcenterlineofcasestudiesorscholarlyarticles;however,theycanbecherishedasacommoditybrandwhenthedemandexceedsthesupply(Anctil,2008).Also,incaseofconventionalproductlikecolaorbiscuitstheproductdifferentiation isvery lesswhich increase the scope forbrandingwhereasineducationalbrandingtheelementofdifferentiationcouldbehighi.e.numberofdegrees,coursesofferedetc.whichensuresalimitedbrandingscopeofhighereducation(Grohmann,2009).Asfarasdiversityandstrengthof students are concerned the study institutions ambitions, aim andinvolvementmayvaryfromportionofsocietytocertainlimit,whereaslotofstudentsmaynot like theseofferings(Warwick,2003:123)whichmakesbrandingofeducationalinstitutionsalittletough.Theelementofsimilaritycannotbeneglectedirrespectiveofconstantclaimsbydifferentinstitutionsasbeing‘best”,

23

AnotherimportantchallengeinHighereducationbrandingisthedifferenceinperceptionofownersandconsumers(Watkins&Gonzenbach,2013:30).Theinstitutionalownerlooksoverhis/hercompetitorswhichmay not exactly or is equally important for the students or guardians(Belanger,Mount&Wilson2002).The investmentof higher educationinstitutionismostlyfocusedtowardsbuilding,infrastructures,cafeterias,sports facilities etc.This investment couldbevulnerable in contrast tosameinvestmentinFMCGmarketbecauseineducationalsectortrustandrelationshipmaytakelongtimetodevelopandarebreakableinshorterspan of time (Twitchell, 2002), though in the FMCGmarket it can beregainedwithpromotionsandoffers,evenafterearlybreakupbetweensupplierandcustomer.

1.3.RetainingBrandLoyaltyanditsSignificance

Thoughitisbeingdiscussedsofarinthisstudythatstudentsareconsidered as customers of higher education, yet the idea is not thatwelcoming or appreciated equally across all sets of higher educationcommunity.The advocatesof this ideahave strongbelief on increaseduniversity imagebyconsideringstudentascustomers (Hennig‐Thurau,Langer&Hansen,2001)whileasperEmery,Kramer&Tian(2001),paymentoftuitionfeemustnotbeconsideredasanequivalentoralternativetogettingadegree.Dealingstudentsascustomermayresultincompromisingofqualityonpartofbothfacultyandstudents,whichmayresultinlesshardworkbyboththeparties–governedbylackofsharedresponsibility(Clayson&Haley,2005).However,inotherscenariosastudentconsideringhim/herself as customer might blame teachers for his/her failure. Sorenownedquoteslike“customerisalwaysright”mightnotbestreflectthesituationintermsofstudentascustomers(Bay&Daniel,2001)andtothatacademicqualitycansomehoworgreatlybedependentonstudents’choiceandterms(Sirvanci,1996).

Theideaofabsorbingstudentsascustomersisnotassimpleasdescribedbecausetherepercussionscouldbesevereforthedemanding

24

teachersintermsofstudentfeedback(Yunker&Yunker,2003),whereasontheotherhandlesscompetentteachersmayusethesameargumentfor justifyingtheirpoorperformanceaswell.However,Marsh&Roche(2000)havefoundtheexistenceofpositivecorelationbetweenstudents’gradeandteachers’feedback,Yeo&Li(2014)believethatmakingstudentgoingthroughhardtimesandcompetitivestudyschedulecanproveouttobevitalforrisingstudentintellect.So,forBogler&Somech(2002)itisbetter to focus on government or general public or other locales ascustomer rather than students, but with in‐depth analysis it is worthunderstandingthatstudents;eventhoughconsideredascustomer,mightnotbegivenallthelibertieswhichanordinarycustomercan,unlessanHEI isapredatory institute.Thewordcustomer forstudent is ratherametaphorusedformarketingliteratureandthatHEIsgetaidwiththeseterminologies toworkon theirbranding.Also,beingproponentof thisconcept,studentcanbeconsideredascustomerifitgivesHEImotivationandcapabilitytostandoutastop‐notchinstitutewhichisdirectlyrelatedwithHEI’squalityservices;thoughHEIsshouldavoidfollowingmarketingquotesas“CustomerisKing/Boss”.

AimingtoestablishasoundimageofanHEIappearsademandingtaskasaccordingtoGalinienëetal.(2009)attributessuchastypeofuniversity,competitiveadmissionprocedures,versatility inprogramsoffered, financialbudgetspossessedbyHEIsandtuitionfeecontributetoanHEIimage,whereasPolat,Arsalan&Yavas(2016)includecoreacademicfeatureslikequalityofstudies, faculty quality, research activities and academic achievements ofuniversitygraduatesasamultipliertouniversityimage.

AstheimageofHEIplaysapivotalroleinstudents’selection,thuseffecting job placements also (Polat, Arsalan & Yavas, 2016), brandingconcept canbe implanted for universitieswith its long‐term implications(Landrum,Turrisi&Harless,1999).Theimageoforganizationbecomespartofconsumer’smemorywithitsrespectiveassociation(Keller,1993).AsperCapriotti(1999),animagedescribesthementalrepresentationofanobjectintheabsenceofthatobject,sotheessenceofHEIsimageincustomers’mindneedstobeonpositiveside.Thegreaterthepositiveimage,thehigherthechancesforstudenttoreconsiderrenderingitsservicesinfuture,considering

25

animageislikeageneralperceptionoftheorganizationincustomers’mind(Leiva,Ferrero&Calderon,2016).Also,it’skindofapsychologicalpersonalityprofile(Haedrich,1993)whichhasalottodealwithcriticalstudentpsyche.TheHEIimagemayalsobestudiedascorporateimageoftheorganizationwhichcomesasanoutputofuserexperiencewiththatoftheorganization’sservices(Zimmer&Golden,1988).

1.4.WordofMouth,Satisfaction&Perception

Jackson, Helms & Ahmadi (2011; 393) argue that “educationalinstitutions, like businesses, are forced to confront the fact that, sinceperception is reality to customers, it is the perceptions that must beconsidered if improvements are to be recognized”. Word of mouth isconsideredasanintegralsourceofpowerfulcommunicationfornon‐profitorganizations,whichincludeHEIs(Lang&Lawson,2013).Copingwithwordofmouth,especiallyintheservicesector,isacomplicatedtasktoundertake,andifitisinthedomainofHEIs,thentheimpactisevenmore.Incontextofthisstudy,aWOMbystudentsisportraying,presentingandtalkingabouttheirexistingorrecentlyattendedHEItotheirfriends/peers/colleaguesorintheircircleofinteractionwheretheyareconsideredasopinionmakers.Positivewordofmouthinassociationwithservicequalityfeatureshasbeenfoundasprominentelementbyprospectivestudents(Bruce&Edgington,2008;Carter,2009).MacCallum,Browne&Sugawara(1996)alsorevealedthatpositivewordofmouthisdrivenbyrelationalandfunctionalfacetsofservicequality,whichissubsequenttocustomersatisfaction.

Thus, knowing the sensitivity ofword ofmouth and its probableeffectonstudentdecisionmaking, (Kitchroen,2004:16) it isdesirable toensurepositiveWOMthroughimprovedcurriculumandtrainedfaculty–theprovisionofwhichtostudentscanactasacatalyst forbrandrecognition,thus,havingitscontinuousandlong‐lastingeffectonHEIasbrand.

So,thediscussedfactorsi.e.Studentsascustomers,HEIs’Imageand WOM should be taken under consideration during empirical andqualitiveanalysis,astheymaybeinfluencingHEIbrandloyalty,whichistheultimateagendaofthisstudy.

26

1.5.OverviewofHigherEducationContextinPakistan

Strategically located at critical geography and culturally rich,Pakistan is a sixth largest populous country carrying over 200millioninhabitants(PakistanBureauofStatistics,2016).Withyouthcomprising64%ofitstotalpopulation(UNDPPakistan,2018),thecountry’scurrentliteracyrateliesat57%(UNESCO,2014).Asperdevelopments,Governments’initiativestoraiseliteracyrate–thoughonitsagenda,needstoberefinedaimedatnewreforms(NationalPlanofAction,2001–2015,2006),therehasbeenobservedtheessenceofeducationamongstparentsandstudentsover the last few decades. Especially in context of higher educationattainment,students,inpursuitofdemandingpoststudycareer,tendtomove fromremoteareas tometropolitan citieswith theaimofqualityuniversitystudies.Thissubsequentlyleadsthemtooptforarenownedand acclaimed HEI so that their chances for placements are ensured(Abbas, Hussain & Rasool, 2019). This scenario is considered as anopportunity by theseHEIswhich leads to brandmanagement of theseHEIs. It’s nomore a surprise that to cater this influx of students,HEIsmakeeveryattempttoestablishthemselvesasabrand.Frompromotionto marketing and advertisements, and from newspaper ads to gorillamarketing,HEIsemployallthenecessaryconstituentsofbrandingtheorytobrandthemselvesasatrustedandrenownedbrand(Alam,Adnan&Afridi,2018).AsdiscussedinintroductionpartofthisThesis,thisbrandingmay not appear harmful, unless, being compromised on quality ofeducation,asthereareconcernsoverthelowqualityteachinginsomeofthenewerschools(DailyTimes,2015)andsuchisthedownsideofthisheightenedbrandingthatthereareactuallyleftlessqualityproviderHEIsand some of these may not be as recognized in general as the highlymarketed. Though, this short‐term build‐up often turns up in disloyalstudentsascustomersandtheirrepeatpurchasebehaviori.e.continuationofstudies,becomesquestionable(Ali,Tariq&Topping,2013).Therefore,achievingandmaintainingstudentloyaltyinPakistaniHEIsisaconcerntobegivenattention,ifnotinallHEIs.

27

Contrastingly,theknownqualityproviderHEIsareeithermorecompetitive(state)orcomparativelyratherexpensive(Private)thatnoteveryprospectcandidateturnsintostudent.Also,thestateuniversitiesareinsufficientinnumbers,sotheaccessofeconomicstudiestoallislessequitable.Therefore,theelementoftrustandloyaltygeneratedbyHEIs,as part of awareness campaigns and quality of services cannot beoverlooked,consideringthegapbetweenstudentdemandandsupplyofHEIsarehuge.Tobridgethisgap,atcurrentthereexist179HEIs/DAIs(DegreeAwardingInstitutions)nationwide(seeAppendix1inthesis),

offeringdifferentdegreeprogramsinthefieldofArts,Business,MedicalandEngineeringtonamethefew.While,Punjabbeingthemostpopulousprovince (PakistanBureauof Statistics, 2017) caters studentwith57‐degreeawardinginstitutes,including32publicand25privatesintotal,LahorebeingcapitalofthePunjabprovinceserveswith43DAIsintotal,with13publicand30privatesectoruniversitieswhichindicatethedominanceofbrandrelatedstrategiesasadeterminanttooperateincompetitiveeducationalenvironment.Thelistofotheraffiliatecollegeswiththeseuniversitiescanbeseenasappendix2infulltextofthethesis.

Inmostofthecases,duetothemeritandlimitednumberofseatsinpublic sector universities, the remaining students choose the top privateHEIsasabestpossiblealternative,dependinguponfactorslikeaffordability,rankings and quality of education. On the other hand, a very few privateinstitutesareconsideredmorereliablethattheybecomepriorityofsomeofthesetoplotofstudentsandactasbenchmarkprivateHEIs.

AbriefanalysisofissuesathandinPakistaniHigherEducationasaddressedbyNationalEducationalPolicyframework(2017)includelowgrossenrolmentratio(GER)athighereducationlevelatmerely10%,campusesinurbanandmoredevelopedregions,incompatibilityofqualityeducationwith international standards, lownumber of PhDs, lack of aresearchculture,disproportionsinBudgetaryallocationsforhighereducationtotheneedsofthecountry,issuesrelatedtoeffectiveGovernanceinHEIs,politicized appointments of senior leadership in universities are alsofoundinsomecasesandweakindustryacademia linkagesarenametofew.

28

2.ESSENTIALBRANDINGCONCEPTS

Chapter2furtherextendstheliteratureaboutbrandingconcepts,factorscontributingtowardsbranding,thetheoreticalmodelsthatmayactasvalueadditiontobrandingconceptandthepreviousstudiesandresultsashowbrandloyaltyhasbeenmeasuredinthepast.

Aaker(1991)definesthewordbrandas“adistinguishednameorasymbol for identificationofgoodsandservicesofrespectivesellerorgroupofsellerssotheyappeardifferent fromcompetitorswhotendtoprovide similar products or services”. There could be linked differentdefinitionstoitdependinguponthecontext–thoughthemostlyusedbyASM,i.e.AmericanSocietyofMarketingstatesabrandas“aname,term,sign,symbol,ordesignoranyothercombinationofthosefeaturesthatidentifiesoneseller’sororganization’sgoodorserviceasdistinct fromthoseof other competitors (Zakaria,Basset,& Said, 2009)”.WhileLee,Miloch,Kraft,&Tatum(2008)explainbrandmarkasavisualappearancewhich is communicated but not spoken, the use of pictures as torch,books, pens are normally used symbols by higher education instituteswhereasthewordslikeknowledge,power,andlightetc.arecommonlyusedinslogansaspartofbrandidentification(Miller&Muir,2004).

AccordingtoOliver(1999)loyaltyistherepurchasebehaviorofcustomerthatisnotaffectedbysituationalinfluencesormarketingeffortsofcompetitors.Themomentcustomerrepurchasemakescompanybelieveof its service with the motivation of continued value addition in itsproductsandservices.Thisrepurchasesetsacertainbiasedbehaviorofbuyertowardsaspecificbrandamongotherexistingbrands(Hawkins,Best&Coney,2000).

He further discusses that brand loyalty forms basis for lowmarketingbudgetswhichwouldhavebeenrequiredatinitialstagesasitcan generate new customers and better trade advantages. NowonderHEIsarerunningafterbrandloyaltymeasuresandmakingspendingoverbrandawarenessandservicequalitylikeneverbefore.Anotherinterestingfinding has come into branding literature by Dick and Basu (1994)accordingtowhichfavorablewordofmouthandcustomerresistanceto

29

competitivestrategiesare termedasoneof thekeyoutcomesofbrandloyalty.

Attitudesorhabitsistheotheraspectbywhichbrandloyaltycanbeindicatedoridentified(JacobyandKyner,1973),howeveronconceptualgroundsitcanbeconsidereddistinctfromattitudesorhabits.Thereisnodoubtabouttheadmittedphenomenonthatloyaltyisoneofthemeasuresthat can check customer’s satisfaction with the product/ serviceperformance(BloemerandLemmink,1992;BallesterandAleman,2005).Linkingthiswithhighereducationsector,astudentonenrolling in thelastattendedorexistingHEIagainreflectstheamountofsatisfactiononqualityofservicesi.e.education,teaching,curriculumetc.oftheinstituteas these attributes account for student trust (Carvalho & Mota, 2008:163).ThemorethenumberofcurrentstudentsorpassoutsjoiningtheirHEIagainthegreateristhequality,theseHEIsareproviding.

As brand loyalty will be dealt as the outcome variable in thisstudy;withitslinkagesasatestimonyoftrustandrepurchasebehaviorthrough quality of services and brand awareness theoretically, therelative statistical hypothesis will be developed after discussion ofpredictorsinlaterpart.So,presentedbelowarethetable1andtable2mentioning the previous studies and results measuring brand loyaltyconstructwiththeindependenteffectofbrandingrelatedvariables.Thestudiesareselectedbaseduponthemethodschosenasquantitativeandbrand loyalty as a determinant of independent variables as servicequality,brandawarenessandbrandtrust.Also,studiesfromothersectorshavebeendiscussedaswellsotoseetheeffectoftheseconstructsinothersectorsandtoprovideleadforfutureresearchi.e.thecontrastingeffect.Also,thestudiesareselectedpost2000(intermsofyears)consideringitan era where branding in higher education became noticeable toemergingtrends.

30

Table1

Comparisonofstudiesmeasuringbrandloyaltyconstruct

Author Topic Construct Method QuestionnaireType

Knox&Walker(2001)

MeasuringandManagingBrandLoyalty

BrandLoyalty

Quanti‐tative

Survey

Mekic&Mekic(2016)

Impactofhighereducationservicequalityonstudentsatisfactionanditsinfluenceonloyalty

StudentLoyalty

Quanti‐tative

Survey

EmelYildiz(2017)

Effectsofservicequalityoncustomersatisfaction,trust,customerloyaltyandwordofmouth

Loyalty Quali‐tative

FacetoFaceInterview

Chi,Yeh,Yang(2018)

TheImpactofBrandAwarenessonConsumerPurchaseIntention:TheMediatingEffectofPerceivedQualityandBrandLoyalty.

BrandLoyalty

Quanti‐tative

Survey

Ehsan,Warriach&Sehribanoglu(2016)

MeasuringBrandLoyaltyinColaMarket

BradLoyalty

Quanti‐tative

Survey

Source:author’sownconstruction,basedonpriorstudies

Othernotablestudies thantheonesdiscussed inTable1and2

includetheempiricalworksofAgyei(2013)determiningtherelationshipbetweenservicequalityandcustomer loyalty towards telecommunicationbrandsinKenya.Thestratifiedrandomsamplingtechniquewasadoptedand sample size of 320was achieved. Loyaltywasmeasured by usingpersonproductmomentCorrelationandRegressionAnalysisasStatisticalmethods.

31

Also,inthecontextofPakistan,arecentstudybyWaseem(2016)showed the significant impact of service quality on brand loyalty.Convenience samplingwas used to acquire data. Hemade use of bothexploratory anddescriptiveapproachon the study.To further test thehypothesis,inferentialstatisticswasusedtoprovethesignificantimpactofservicequalityonbrandloyalty.

TherehavebeensomestudiesregardingsatisfactionofstudentsandservicequalityofHEIsandinparticularaboutbrandmanagementofHigher education Institutions (discussed in sub chapter 2.2 of thesis),however,thecomparisonofbrandawarenessandservicequalityreferstoscarcityinliteraturethatneedstobeanalysed.Tosumup,thisgapisapoint to address in this Thesis aided by the respective variables fromprior research. Table 2 below shows some more results aboutrelationshipbetweentheprospectconstructsinthestudy.

Table2

StudieswithResultsonRelationshipbetweenConstructs

Researcher ResultsChristobaletal.(2007)

Webdesign,customerservice,assuranceandordermanagementaffectcustomersatisfactionandalsocustomersatisfactionaffectconsumerloyalty.

Roostika(2011) Thereisanindirectrelationshipbetweenservicequalityandcustomerloyaltythroughtrust.

RizkaandWidji(2013) ServicequalityhaspositiveeffectoncustomerloyaltyMirzapuretal.(2014) Servicequalityhassignificantandpositiveeffecton

customerloyalty.IvanauskieneandVolungenaite(2014)

Threeservicequalitydimensionsaspersonalinteraction,policyandproductqualityhavepositiveeffectoncustomerloyalty.

SaravanakumarandJayakrishnan(2014)

Servicequalityhaspositiveeffectoncustomerloyaltybutempathyandreliabilityarethemostimportanteffectivefactorsoncustomerloyalty

Kimetal.(2004) Customersatisfactionhassignificantpositiveeffectoncustomerloyalty.

Alkhawaldehetal.(2017)

Thereisasignificantrelationshipbetweenbrandawarenessandbrandloyalty.

32

Lienetal.(2014) Servicequalityhaspositiveeffectontrust.Zareietal.(2015) Servicequalityaffecttrust.Nejadetal.(2014) Servicequality,satisfactionandtrusthavepositive

effectoncustomerLoyaltySource:author’sownconstruction,basedonpriorstudies

Both the table 1 and table 2 above have shown the outcome ofbrandloyaltyasaninputofservicequality,trustandbrandawarenessincommon. The literature regarding these input constructs have beendiscussed in detail in Thesis and is presented precisely in the comingsection.Also,aspertable1,quantitativemethodologyhasbeenappliedingeneraltomeasureloyalty,whichisbettersuitedtomethodologyinthisstudyaswell.Asthesepredictors(SQ,BA,BT)aregenerallyfoundtobecommon in measuring brand loyalty as far as Management studies isconcerned, the need arises to analyse the comparative effect of brandawarenessandServicequalityinassessingthebrandloyalty,especiallyintheeducationsectorand that togetherwith themediating roleofbrandtrust,whichcomesoncetheserviceisexperiencedandthecustomersgetsawarenessofbrand.Thisappearstobethenovelaspectinthisstudy.Thepreviousstudiesandresultsshowninthetable1andtable2andextendedliterature in the coming section aims to further establish the basis fordevelopinghypothesisencompassing theseconstructs,whereas items tomeasurethesevariablesaretakenfrompreviousscientificliterature,thedetailsofwhichwillbediscussedintheresearchmethodologysection.

BrandAwarenessBrand awareness is related to the power and familiarity of a

brand aboutwhich a customer/consumer is fully aware of. The brandawarenessisconsideredasafirststeptowardsknowledgeandattitudeofthebrandwhichgiveanin‐depthoverviewofwhattheproductisallabout.AsAaker(1996)believesthatbrandawarenesscanbeanalyzedfromthreedifferentaspectsI.e.recognition,recall,firstrecall,hefurtheraddsthatconsumerissimplyconcernedinrememberingthebrandname.Also,itisimportanttomentionthatcreatingawarenessamongstmassescould be an expensive task to do, the expense of which can becompensatedifitisdoneeffectivelytoincreasethebrandequity.

33

Theabovediscussion in the contextofbrandawareness inconnectionwithbrandloyaltyandbrandtrustleadstotheformulationofrespectivehypothesisinthisstudy,whicharepresentedbelow.H1:BrandAwareness(BA)positivelyaffectsBrandTrust(BT).H4:Brandawareness(BA)haspositiveimpactonbrandloyalty(BL).

BrandTrustBrandtrustisthewillingnessofnormalconsumertobelieveonthe

statedperformancebythebranditself(Moorman,Deshpande&Zaltman1993:315).Thistrustcanbeexperiencedasanexpectation,asentimentorabeliefthathasbeenachievedbybrand’sexpertiseandreliability(DwyerandLaGace,1986).Thisargumentgivesimportantinsighttothefactthatstudents’trustinHEIbrandsettingaccountsforvulnerabilitythatmustbemaintainedtilltheendfromthetimethestudentsareenrolled.Moorman,Zaltman and Deshpande (1992) also speak about relevance of trust inuncertainconditions.Theyareoftheviewthattrustfactorgetsimportanceinthescenarioofuncertainty,whichjustifiesthefactinthisresearchthatstudents’trustonbrandcomesintoplaywhenthequalityandcredibilityoftheirHEIisquestionedorthereexistsafiercecompetitioninthemarket,asthatisthetimewhichcanentanglestudentstotheirrespectivebrandsaspartoftheirtrust.Also,Elliot&Healy(2001)advocatecustomerrelationshipmanagement for accelerating trust for HEI among their students. Thisfurtherencompassesthatorganization(HEI)inthiscasemustactinfavorof the customer i.e., student so tomaintain his/ her trust for a smoothongoingrelation.Therefore,factorslikehonesty,safetyandreliabilitymakeaperfectblendoftrustasfarasconsumerviewofitisconcerned.Tosumup, it ispresumedas trust is awell thought andconsciously consideredthoughtprocess;theexistenceofwhichensuresstabilityofanycompanyor HEIs as a brand. This stable trust by customer leads to long termcommitment which is called Brand Loyalty (Morgan and Hunt, 1994;ChaudhuriandHolbrook2001;CarvalhoandMota,2010)

Astrustisameasureofbusinesstobusinessrelationalexchanges(Moorman,Zaltman&Deshpande,1992;MorganandHunt1994),itcanbesuggestedthatbrandtrustnotonlyleadstorepurchasingofgoodsandservicesagainandagain,butitbringsattitudinalloyaltyaswell.Based

34

onthisattitudinalloyaltyitisthereforeassumedthattrustedbrandsshouldbepurchasedmoreoftenascomparedtountrustedones,sothefollowinghypothesisaresuggested.H3:BrandTrust(BT)hassignificantimpactonBrandLoyalty(BL).H6:Brand trust (BT)playsamediatingrolebetweenBrandawareness(BA)andBrandloyaltyServiceQuality

Service quality relates to the perceived benefits and customers’perceptionabouttheelementsofservice.Theoutcomeofensuringsuccessfulrelationship with customers revolves around service quality (Hennig‐Thurau, Gwinner, & Gremler, 2002). It is defined as global judgement orattitude relation to the overall excellence or superiority of the service(Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1988: 14). The elements of servicequality especially in education sector include interaction quality, physicalenvironmentqualityandoutcomequality.LinkingalltheseelementstoHEIs,interaction quality accounts for teaching, physical environment refers toinfrastructure,whereasoutcomequalityistheresultoftheservicebothintermsofadmissionintakesandfurthertotheresults/scoresofthestudents.Parasuraman,ZeithamlandBerry(1988)furtherdefinesitas“thedegreeofdiscrepancybetweencustomers’normativeexpectationsfortheserviceandtheirperceptionoftheserviceperformance”.

As there still exists a room regarding relationship betweenservicequality,brandtrustandbandloyalty,especiallyinthecontextofhighereducationInstitutions(HEIs)–theempiricalresearchcouldbetterbeconductedensuringvalueadditioninthefield.

So,baseduponthediscussionandpreviousstudiesdiscussedabove, thehypothesisconcerning servicequalityconstruct in thisstudyareproposedas:H2:Servicequality(SQ)hassignificantimpactonBrandTrust(BT).H5:Servicequality(SQ)hassignificantimpactonBrandLoyalty(BL).H7:Brandtrust(BT)playsamediatingrolebetweenServicequality(SQ)andBrandloyalty(BL).

35

OtherimportantconceptsdiscussedaspartofliteraturereviewincludeBrandexperience(Davis,2002;Lockwood&Hadd,2007),BrandPersonality (Aaker, 1997;Rauschnabel&Ahuvia, 2014),Brand Identity(Aaker,1997;Ghodeswar,2008),BrandAssociation(Keller,1993),BrandTouchPoints(Jha,2016;Kujala,2015),Percievedquality(Aaker,1996;Perinetal.,2012).TheoreticalModels

While previous section discusses the literature and definition ofessentialconceptsrequiredforbrandsettingandestablishingbrandloyalty,thissectioncoverstheconceptualanalysisofprevioustheoriesthatsetpatternandguidancetobridgethegapinexistingresearchaboutbrandloyalty.

Asthismodelgivesthebasicinsightsashowcustomermakesitspurchase inaseriesof steps, thisThesiswill take further lead fromthismodeltodiscussaswhathappensafterthelaststepinthismodelandwhatcontributestoloyaltyofcustomer(student)inhighereducationbusiness.Howthedecision‐makingprocessinAIDAtakesustodevelopanddiscussbrandloyaltyofHEIstonextlevelandwhichamongthestagesintheAIDAmodelareprovidingleadtofutureresearchinHEIsbrandsetting.ThesearesomeoftheconcernsthatjustifychoosingAIDAinthisstudy.

Figure1.AIDAModel(Strong,1925)

36

ThefirststageinAIDAmodel(Figure1)istermedas“Attention”stage.Thisstageaimsatgeneratingawarenessabouttheproduct/serviceingeneral.Inprecise,asanoutcometoawarenesscampaignsi.e.gorillamarketing,discountoffers,billboards,souvenirs,socialmediacampaignsetc.,customerattentionisachievedatfirstspot.Thisattentionabouttheexistenceofproduct/serviceinthemarketisafirststeptowardsmakingprospectcustomers, incasetheproductorbrandisnewinthemarket,whileforanadditionalproductintheproduct linethisstagecaterstheexistingcustomer(user)toturnintoloyalcustomer.Aligningthisstagewith students as customer in Higher Educationmarket, HEIs not onlyneedtohaveanefficientmarketingcampaignratheraskillfullmarketingdepartment should be established to foresee the demands fromtraditional/conventionaltomodernawarenesscampaigns.

Basedonthefirststepofgeneratingawarenessandseekingattentionof customer amidst becoming prospect customer, AIDAmodel presents itssecondacronym“I”asinterestwhichistakingleadfromtheprevious“A”asAttention.This “I” i.e., interest is theoutcomeof that aggressivemarketingcampaignswhichareinitiatedbythecompany/branditself.

ThisisaverymeaningfulstageinAIDAmodelasitsetsthetoneandenablethecustomertothinkaswhats/heneedsandhowtheveryproduct can fulfil his/her demands. In Higher education setting, thisintereststageaccountsforthequalityofservicesrangingfromteachingqualitytouptodatecoursecurriculumsandtheextracurricularservices,thatstudents/customersmightlookfortheirinterestandthereforeitisimportantforthemarketingdepartmentsatuniversitiestodesigntheadsas per accordance of these interest factors by students. This “interest”factorfromAIDAmodelwillhelpthisstudytolookintotheinfluenceandeffect of better brand awareness and result oriented service qualityfeatures that are of direct students’ interest and in turn these have anormativeimpactonbuildingbrandloyaltyoftheseHEIs,whichisbeingstudiedinthisresearch.

Thethirdcapitalletterorstageinthemodeldenotes“Desire”whichisgeneratedthroughtheeffectofsteptwoi.e.Interest.Thisinterestoriented/aroused “desire” makes buyer to develop favorable disposition about the

37

brand.Thebuyerhasnowtotallyleanintotheofferedbenefitsoftheproduct/serviceandnowisdesiroustothinkofbuyingthebrand(Kennedy,1982).

ThefourthstageinthemodelistermedasAction.Allthepriorstages awareness, interest anddesirehavenowmade the customer tothinkofhis/herdesiredbrand.Thepowerofthecommunicationmessagebecomes viable by communicating the benefits of product/ service tomake customer a purchase. This generation of message is equallyimportant in higher education setting, thus enablingAIDAmodel is anadvocateofeffectiveBrandawareness.CustomerLoyaltyModel

Toidentifythevaluableimpactofservicequalityandawarenesscampaigns,customerloyaltymodelbyAaker(1991)isbeingemployedtoassessvariousstagesofprospectivecustomertoturnintoloyalcustomer.Thefirststage(seeFigure2)accountsfor“Switchers”representingtheclassofcustomerswhoarepricesensitive.Theyhavenoloyaltywiththeproduct/serviceandcanbeeasilyswitchedtootherproduct ifabetterpriceorpromotionalofferispresentedtothem.HEIsmaybestusethesecampaigns to attract these customers/students in terms of low fee orsibling/referral discounts; however, the short‐term life expectancy ofthesecustomerscanbeenhancedbyfocusonbetterservicequality.Thenext stage inmodel indicate “habitual” customers,who have no solidreason to change but as part of their habit of trying different or newproduct/service in the market. Their changing attitude with lack ofcommitmenttoanHEIdemandsatacticallydrivencampaignandinnovativemethodologytokeeptheirinterestaliveintheirchoseuniversity.

38

Figure2.TheLoyaltyPyramid(Aaker,1991)Satisfiedbuyersasnextstageofthecustomerloyaltymodelare

theoneswhoareawareoftheperceivedmeritsoftheproductandaresatisfiedafteritsusage.Theiropinionaboutproduct/serviceissatisfactoryandtheymayintendtouseitagain,howevertheycannotbetermedasloyalandaverygodofferingoraproductwithextremelypositivewordofmouthmightaffecttheirdecisionmaking.Theyaresatisfiedbutnotaguaranteed customer for repurchase. After the satisfied buyers, therecomesaspotforthecustomerwholikesthebrand.Theirlikingtowardsa specificbrand is a resultof seriesofpurchaseand that theproduct/service has always delivered what was expected of it. This consistentperformanceoftheproducthasmadethecustomertolikethebrand.Asthisisthelaststagebeforecustomercanturnintoloyalcustomer,HEISneedtobeawareofcurrentqualitytrendsandcompetitors’analysisandofferingssothattheirlikingtowardsthemisnotaffected.Inconsequenceof this liking stage, the last spot in customer loyalty model discussescommitted customers. All themarketing efforts and qualitymeasurestakenbycompanycouldgowasteifthecustomerdoesn’tturnintoaloyalcustomer.As,theloyalcustomeristheonewhoisnotonlyrepurchasingtheproductallthetimebutisspreadingpositivewordofmouthandis

39

more likeapromoterof theparticularproduct/servicenow.This loyalcustomerhasreachedthatlevelofsinceritywiththeproductthatitstandswiththeproductinanyworstpossiblescenario.Riseinpricesandevenproductunderperformingthanexpectationsattimes,stillhavelittleornoeffectoncustomer’sbuyingbehaviortowardsit,that’swhytheyarecalledloyalcustomers.HEI’sinpursuitoflong‐termsuccessshouldalwaysaimatloyalcustomers,asitcanturntheexistingstudentstoenrollinotherorhigherdegreeprogramforfurtherstudiesaswell.

Summarizingfurther,theCustomerLoyaltyModelasoneofthecoretheoreticalconceptforthisThesis,aspectslikebrandawareness,servicequality,brand trustand their impactonbrand loyaltyareintegral to incorporate in Higher Education setting. Also, takingstudentsasultimateconsumersoftheservicesgivenbytheseHEIsandassessingtheir loyalties towardstheiralreadychosen institutions formgenuinebasisforthisresearchanddemandsnewcontributionaspartofscientificknowledge.ThisloyaltymodelbyAakerthusmakesitsviabilityimportantfortakinganddiscussthecustomerloyaltyinanotherdomainofHighereducationsector;theoutcomeofwhichaimstofurtherdevelopthescientificknowledgeinthesaidfield.

The model for branding higher education institution is arecentscientificcontributionbyI.HusseinAmzat.Amzat(2016)hassimplybutmeaningfullydescribed the essenceof creating auniversitybrand;consideringitsimportancebymoderndaystudent.Themodel–designedon the grounds of previous research and expert findings leans intodevelopanyHEIasabrandi.e.abrandthateveryHEIshouldbethinkofbecominginordertocompeteintoday’smarketenvironment.

40

Figure3.ModelforBrandingHigherEducationInstitution

(Amzat,2016)

Itcanbeseen inFigure3above thatmodel isdivided in to threesteps.Thefirststep iscalled“BrandPrinciple”.Thebrandprinciplestageaccountsforunderstandingthebasicissuesonwhichanybrandisbuiltingeneral.Thisfirststepiscategorizedintofivemaindomainswhichincludebrandperceptioninwhichitisimportanttoknowhowpeoplethinkofaninstitutionandwhatistheopinionofcustomersabouttheinstitution.Thisopinioncanbeheardbylisteningtosocialandlocalnetworks.Thencomescompetitoranalysis.Theseincludeallthebasicanalysisfromproductlinestopriceandthepromotionmessages.Itisimportantforaninstitutetonotonlyknowwhereitstandsasperitscompetitorbutkeeptrackingtheperformanceof its competitoraswell.Thiswillhelpan institution indevelopingvalueproposition and offering something at least or at par, if not better thancompetitorinstitute.Thisvaluepropositionwillresultincreationofself–imageoftheinstitutethatneedstobeaccompaniedbygoodservicesaswell.

The2ndstep focusesoncreatingbrand imageand identityof theinstitute.Asactivitiesinsteponehasformedabasisforinstitutetonaturallybeabletocreateitsownidentity,itisthatphasewhenaninstitutionwillitselfspeakaswhatitstandsfor.Whetherit’saneconomicalinstitution,aquality

41

provider,qualityataffordableprice,anultra‐modernbrand,anemergingorcashingonitbeinghistoric.However, it isextremelyappropriatetomakerightclaimsasattheendoftheday,theseheightenedclaimscanhaunttheinstitution image on permanent basis. This stage of identity constructiondemandsameaningfulandappropriateawarenesscampaigns.

Whiletheprevioustwostepshaveworkedoutonintroducingandcreatingbrandimageofahighereducationinstitute,thethirdstepaimsatensuring a right adjustment of branding as a futuristic brand. This stage,whichistheoutcomeofprevioustwostages,searchesthepeopleconnectsothatabrandisfinallypositionedandcanbetakenoracceptedinthemarketasabrand.Thisrequirescarefulobservationofpeople’swantsanddeterminationofrightlyfittargetmarkets.Aftermonetarilyspendingandexcessivetimecosts,it’stimeformanagementtofinallyaddresstheirrightlychosenmarket,considering the expectations of their segmented marketed and continueworkingonallthebrandattributesthatcanbenefitthosesetofcustomers.

ThoughAmzat(2016)hasdevisedamechanismforbrandingahighereducation institute, there can still bea room for inductionof concepts andtheories. However, in terms of scientific contribution this branding modelstresses on the importance of treating and converting higher educationinstituteasabrand,thusgivingresearchersaleadtowardsfurtherresearchondevelopingmatrixes, models or theories about the branding concepts andcategorizationofbrandmanagementofhighereducationinstitutionstonextlevel.TheincorporationofbrandloyaltyconceptanddesiredaimofdevelopingaloyaltymatrixforhighereducationinstitutionsinthisThesis,cansurelybeconsidered a valuable advancement in the very field of higher educationbranding;thus,fulfillingoneofthegapsinexistingresearchaswell.

Thischapterinitiallydiscussedtheessentialconceptsandpreviousstudies regarding brand management and branding Higher educationinstitutions.Theseconceptsassisted indevelopingvarioushypothesis incontext of higher education branding and loyalty. From theoreticalperspective, first AIDA, then Customer loyalty and at last Model forbrandingHEIswerediscussedinsequentialorderi.e.AIDAmodelaimedatgenerating awareness and raising desire in customer throughadvertisement campaigns tomake customer decide about the product/

42

service.ThenCustomerLoyaltymodelwasstudiedtodiscussvariouskindsofcustomerswhoshowvariantbehaviorsof loyalty towards thechosenproductandservicethatsurroundsaroundswitchertocommittedbuyers.Finally,to linktheseloyaltyattributesofconsumers,ModelforBrandingHigherEducationwasdiscussedtoanalyzeashowaneducationalinstituteshouldbranditselfacrossvariousstagesofBrandingprocesses.Thissetupofmodelsgivesleadtothisstudytonextstepbydiscussingthefactorsthatcan affect, enhance, or contribute to brand loyalty of higher educationinstitutions.Thisalsoprovidesanopportunityandneedtodevelopamodelthatcanassistallthestakeholderstooverviewthecurrentposition,brandimageandloyaltyofaspecificorgroupofHEIs,whichisthemainoutputofthis research. So, the theoretical analysis I.e. discussion of essentialconcepts,reviewofpriorstudiesandscientific interpretationsofmodels(discussed previously) lead this study to hypothesis development; thus,encompassingthesignificanceofbrandingandnecessarydriversforattainingloyaltyineducationsector.Themainhypothesisthereforeisstatedas:

“Brand Awareness through proper brand management, andServiceQualityrangingfromqualityteachingtobetterstudentrelationshipmanagement increase student trust on the HEI, which in turns affectstudents’commitmentandenhancesHEIs’brandloyaltyinthelongrun”orin simple rather scientific notion it can be further summarized as “thegreater the brand awareness and service quality of higher educationinstitutes,thehigherwillbethebrandloyalty,though,incomparisonit’stheservicequalitythatconstitutesgreaterloyalty”.

This main hypothesis is supported by the following statisticalhypotheseswhichwillbetestedinempiricalanalysisinthenextsection.H1:Brandawareness(BA)positivelyaffectsBrandtrust(BT).H2:Servicequality(SQ)hassignificantimpactonBrandTrust(BT).H3:BrandTrust(BT)hassignificantimpactonBrandLoyalty(BL).H4: Brand awareness (BA) has positive impact on brand loyalty (BL).H5: Service quality (SQ) has significant impact on Brand Loyalty (BL).H6: Brandtrust(BT)playsamediatingrolebetweenBrandawareness(BA)andBrandloyalty.H7:Brandtrust(BT)playsamediatingrolebetweenServicequality(SQ)andBrandloyalty(BL).

43

3.CUSTOMEREVALUATIONFORDEVELOPINGBRANDLOYALTYMATRIX

This chapter takes a step ahead for developing brand loyaltymatrixasanoutcomeofquantitativeresearchconductedforthestudy.Thediscussionencompassestheresearchmethodschosen, justificationfor statistical analysis, qualitative analysis of expert panel and furtherinterpretations. The statistical results achieved are then correspondedwiththetheoryandresultsbyotherresearchersaswell.

3.1.Methodology&ResearchDesign

Theprimarysourcesusedinthisstudyaccountforquestionnairesfrompreviousstudiesandsemistructuredexpert interviews,whereasforsecondarysourcesjournals,articlesandpreviousstudieshavebeenconsidered.

This study is a mixed method study i.e. both qualitative andquantitative approaches are being used to investigate and seekingmeaningfulresults(Creswell,2013;Timans,Wouters,&Heilbron,2019).The reason for choosing semi structured interview lie on its ability togenerateleadsanddevelopingmoreinsightsaboutunexploredareasofthetopicinhand(Galletta,2012).SeeingtheimportanceofHighereducationbrandingasatrendingtopicandexpectedwaysinwhichanHEIcanpursuebranding options, conducting semi structured interviews by the authormeetsappropriatenessofmethodselection.Theexperts’profile(detailedin analysis section) in relation to academia and industry, their JDs (JobDescriptionsetc.)conformwiththeresearchthemeformeaningfulanalysis.

Alsousingquantitativeapproach,withreferencetothetypes–theresearchisanexplanatorystudywiththepurposeofdefiningandexplainingthe relationshipamongrespectivevariables.Also it examines the internalrelationshipsamongtherespectivevariables(Bernard&Bernard,2012),sotheneedforcorrelationstudyisjustifiedconsideringtheprospectnatureofcause and effect relationship between variables. These latent variables;backed by scientific literature, are associated as causal

44

(predictors/Independent/X) i.e. Brand Awareness & Service Quality, theMediator(M)i.e.BrandTrustandtheoutcome(effect/dependent/Y)variablei.e.BrandLoyalty.Theirinterconnectionsinoneortheotherwayarefoundinexistingliteraturehowever,inthisstudytheimpactofBrandAwareness(BA) andServiceQuality (SQ) throughmediationofBrandTrust (BT)onBrandLoyalty(BL)ofHEIswillbeanalyzed.TheseempiricalfindingsmayallowauthortoformenoughbasisfordevelopingBrandloyaltyMatrixforHigher Education Institutions. Whereas the subsequent findings will beverifiedqualitatively;aidedbyexpertpanels,fromwhichnecessarysuggestionstothemodelandimplicationstobemadefurther.Theevaluationofmatrixwillbeproceededwithdifferentsetofexperts–chosenonthebasisoftheirexperienceinthefield.Theirresponsesaboutmatrixapplicabilityandefficiencywillberecordedandanalysedquantitativelyusingdescriptivestatistics.

Theunitofanalysisisindividualconsumersofhighereducationinstitutionsi.e.students.Further,theresearchdesignchartispresentedbelow(figure4)reflectingvariousstagesintheongoingstudy.

Figure4.ResearchDesign(AuthorOwnCompilation)

45

Asperpreciseoverviewofthefigure4above,thestudystartedwiththeoreticalknowledgebasecoveringbriefunderstandingfromtopicformulationandproblemidentificationtogoalsettinganddeliverablesofthe study. The Higher Education context analysis for Pakistan wasconducted and the review of essential branding concepts and relatedtheoretical models further act as driver to conduct empirical andqualitativeanalysis; the findingsofwhich lead toachieveobjectivesasoutcome of the study i.e. Development of brand loyalty matrix. Therecommendationsandsuggestionsfurtherservethepurposeaspartofimplicationsofthisresearch.DataAnalysisFramework

Theframeworkforstatisticaldataanalysisispresentedbelowasfigure5.ThisframeworkiscomprisedofindependentvariablesasBrandAwareness(BA)andServicequality(SQ),whileBrandTrust(BT)ismediatingandBrandLoyalty(BL)istakenasdependentvariable.

Figure5.FrameworkforDataAnalysis(author’sconstruction)

46

MeasureofConstructsTheconstructsinthestudyweredevelopedbyusingquestionnaires

having measurement scales adopted from previous studies. Five‐pointLikertscalewith1–Stronglydisagreeand5–StronglyAgreehasbeenusedtomeasure the constructs.All, thirty‐six items, later reduced to twenty‐sevenasaresultofdatareductionwerepositivelywordedwithnoleadinganddoublebarrelquestions.Thecontentvalidityof thequestionnairewasensured.Itemsformeasuringbrandawarenesswereadoptedfrom(Aaker,1996)whereas Items forServicequality (SQ)were taken frompreviousstudies (Brady & Cronin, 2001; Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1988;Terblanche & Boshof, 2001). Similarly, the brand trust measures weretaken from the previous studies of (Hsteh & Hiang 2004; Caceres &Paparoidamis 2007; Ballester‐Delgado & Aleman‐Munuera 2005; Dixon,Bridson,Evans&Morison2005;Chaudhuri&Holbrook2001, etc.). andlastlythebrandloyalty(BL)measureswereadaptedfrommultiplesources(Algesheimer,Uptal&Herrmann,2005;Fullerton,2005;Heithman,Lehman&Herrmann,2007;Hess&Story,2005;Johnson,Herrmann&Huber,2006;Sierra&McQuity,2005;Zeithaml,Berry&Parasuraman,1996).

Table3Cronbach’sAlpha

Variable Cronbach’sAlphaBrandAwareness(BA) 0.79ServiceQuality(SQ) 0.83BrandTrust(BT) 0.90BrandLoyalty(BL) 0.90

Source:owncalculations

Table3representsreliabilityanalysisforthevariables.Asvalue

ofCronbachalphaabovethanestablishedthresholdof0.7accountsforhigherreliabilityandinternalconsistency(Nunnally,1978)i.e.thecloserelation between items as a group tomeasure a construct (Cronbach,1951), the value of each study variable passes the reliability testconsiderably, thusmakingthepointclear thatrespondentsunderstoodthequestionsclearlyandrespondedinsimilarwayaswell.

47

DataCollection&Sample:Asdiscussedinprevioussection,HigherEducationInstitution(HEIs)havebeenselectedasresearchcontextforthisstudy.Thesamplingdatawascollectedrandomlyinthesenseofindependentselection of respondents both in person at chosen HEIs (Government &Private) and electronically through official database, thus enabling everyrespondent had equal opportunity to respond. These HEIs located inmetropolitan and diverse city of Lahore (known as educational hub) areselectedirrespectiveoftheirdomainsintermsoffieldandcourseofferings,considering the research at hand comprises about Brand Loyalty due toexisting level of BrandAwareness, Service quality and brand trustwhichtheseHEIsareproviding to theirstudents.Also, theseHEIswereselectedbasedupontheirnaturebeingGovernmentandPrivate,asGovernment/publicinstitutestendtofocusonservicequalitywhereasnon‐state/non‐fundedorprivateinstitutesratherrelyonpromotionalaspectsaswell.However,allthechosenHEIsarerenownedforbeingqualityproviderinstitutes.So,gatheringresponsesfrombothtypesofHEIsenabletheauthortobetterpredictandinterpretthefindingsinmeaningfulwaythanwouldhavebeenotherwise.

Thoughtherequiredsamplewas382,thesamplingframewiththeresponserateof75%consistsof401respondentscomprising53%(214)femalesand47%(187)males.AsperGayandAirasian(2002)forapopulationover200million,asamplesizeof400isadequate,andaccordingtoRobert(2019), random sampling allows extraction of samples easily for largerpopulationsanditisbettersuitedwhensamplerepresentationdoesn’trequirefurtherclassificationandsubcategorizationforsampletobeappropriate,asitisthecaseinthisstudy.Table4&5belowpresentanoverviewofageandeducationofrespondents.

Table4AgeStructureofRespondents

Age Frequency PercentageValid

PercentageCumulativePercentage

18to23 238 59 59.4 59.424to28 128 32 31.9 91.329&above 35 9 8.7 100Total 401 100.0 100.0

48

Table5EducationProfilingofRespondents

Education Frequency Percent ValidPercent CumulativePercent

Bachelors 200 49.9 49.9 49.9M.Phil 29 7.2 7.2 57.1

Masters 164 40.9 40.9 98.0PhD 8 2.0 2.0 100.0Total 401 100.0 100.0 Source:owncalculations

3.2.TheQuantitativeInvestigationsandBreakdown

Thissectionincludesempiricalanalysisencompassingdescriptive,factoranalysis,regressionandmediationanalysistotesthypothesis.Resultsfromthesaidanalysisaretargetedtoidentifynecessaryparametersandstudent’sviewaboutessenceofbrandloyaltyandfactorsaffectingit.DescriptiveAnalysisforVariables

Aspurposeofdescriptivestudyistoidentifythemeasureofcentraltendenciesandtodrawsummaryaboutrespondent’sresponsesfollowingacertainpattern(Etchegaray&Fischer,2009),students’understanding,theirchoicesandlevelofsatisfactionwiththeirHEIscanbeobservedaswheretheiranswersliethemost;thoughdescriptivemaynotdepictthefinalresults;especiallythetestingofstatisticalhypothesisetc.

BrandAwarenessItems

Thetable6belowpresentstheresultsofdescriptivestatisticsforitemsoftheBrandAwarenessVariable.

The Items forbrandawarenessare tailored toget an independentviewofrespondent’sopinionaboutHEI’sawarenessanditsinfluentialimpactontheirfuturedecisionmakingcanbeproceededfromhereafter.Itisevidentfromtable6abovethatconsiderablemeanscoresforrespondentshavinganopinionaboutthebrandisapositivesignconsideringitsimpactonloyalty.

49

Table6DescriptiveStatisticsforBrandAwarenessItems

Ihaveanopinionaboutthisbrand(university)

Ihaveheardofthisbrand(University)

Iamawareofthisbrand(University)

Ifrequentlythinkofthis

brand(University)

NValid 401 401 401 401Missing 0 0 0 0

Mean 3.94 4.20 4.17 3.73

Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00Mode 4 5 5 4

Std.Deviation 0.952 0.999 1.019 1.085Minimum 1 1 1 1

Maximum 5 5 5 5

ServiceQualityItemsTheresultsofdescriptivestatisticsforServicequalityitemsare

presentedbelowintable7.

50

Table7DescriptiveStatisticsforServiceQualityItems

ServiceQuality N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Mode

Thisbrand(University)providessuperiorservice

401 1 5 3.66 .985 4

Thisbrand(University)offersexcellentservice

401 1 5 3.58 1.03 4

Mystudyexperienceinthisuniversityisalwaysgood

401 1 5 3.69 .975 4

Ifeelgoodaboutwhatthisbrand(University)offerstoitscustomers(students)

401 1 5 3.67 .926 4

Overall,Iwouldsaythequalityofmyinteractionwiththisbrand's(University’s)employeesisexcellent

401 1 5 3.54 1.010 4

Iwouldsaythatthequalityofmyinteractionwiththisuniversity’semployeesishigh 401 1 5 3.42 1.010

4

Iwouldsaythisuniversity’sphysicalenvironmentisoneofthebestinitsindustry 401 1 5 3.58 1.061

4

Iwouldratethisuniversity’sphysicalenvironmenthighly 401 1 5 3.68 1.064

4

Thisuniversityhasfairsystemforthehandlingofcomplaints 401 1 5 3.12 1.188

3

ThisUniversity’sstaffefficientlydealwithcustomer(students’)complaints 401 1 5 3.09 1.154

3

ValidN(listwise) 401 Source:owncalculations

Mean values for Service Quality are another indicator about the

importanceofeducationalserviceswhicharedeemedtobenecessary forHEIs. This shows that continuous improvement in services iswhat thesestudentsseekintheirHEIs.Fromthetakensetofpopulation,resultsdepictthat students nearly agree with the existing level of educational andcurriculum development from their HEIs. From complaint handling to

51

dealingwithotheremployees,thereisdiverseneedforimprovement,thoughintermsofteachingquality,studentsbelieveastheyaregettingwhattheyhadbeenpromisedtosomeextent.Theirsatisfactionisonmoderatelevelwithmostly students considering theirHEIs as quality service providers.From applied perspective of research, the impact of service quality looksobviousonstudentselection.Physicalspacei.e.infrastructuralarrangementsandupdated facilitiesaresomeof theother itemswhicharediscussed inquestionnaireandtheiraveragemeanvaluesareasignofconcernforHEIs.ThisstressestheneedforinfrastructuraldevelopmentswithinHEIs,ifbeingstateoftheartisunachievableintheshortrun.Thestatisticalrelationthatwillfurtherbedealt in laterpartofanalysismayfurther implythateducationalinstitutes should rely on quality‐oriented services in a consistent manner,whichhavedirectandlong‐lastingimpactonstudentlikinginthelongrun.

Figure6.ServiceQualityItem9(thisuniversityhasfairsystemforthehandlingofcomplaints)

Source:ownconstruction,basedonsurvey

AsrevealedinthedescriptiveTable7thatproportionin“disagree”and“stronglydisagree”columnforCustomerrelationshipmanagementshouldbeasignofconcern,anotherwaytoanalyzefigure6.wouldbethevoiceofbachelorlevelstudentsforwhomdissatisfactionwithhandlingofcomplaintsismoreincomparisontoMasterstudents,andtheir(bachelorstudents)loyaltytowardsinstitutecouldbedecisiveforHEIs’longtermsuccess.ThestudybyPember,Owens&Yaghi(2014)revealstheimportance

11.5 12.813.79 12.5

1613.41

27.59

37.537.5

26.83

17.2412.5

25

32.3227.59

25

14.63 13.79 12.5

0510152025303540

Bachelors Masters M.Phil PhD

StronglyDisagree Disagree SomewhatAgree Agree StronglyAgree

52

of CRM for student retainment for increasing institutions’ responsivenessandresultsherealsodemandsroomforimprovement.ThisalsocanindulgethetraininganddevelopmentofemployeesintheirrespectivefieldsobetterCRMisensured.

BrandTrustItems

Talking about the third study variable i.e. brand trust, mostlyanswerslieonsomewhatagreecolumn(seeTable8below)whichshowsthat respondents are divided in their opinion and undecided when itcomestotrustfactor.

Table8DescriptiveStatisticsforBrandTrustItems

BrandTrust N Min Max Mean Std.D ModeX(University/HEI)meetsmyexpectations 401 1 5 3.37 1.017 4

IfeelconfidentinX 401 1 5 3.61 1.007 4Xneverdisappointsme 401 1 5 3.30 1.091 4

Xguaranteessatisfaction 401 1 5 3.41 1.021 4

Xwouldbehonestandsincereinaddressingmyconcerns

401 1 5 3.38 1.015 4

IcouldrelyonXtosolvemyacademicproblem

401 1 5 3.42 1.048 4

Xwouldmakeanyefforttosatisfyme 401 1 5 3.34 1.051 4

Xwouldcompensatemeinsomewayfortheproblemwithsomecourses 401 1 5 3.31 1.063

4

ValidN(listwise) 401 Source:owncalculations

Asit’sthetrustfactorthatservesthepurposeinthewiderperspective,

themode(mostrepeatedvalue)around4i.e.agreecolumninquestionnaireisamotivatingsignforHEIs,whereasmeanvaluearound3.5depictthatHEIs have a lot to do in this domain. Students somehow trust theirinstitutionbutarenotsureifitwouldcompensatethestudentsincaseofunfavorablecircumstances(seeitemssevenandeight).Theseunfavorablecircumstancescouldrangefromfeeinstalmentstocoursechanges,frompractical training to job placement arrangements. This alarms that

53

sincerity of HEIs can be questioned by students and this moderngenerationofstudentsexpectmorefromtheseHEIstojustifytheirstatusasaconcernedandcaringHEI.Thoughmeanaround3issomethingwhichmay not be desirable considering the competitive environment in HEIsetting and in particular for the institutes who aim to be the marketleaders.So,shortcomingsinthistrustfactorraisesconcernfortheHEIsinordertogenerateconsumerengagement.As,Liu,Lee,Liu&Chen(2018)emphasizetheroleofconsumerengagementinbuildingconsumertrust,it can be added that this trust further leads to long term commitment(Morgan&Hunt,1994).

Overall,thedescriptiveforbrandtrustitemsfalljusthigherthan“somewhatagree”or“neutral”responsepattern.Thisdemandsthetrustenhancement to ensure loyalty. Apparent issues related to trust factorcountsforcomplainthandlingthatcanaffectwordofmouth;whichcanhave its severe implicationson student loyalty i.e. repurchasedecisionmaking.So issues surroundingcustomer relationshipmanagementandsolvingstudentissuesshouldbeatprioritylistofHEIstoincreasetheiroverallleveloftrustonstudents.

BrandLoyaltyItems

DiscussionaboutbrandloyaltyissubstantialinthisThesisasitisthe outcome variable in the study. The entire study revolves aroundsignificanceofthisvariablewhichwillalsobeprovedstatisticallybutforthepopulationstudied,itsmeanvalueisalmostliketheformerlydiscussedbrandtrustfactori.e.3atsomewhatagreescale(seeTable9).Forhighereducationsettingingeneralandforindividualcases(institutions)aswell,it isanissuetodealwith.Thescoreinspiresininstancesforfewitemswhenquestionsareaskedabout takingother courses in theuniversitywhich is proportional to university’s loyalty, but when asked about ifstudentsarewillingtopayhigherpriceforstudyingthesamecourse,themeanvaluefelldownslightlyshowingthatstudentsascustomersarecostconsciousandoneofthereasonsthattheyareintheselecteduniversityisbeingeconomical.ThisdrivestheneedforbetterfeestructuresbytheseHEIs.Also,itdemandsforincreasingqualityofeducationsothatstudents

54

choose institutions not only based on economy but quality as well.Bringingtheimpactofcompetitor’sadvertisementintodiscussion,whichissignificant,itismandatoryforHEIstokeeppacewithchangingdemandsofawarenessanditalsoshowsashowpromotionandawarenesscampaignscan generate second thoughts in customers’ mind. So, the impact ofawarenessonloyaltycanbeseenhereaswell.

While the value for spreadingword ofmouth appears positivewhichshowsstudentssatisfactionaswell,HEIsshouldlookatcontinuousdevelopment to ensure word of mouth serves the loyalty purpose tomaximum, especially seeing at “somewhat agree” values for choosingtheirongoinguniversityasfuturedestination.So,allinallthesubjectedHEIsarefoundtobemaintainingtheirqualitytosomewhataboveaveragelevel,andit’salsoobservedthathowqualityandcommercialmessagesworkhandinhandtoachievesustainableandconsistentbrandloyalty.

Table9

DescriptiveforBrandLoyaltyItems

BrandLoyalty N Min Max Mean Std.D Mode

Iintendtostudyinthisuniversity/instituteinthenearfuture

401 1 5 3.17 1.208 4

Iintendtotakeothercourses(optional/extra)ofthisuniversity

401 1 5 3.25 1.180 3

IconsiderthisUniversityasmyfirstchoiceinmychosenfieldofstudy.

401 1 5 3.27 1.244 4

ThenexttimeIneedtostudyagain,Iwillchoosethesameuniversity

401 1 5 3.04 1.244 3

Iwillcontinuetobeloyalcustomer/studentforthisbrand(university)

401 1 5 3.48 1.179 4

Iamwillingtopayahigherpriceforstudyinginthisuniversityinsteadofchoosingcoursesfromotherinstitutions

401 1 5 2.85 1.3192

Iwouldonlyconsiderstudyinthisuniversityagain,ifitwouldbesubstantiallycheaper

401 1 5 3.37 1.220 4

55

Commercialsregardingtocompetingbrandsarenotabletoreducemyinterestinstudyingthisuniversity

401 1 5 3.46 1.0704

Isaypositivethingsaboutthisuniversitytootherpeople

401 1 5 3.78 1.012 4

Irecommendthisuniversity/institutiontosomeonewhoseeksmyadvice

401 1 5 3.66 1.054 4

Iintendtorecommendthisbrand(university/college/institution)tootherpeople

401 1 5 3.66 1.049 4

Iconsiderthisuniversitymyfirstchoiceinthenextfewyears

401 1 5 3.25 1.238 4

Thisuniversityruns(teaches)coursesIamlookingfor

401 1 5 3.53 1.061 4

Igetgoodvalueformymoney 401 1 5 3.43 1.116 4ValidN(listwise) 401 Source:owncalculations

Figure7.BrandLoyaltyItem6(%)(Iamwillingtopayahigherpriceforstudyinginthisuniversity

insteadofchoosingcoursesfromotherinstitutions)

17.65

21.96

22.46

22.9

19.25

24.77

26.2

19.16

14.44

11.21

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Male

Femmale

StronglyAgree Agree SomewhatAgree Disagree Stronglydisagree

56

ThisisaconcernforHEIsthatsetpatternforstudentloyalty.Itisevidentfromthefigure7above,theresponsesarealarming.Especiallyforthefemales.the“stronglyagree”columnisalmostashalfof“stronglydisagree”columnwhenaskedaboutpayingahigherpriceforstudiesinfuture.Thatalso givesan insight thathow fee structures andbeing economicalmightaffectloyaltyoftheinstitutethatshouldbetakenintoconsiderationaswell.Also,theservicequalityneedstobeofsuchlevelwhereriseinfee/chargesetc.islesslikelytoeffectstudent’schoiceofinstitute.Thisisgoingtobeanimportantinputforrecommendationpartofthisstudywhereonecaneasilyunderstand various dimensions of student preferences effecting theirdecisionmakingandcommitmenttotheinstitute.

Figure8.BrandLoyaltyItem8

(Commercialsregardingcompetingbrandsarenotabletoreducemyinterestinstudyingthisuniversity)

Figure8depictsmixreviewaboutthecompetitors’advertisementonrespondents’selectioncriteria.Thoughhighbarsfor“somewhatagree”and30%of sample showing that theymay get effectedby competitor’scampaigns,italtogetherreflectsthegeneralimpactofcompetitiveenvironmentand significance of promotional programswhichmight turn an existingcustomerintoaswitcher.

4

3.04

10.34

0

11

17.68

20.69

12.5

32.5

29.27

32.5

25

33.5

32.32

20.69

50

19

17.68

17.24

12.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Bachelors

Masters

M.Phil

PhD

Percent%

StronglyAgree Agree SomewhatAgree Disagree StronglyDisagree

57

Figure9.BrandLoyaltyItem9

(Isaypositivethingsaboutthisuniversitytootherpeople)Source:ownconstruction,baseduponsurvey

PositivewordofmouthisevidentasperFigure9.TheHEIsmustcope

withongoingrequirementsofstudentsasthiscontributestopositivewordofmouth,whichitself,isalonglastingandimpactfullawarenesstooloftheHEI.Thebetterthewordofmouthforinstitute,thegreaterwillbetheoverallimageandstudentintakeofHEI.TheliteratureencompassingtheworksofSilverman(2001) and Ferguson (2008) discusses the essence of word of mouth indepictingsoftimageoforganizations,whichisalsoconfirmedbythesefindingsinlargenumbersaswellasstudentinmajoritysaypositivethingsabouttheirHEIS,yetmoreeffortsneedstobedonetofurtherincreasethispercentageofcustomers/studentswithpositivewordofmouth.

Thedescriptiveresultsshowedtheaverageresponseintermsofstudent satisfaction with their HEIs. Quality of services, and studentrelationshipmanagementarealsotheareastobeconsidered,whichneedgreatadvancement.All,thesefactorshavefoundtobeimpactingstudenttrust,whichshouldideallybeonthehigherside.Also,theresultsrevealedtheessenceofadvertisementforbrandawarenesswhichcanhavesevere

4.5

3.04

0

0

6.5

9.14

10.34

0

22.5

20.12

17.24

0

43.5

42.07

44.83

87.5

23

25.61

27.59

12.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Bachelors

Masters

M.Phil

PhD

Percent%

StrongkyAgree Agree SomewhatAgree Disagree StronglyDisagree

58

impact on student commitment with their institutions, as considerableproportionofstudentshavefoundtobeattractedtowardsadcontent.Toaddtoit,alotofworkneedstobedonebytheseHEIstoensurestudentloyalty.

FactorAnalysisToobtainbestfitofdataandmeasuringtheconstructs,theitemsofa

validatedquestionnaireweresubjectedtoExploratoryFactorAnalysis(EFA),usingPrincipalComponentAnalysis(PCA)withvarimaxsolution.Fromtheextraction results, the prime thing is to look at KMO (Kaiser‐Meyer‐Olkin)valuewhichshouldnormallybemorethan0.50(Kaiser,1974).AsKMOtestisameasureofhowwellthedataissuitedforfactoranalysis(Kaiser,1974).TheKMOvalueobtainedforthisstudyis0.94whichshowsthedatasuitabilityforfactoranalysistogreatextentastheobtainedvalueisverynearto1.

Asdiscussedabovethatvarimaxrotationwasusedforinvestigation,thebest fitofdatawasobtainedaftersqueezing the items from36to27.These27itemsinclude4itemsforBrandAwareness(BA),5itemsforServicequality(SQ),8ItemsforBrandTrust(BT)and10itemsforBrandLoyalty(BL).Allfactorloadingsarehigherthan0.5thusconfirmingvalidity(Hair,etal.,2006).Thetotalexplainedvarianceaccountsfor60.31%including5%forBT,6%forSQ,9%forBTand40%forBLrespectively(seeappendix13inthesis).This60%variancejustifiesthefitofmodelandfactoranalysisfortheintendedstudy(Hair,etal.,2006),thustakingthestatisticalanalysistonextlevelofproceedings.ThefactorloadingsarepresentedinTable10.

Table10RotatedComponentMatrix

BrandAwareness ServiceQuality BrandTrust BrandLoyaltyBA1.673 SQ1.639 BT1.653 BL1.673BA2.856 SQ2.602 BT2.595 BL2.662BA3.843 SQ4.561 BT3.668 BL3.681BA4.676 SQ5.748 BT4.790 BL4.799

SQ6.669 BT5.740 BL5.724 BT6.730 BL6.571 BT7.737 BL8.597 BT8.611 BL10.636 BL12.775

59

BL14.597ExtractionMethod:PrincipalComponentAnalysis.RotationMethod:VarimaxwithKaiserNormalization.a.Rotationconvergedin6iterations.

3.3.RegressionandHypothesisTesting

RegressionAnalysisisconductedtoassesstherelationshipintermsof strength and direction among two or more variables. It accounts forindependentanddependentvariablesingeneralwhicharealsoknownaspredictor and outcome variables respectively. Scholars may furtherinterchangetheterminologybycallingthemasXandYvariable,basedupontheirpositionacrosstheaxis.Dependinguponthenatureofthisstudyi.e.causal and design i.e., regression analysis is being used to identify thestatisticalsignificanceofrelationshipsbetweenvariousvariablesusedinthisstudy. These variables, representing different scenarios are related andaffecting each other, on the basis of which the theoretically developedhypotheses will be tested. Presented below are the details of regressionanalysis for each of the stated hypothesis individually together with amentionofnecessaryassumptions.

RegressionAssumptionsTable11

CorrelationAnalysis

Mean Median Mode S.D

BrandAwareness

ServiceQuality

BrandTrust

BrandAwareness

4.01 4.00 4.00 .79 1

ServiceQuality 3.57 3.60 3.80 .76 .358** 1 BrandTrust 3.39 3.50 3.88 .80 .209** .648** 1BrandLoyalty 3.28 3.4 3.60 .88 .199** .622** .695**

**Correlationissignificantatthe0.01level

60

Thestandarddeviationisnotfarfrom1,showingthatdataisnotscattered thatmuch. As for correlations, all the relationships betweenvariables are significant and in positive direction. BetweenBA andBT(r=‐.209,p=0.000)andBAandBL(r=0.199,p=0.00),therearefoundweekpositive relation.Though, theauthoradvocates this relation consideringpredictive ability of brand trust as mediator in this study, and by alsoconsidering thepractical impactof small change inbrandawarenessonbrandloyalty,whichcanbedecisive.AsforServicequalitybeingindependentvariable, thereare foundmoderatepositiverelationbetweenSQandBT(r=0.648,p=0.000)andbetweenSQandBL(r=0.622,p=0.00),whereasbetweenBTandBLthereexistsstrongpositiverelation(r=0.695,p=0.00).ThissomehowmayjustifytheweakrelationbetweenpreviouslydiscussedBAandBLasBTactsmediator inthisstudyandthat itcanenhancetheessenceofrelationshipbetweenBAandBLthroughit.Asseenintable11,correlationbetweenpredictors/input/independentvariablesareweakwhichshowtheavoidanceofcollinearityissuesamongrespectivevariables.Table12belowpresentstheregressionresultsforsupportingorrejectingthehypothesis.

Table12RegressionResults

Path Direction Beta p‐Value t FValue SupportedH1 BABT + 0.209 0.000 12.58 18.16 YesH2 SQBT + 0.648 0.000 6.48 288.5 YesH3 BTBL + 0.695 0.000 5.168 373.29 YesH4 BABL + 0.199 0.000 10.855 16.848 YesH5 SQBL + 0.622 0.000 251.31 4.404 Yes

Table 12 displays that all hypotheses are supported, and thealternativenullhypothesesarerejectedasthepvalueforallhypothesisislessthan0.05.Also,bycomparingthebetavalueofboth(BABLandSQBL)hypothesis, it canbeheld that it is theservicequalitywhichimpacts more on brand loyalty. As of now, this finding is significantdevelopmentinordertoconfirmthemainhypothesisofthestudypriortomediationresults,whicharepresentedastable13andtable14below.

The inclusion of mediator entails for using F Hayes test ofmediation.BaronandKenny(1986),JuddandKenny(1981),andJames

61

andBrett(1984)discussedfoursteps inestablishingmediation.Outofthe four, the first three steps have already been accomplished as perregressionanalysisabovei.e.H4asstep1,H1asstep2,andH3asstep3.The fourth step accounts formediation of brand trust between brandawarenessandbrandloyalty,theresultsofwhicharedepictedintable13.

Table13TheMediationModelforH6–Step4

X:BrandAwarenessM:BrandTrustY:BrandLoyaltyModelSummaryR R‐sq MSE F df1 df2 P.6974 .4864 .4031 188.4583 2.0000 398.0000 .0000Model Coeff Se T P LLCI ULCIConstant .5030 .1918 2.6219 .0091 .1258 .8801BrandAwareness

.0623 .0406 1.5340 .1258 ‐.0175 .1421

BrandTrust .7472 .0402 18.6074 .0000 .6683 .8262

The mediation appears as full/completemediation termed as

“direct effect” i.e. nullifying the effect of independent variable (BA)completely with intervention of mediating variable (BT) on dependentvariable(BL).WhereastheoverallmodelstayseffectivewithF=188,R2=.48,atsig0.00(p<0.05),whichleadsustoconfirmhypothesis(H6)thatBrandTrustplaysamediatingrolebetweenBrandAwarenessandBrandloyalty.ItisworthwhiletomentionherethatRsquarevaluechangesdramaticallywiththeadditionofmediatingvariablei.e. from0.20(20%)to .48(48%),thusmakingmodelmorereliableanddescribingtherelationofbrandawarenessthroughbrandtrustinratherincreasingfitpattern..Thisfinallyconcludesthatrelationorimpactofbrandawarenessonbrandloyaltycanbebetterexplainedthroughbrandtrustincontrasttoanalyzethedirecteffectofbrandawareness on brand loyalty. So, it’s better to first aim at increasing trustthroughawarenesswhichfurthercontributestobrandloyalty.ThisfindingcorrespondswiththeresultsofYu‐Chun,Shu‐Hsien,&Wen‐Jung(2018)andCasal,Flavin,&Guinalu(2007).ThisfindingaimstoestablishstrongbasisaboutgenerationofTrustinawarenessandpromotionalcampaignswhichwillbediscussedinrecommendationandconclusionsection.

62

Similarly, table 14 below shows the testing of hypothesis 7 toanalyse themediating role of brand trust between service quality andbrand loyalty. Again, the same four steps will be followed to performmediationoutofwhichfirstthreestepshavealreadybeenperformedandconfirmedi.e.step1asH5,step2asH2andstep3asH3.Thefourthsteprepresentingmediatingroleofbrandtrustbetweenservicequalityandbrandloyaltyisrevealedintable14asunder.

Table14TheMediationModelforH7–Step4

X:ServiceQualityM:BrandTrustY:BrandLoyaltyModelSummaryR R‐sq MSE F df1 df2 P.7307 .5339 .3658 227.9398 2.0000 398.0000 .0000Model Coeff Se T P LLCI ULCIonstant .2028 .1515 1.3381 .1816 ‐.0951 .5007ServiceQuality

.3400 .0518 6.5688 .0000 .2382 .4418

BrandTrust .5511 .0491 11.2205 .0000 .4545 .6476

Results in table 14 above indicate partialmediation with R

square=0.53,F=227atSig=0.000(p<0.05).Thoughthisresultprovesthatmediatingvariable(BT)hasn’tbeenabletofullynullifytheimpactofindependentvariable(SQ)onBrandLoyalty,whichisdependentvariable,yet theoverall increase incoefficientofdetermination(R2=53%)hasbeenachieved.Thehypothesis(H7)thoughsupportedwithlittlemodificationas“BrandtrustplaysapartialmediatingrolebetweenServicequalityandbrandloyalty”.

Thisisagainavaluablefinding;revealingtheessenceofqualityservices as a must for HEIs having their direct impact on loyalty ofstudents. SERVQUALmodel by Parasuraman, Ziethaml&Berry (1985)canbelinkedwiththesefindingstooverviewthebasisforbetterservicequality. This effect of service quality on loyalty is also backed by theresultsofElliot&Healy(2001).

63

ExpertInterviewsThe expert interviews are employed to get details and in‐depth

knowledge about the problem/issue in hand from the experts in therespective field, considering that the experience and knowledgebase ofexpertsmayprovidevaluableinsightsforresearchquestionaswellasitcanaidininterpretationandimpartingconclusiveremarksonstudyaswell(Linderman, Baker & Bosacker, 2011).As branding of higher educationinstitutionsandloyaltyofstudentsascustomersareunderobservationinthis research, experts in this study are chosen as educationalist andadministrative,whoareinvolvedinadmissioncommitteesandhavingrichexposurebeingpartofrunningsuccessfuladmissioncampaigns;encircledyears of experience. Their experience in understanding of students’expectations at the time of admissions and about the varying nature ofstudentloyaltyaspertheclaimsandactualdeliveryofservices,couldbestbeusedtoalignthestatisticalfindingsandvariousattributesofpromotionandqualityservicesthatcaneffecttheHEIs’brandloyalty.

Theanalysishasbeenpursuedusingrecursiveabstractioni.e.atechnique toanalyzequalitativedata in the formof summary (Leshan,2012). Recursive abstraction, though having its limitations like othermethods, have itsmerit of being suitable for summarized details, thusenabletoextracthugeinformationfrominterlinkedconceptswhichcanfurtherleadtoconclusiveandmeaningfulanalysis.

The followingare thekeyandcommon findings fromexpertinterviews.1. HEIsshouldbrandthemselvesirrespectiveofbeingprivate,government

orsemigovernment.2. Servicequalityrangesfromqualityteaching,effectivecurriculumand

infrastructuralrequirements.3. Aggressivemarketingcampaignsaremustforinitialintakesthatcan

besloweddowninthelaterstages,whilelonglastingloyaltycanbeachievedthroughservicequality.

4. HEIsneedtounderstandlifecyclestagesabouttheircurrent,pastandfuturepositionsinmarketandneedadjustmentsaccordingly.

5. At some point of time, even established HEIs need to marketthemselvesagaintogetpublicfamiliarityamongnewgeneration.

64

6. Alumnireunionsaremusttobeorganizedforcontinuedbrandloyalty.7. Industry–AcademialinkagesandjobplacementscellsinHEIsshould

efficientlybeoperatingforbecomingalifetimebrand.8. Seminars,workshops,studytours,extracurricularactivitiesarevital

formaintainingstudenttrust.9. Fake marketing claims and false promises of job placements may

result in lossof studentcommitmentand trustonHEI,whichdoeseffectloyaltyinthelongrun.

10. WordofmouthaboutHEIscanbeadecidingfactor,hencearightfitbetweenvariousdomainsofservicequalitybeaccomplished.

11. Teachers’ training and development should be ensured in qualityconsciousHEIs.

12. Branding strategies should be incorporated while keeping bothconsumerandcustomerinmind.

13. HEIsoperatingindifferentscenariosofHighBA/BLorLowBA/BLneeddifferentsetofstrategiesaspertheirstanding.TheseideasasstrategieswillbediscussedandemployedinmakingofBrandLoyaltyMatrix(BLM)innextchapter.

Toconcludetheempiricalsection,descriptiveanalysisrevealed

theshortcomingsinfactorslikecustomerrelationshipmanagementandbetter infrastructure as major areas of concern. Other influencers onstudent decision making include price factor and interestingly theadvertisements by competing brands; though considerable adequatestudentsarefoundtobesatisfiedwithstaffs’competencyasfacultyandconsideritasourceoftheirincreasedtrustontherespectiveHEIs.Thisalongwithstatistical testingofhypothesisvia regressionanalysishaveshowntheimpactandsignificanceofbothbrandawarenessandservicequalityonloyaltyofstudents;however,thecontributionofservicequalityisfoundtohavegreaterimpactonstudents’futurepurchasedecisionofeducationalservices.Allthestatisticalhypothesisinthestudyhavebeenfound as statistically significant with desirable p and F values, whilefurtherinputfromexpertsnotonlyverifythesequantitativefindingsbutalso justify the need for developing brand loyalty matrix and itsapplicationandfurtherimplementation.

65

4.MATRIXFORHIGHEREDUCATIONBRANDLOYALTY

Thereviewofliteratureencompassingbrandingtheoryandmodels,statisticalfindingsandfindingsfromexpertinterviewsmakeprovisionsfordevelopmentofBrandLoyaltyMatrix(BLM),whichaddstothenoveltyofthisresearchactivity.Forarecall,oneoftheobjectivesoftheThesiswastosuggesttheuniversities/HEIsthebestfitbetweenbrandandservicequality,sotoensurelong‐termbrandloyalty.Asitisprovedthatservicequalitytendstoserve theultimatebrand loyaltyandhasmoderatepositivecorrelation(r=0.62)withBrandLoyalty,theconcernhereistoanalyzedifferentscenariosforthoseuniversities/HEIwhicharefocusingonbrandawarenessbymeansof brand promotion, so to analyze the different Loyalty and AwarenessscenariosinwhichtheseHEIsfallbymanipulating/interchanging/adjustingthedifferentdimensionsofbrandawarenessandbrandloyaltyaspects.ConstructionofBrandLoyaltyMatrix(BLM)

ThissectionpresentstheformationofBrandloyaltymatrixin3phases. Phase 1 describes that factorial design matrices are used toidentifythevariouscombinationsandinteractionsbetweenthefactors.The factorialdesignmayconsistofup to2ormore factors (variables)with each factor may set at two or more levels (Antony, 2014). Eachcombination/matchupoffactorsandleveliscalledtreatmentcombination(Fontana,Rapallo&Rogantin,2014).So,incaseoftwo‐wayinteractionbetweenfactorsAandB,therewillbefourcombinations.

The proposed brand loyalty matrix is divided among 4 tables(quadrants)with2eachonXandYaxis.AsXaxisgenerallydenotestheindependence of variables – thepredictable variable (Korkmaz, 2019),therefore based upon the research framework used in this study, thevariableBrandAwareness(BA)isplacedonXaxis.ThetwoendsoftheXaxisshowthetwoextremesas“High”and“Low”whicharepredictingthedifferentscenariosandoutcomesforHighereducationInstitutestodealwith,whichwillbediscussedbelowinmatrixapplicationpart.

66

Similarly,onYaxis,whichnormallydenotesthedependenceofVariables – the outcome variable in Statistical/ Social sciences, thevariableBrandLoyalty (BL) is placedwith its twoendshaving similarextremes with “High” and “Low”. These two extremes along with thecombination of extremes on X axis (independent variable) will justifyscenarios and suggestions for HEIs/ Universities to operate in hypercompetitiveeducationmarkets,thusfosteringperfectcompetition.

The Phase 2 aims at next development stage of BLM wheredifferent combination of Brand Awareness and Brand loyalty will beinterlinked to further analyze as how HEIs can be placed in differentquadrantsofthematrix,atwhatcombinationofawarenessand loyaltytheystandandwhatshouldbetheirfocuson.Basedupontheirfocusoncorestrategy,theseHEIswillbefurtheradvisedtoincorporaterespectivestrategiesandsuggestionstosustainorimprovetheircurrentstandings.

These four different scenarios accounts for the combination ofHighBAandlowBL,lowBAandlowBL,lowBAandHighBLandHighBAandHighBL.

Figure10.BrandLoyaltyMatrixbyAuthor

67

At this stage (phase3) ofMatrix development (see figure10),highBAandlowBLboxrepresentsinstituteswhoarelackinginqualityservices,sotheirfocusshouldbeonServiceQuality.WhileforquadranthavingbothlowBAandlowBL,thefocusofHEIsshouldbetoenhancebrandrecognitionandservicequalitysidebyside.Similarly,thetopleftquadranti.e.highBLandlowBArepresentsHEIswhichneedtofocusonbrandrecognitionandtoprightlastquadrantwithbothhighBAandhighBLdefinesHEIswhicharehighlyrecognizedandalsohavehighretentionandtheirfocusshouldbetowardsensuringfurtherstability.

AsperWorkingandApplicationofBrandLoyaltyMatrix–Phase3onecananalyzeitsdifferentaspectsandstrategiesinHEIsetting.This Matrix is all set to interpret the four probable options in whichdifferentHEIs canbeplacedasper theamountof their existingBrandLoyalty(discussedonYaxis),whereasexistingBrandAwarenessoftheHEIs lies at X axis. After understanding and placement of HEIs inrespectivecolumns, theHEIsarepresentedwithsuggestion–actingasimplicationsofstrategies intherespectivequadrants,whichstemfromliteraturereview,empiricalfindingsandoutputfromexpertinterviews.AbriefoverviewoffourquadrantsofBLMisasunder:

LowBLandHighBAThefirstcolumn/quadrantofmatrixondownrightaccountsfor

LowBrandLoyaltyandHighBrandawarenessoftheinstitutes.Itcanbeseenin general as there exist quite a few institutes which may fall in thiscolumn, which normally have focused more on brand promotion,advertisements, but down the line have somehow compromised onServiceQualityof the institutewhich foresee long termBrandLoyalty.HEIs following this aggressive marketing strategy may catch initialattentionofcustomersandconsumers(guardians/students),becauseofwhichinitialboomintheadmissionscanbeexpectedbutsomehowfailtoretain student’s commitment in the long run. These could be thoseinstituteswhicharenewlyestablishedor theoneswith limitedprivatecapital, which iswholly solely dedicated tomarketing campaigns thusentailstocompromiseonotherimportantfeaturesrequiredtoestablishHEIasastrongandfuturisticbrand.

68

Sowhichinstitutesfallinginthisquadrantwillcontinuetosurvive?Asmentionedearlier, only those,whosemotive ismakingmoneywithavailable leverageof financersandcapitaland it couldbe fora limitedperiod,buthowaboutthoseinstitutesinthisquadrantwhoseaimisnotjust profitmotive but respectable accreditations from their respectivecouncilsandhowcantheirshort‐termlifebeconvertedasaninstituteofcredibilityandsharedresponsibility.Toachievethatandtoextendtheirshorttermlifeexpectancy–knowingtheissueathandislackinginservicequality not the awareness, strategies like quality teaching, marketoriented curriculum, efficient customer (student) relationshipmanagementandspecially thebetteremployeestaffmanagementaresomeof thekeystrategies for these instituteson,whichhavebeendetailedexplicitlyinthefulltextofthesis.LowBAandLowBL

ThisquadrantondownleftsideoftheBLM,accountstheworstscenarioforanHEIwhichisdyingormaybealreadyincrisis.HEIsfallinginthiscategorymaybetermedasfailedinstituteswhichhavenothingtooffertoitscustomersorprospectcustomersconsideringthesearelackingterriblyinbothbrandawarenessandbrandloyalty,andthefocusoftheseHEI so as to sustain in hyper competitive education market revolvesaroundboth“BrandRecognitionandServiceQuality”,becausethesecanbethecoreissuestheseinstitutesaresufferingfrom.

These institutes could normally be the newly established HEIs,lackingfinancesexcessivelyorbeatlongcycleofintroductorystagewhichhaven’ttastedtheirgrowthpath.Thesearetheinstituteswhoseinabilitytoinvest in requiredmarketing campaigns and altogether bringing qualityteaching,isbeenamajordilemmathusmakingcustomers(students/guardians)perceiveorbelieveaboutthemaslow,unstandardizedandaprovenfailedinstitution.AstheseHEIslackinbothBAandBL,theyhavetostartfromthebasics and employ all possible options for their survival ranging frombetter teaching quality, up dated curriculum, efficient customer(student)relationshipmanagement,provisionofbasicinfrastructure,affordable fee structure, arranging extracurricular activities andmainlyfocusonaggressivepromotionalcampaignsthatmaysurroundconventionalmarketingpracticestogorillamarketing.

69

HighBLandLowBAThereexistsomeinstitutionswhicharehardlyseeninnewspapers,

TVadsetc.yethavehugepoolofapplicantsdownthelinewithmultiplemeritlists.Thesearetheinstituteswhichhavetheirownsplendidhistorybeingoperatinginconventionalandmethodicaleducationalcultureandthis particular aspect is also observed in the behavior of its staff andemployeesaswell.Insimplewords,BLMputthesetypesofinstitutesinthecategoryofhighBLandlowBA.Asdiscussedpreviously,awarenesshere refers to the brand awareness aspect of HEIs also in terms ofcommon public and guardians as customers, because in most cases,especiallyinMiddleEastandSouthEastAsia,parents/guardiansareoneofthekeydecisionmakers.TheHEIsfallinginthisquadrantaregenerallybutnotlimitedtoGovernmentinstituteswhoseenoughpublicfundingdoesn’tintensifytheneedforaggressivemarketingcampaignsandthustheiraimtogetqualitystudentsisfulfilledduetoitbeingagenerationbrand.

SoherewearedealingwiththeissueofBrandRecognitionandfocusmustbeonitscontinuousenhancement,becauserecentprogressionhaschangedthemarketenvironmentandrelyingonlyonbeingoldinstitutemightmakeitaninstituteofniche.So,theirrecognitioncanbeworkedoutbyfollowingstrategiessuchaspublishingperiodicadvertisementsduringadmissionintakes,arrangingandorganizingindustrydrivenseminars andworkshops, use ofpress releases andworking andcollaboratingwithGovernmentagenciesandfundedprojects.

HighBAandHighBLThe top right quadrant of Brand Loyalty Matrix mentions all the

benchmarkinstituteswhicharerightupontop.Thesearetheinstituteswithhighbrandawarenessandhighbrandloyalty.NotmuchdifficulttounderstandaboutthisquadrantofBLMasHEIsplacedheresetstandardsfortheentireindustry.Notonlythesearethedreaminstitutesforstudybystudents,buteveryotherinstituteaspiretoenjoythesamestatureastheseHEIscurrentlyenjoy.Atpriorityoftheindustrywhiletheirbrandactasanameofqualityandsuccess,theseinstitutesarethedesireofmasses.Customersandconsumersfeelpridetoassociatethemselveswiththeseinstituteswhilestudentsmaygothroughrigoroustraining,dopre‐admissiontests,andmakeeveryattemptto

70

getintheseHEIsastheybelieveitaturningpointoftheircareertogetadmittedintheseHEIs.TopemployersdemandgraduatesfromtheseHEIconsideringthelotfromhereasabesthumancapitaltheycanacquirefortheircompany.TheseHEIshavebecomehighimagebrandsjustlikeotherrenownedbrandsin clothing, soft drinks, automobiles and mobile phones etc. Even theabbreviationsorslogansoftheseinstitutesactasasenseofprideforitsexistingstudentsandstaffwhereastheiralumnicontinuetoaffiliatethemselveswiththemforrestofthelife.

Soagain,thequestionariseshereifalltheseHEIshavereachedtheirapparentmaximumorareat stableormaturity stage, is it all forthem?Toanswerthat,andtoavoidtheirprobabledeclineintermsoflifecyclestageorinanattemptofextensionintheirstabilitystage,theseHEIsshould work on improved R&D, developing futuristic curriculum,strategic alliances in terms working with and for global fundedbodiesandagencies.

MatrixEvaluationFormTheitemsofmatrixevaluationformhavebeenconstructedkeeping

inviewthreemainaspectsi.e.Novelty,ApplicabilityandEfficiency.Theitemsareself‐explanatoryintermsoftheirrequiredfunctiontobeevaluatedfromtheexpertse.g.Noveltyisaimedatnewscientificcontribution,efficiencyisbeingapproachedforitseasyusetogatherquickresults,customerinterfaceemploys the understanding of its usage by the user and dependabilityfunctionexplorestheacceptanceofresultsachievedthroughthismatrix.Toadd to it, five‐point Likert scale (1 – strongly disagree, 2 – disagree, 3 –somewhatagree,4–agree,5–stronglyagree)hasbeenusedtoassesstheagreeableness of experts about various dimensions of matrix evaluationalong with the calculation of mean scores for each of the item; thusrepresentingtheaverageresponseasfinalremark.Theexpertschosenforevaluation are different than those selected for prior qualitative analysis,thoughtheselectioncriteriabasedonvastyearsofexperiencesurroundingindustryacademialinkages,andexposureinrunningadmissioncampaigns.

71

Table15MatrixEvaluationbyExperts

Function ItemExpert1

Expert2

Expert3

MeanScores

Novelty ThedevelopedmatrixcorrespondstonewnessinHigherEducationContext

4 4 5 4.33

ContentValidity

TheformationandimplementationofmatrixisbaseduponBrandingliterature

5 4 4 4.33

Applicability ThedevelopedmatrixcanbeappliedtovariousHEIsacrossPakistanandincountrieswithsimilardemographics.

5 4 4 4.33

Practicality Thediscussedscenariosandresultsachievedfromimple‐mentationofBrandLoyaltyMatrixcanbelinkedwithrealworldphenomenoninHEIs

5 5 5 5

Efficiency Thematrixcanapproachnewfindingsorsolutionsinshorttime

4 4 5 4.33

Valueproposition

ThematrixmayaddvaluablecontributiontosolveissuesconcerningHEIsbrandloyalty

4 4 4 4

CustomerInterface

Thematrixisunderstandableofitsusebythecustomers

5 5 4 4.66

Predictability ThebrandloyaltymatrixcanpredictpositioningofanHEI

3 5 5 4.33

Dependa‐bility

TheHEIscanrelyonfindingsofbrandloyaltymatrixfortheirstrategyformulation

5 4 4 4.33

Connectivity ThematrixmayconnectfutureresearchandscientifictheoryinthedomainofHEI’sbranding

4 4 5 4.33

Source:owncalculations

Table 15 reveals evaluation of matrix in positive way by theexpertsasmostlyvaluesarefallinginagreeandstronglyagreecolumn.

72

The encouraging aspect of evaluation results surrounds the fact thatexpertsseemquiteuniformintheiropinionaboutvariousdimensionofmatrix evaluation. Matrix functions encompassing novelty, efficiency,value proposition and customer interface etc. are well perceived andacceptedbyexpertsaswell.Forinstance,scoreof4.33forNoveltydepictsthat experts find thismatrix a value addition in the context of HigherEducation literatureandthismatrixmayresult ineffective findings forfutureresearch,forwhichtheconnectivityscoreattainedis4.33i.e.agreecolumnonquestionnaire.Theefficiencyscoreisalsoabove4,indicatingmatrix problem solving ability in suitable time. This entails further toidentifybrandpositioning and suggesting corrective actions forhighereducation institutions for future direction as well. This also meetagreeablenessofexpertswiththeachievedmeanscoreof4.33intermsofitemfordependability.So,thebetterthematrixisdependableintermsofits findings, the greater are the chances for right fit of strategies tobeincorporated.Intotal,itshowsthatmatriximplementation,itsexecutionand its contribution to science is also accepted and supported by theexperts. The brand loyaltymatrix aims at being considered a valuableadditioninbrandingliteratureandthatitshouldbeutilisedtogetbestoftheresultsinhighereducationsetting.

73

CONCLUSION

Basedupontheliteraturereviewed,discussedessentialconcepts,statisticalinferencesanddevelopingbrandloyaltymatrixasanoutcometothisresearch,theconclusioncanbeinitiatedbyMarkTwain’sstatementas “Many a small thing has been made large by right kind ofadvertisement”,especiallyifwetalkabouttheroleofbrandawarenessincustomerdecisionmaking.FromanFMCGtoaluxuriousitem,it’stheessence of brand image which entitles customer to make a purchase.Takingthisphenomenontoeducationsetting,itisconcludedthat1. HEIs should consider it a must to properly manage and brand

themselves.Byutilizing all the availablepromotional channels andfocusinginnovativeandresultorientedcampaigns,thedesiredamountofawarenesscanmakeadifferenceandcanassistanHEItostandoutin competition. It is obvious that from cost leadership to focuseddifferentiationand frompenetration todiversification,HEIsshouldcontinuetogetthebestoutofthisawareness,yetitisimportanttorememberthatthisbrandawarenesscomprisedofknownpromotionalactivities,existingimageandcustomerbeingfamiliarwithqualitiesof goods or services could serve the purpose for current name orinitialbrandingbutlacksthespiritforconvertingthiseffectiveroleintocomprehensiveimpactonloyalty.

2. Though proved as positive and statistically significant correlation(r=0.20or20%andp=0.00)betweenbrandawarenessandbrandloyalty in this study, the real concern forHEIs is the retainmentofstudents and making them repurchase or reuse the services. Thisrepurchasebehaviorinhighereducationreferstogettingenrolmentin futuredegreeprograms, spreadingofpositivewordofmouth topeers,friendsorcolleaguesistheoutcomeofqualityserviceswhichistermedasbrandloyalty.Toattainloyalty,ithasbeenextractedthatHEIsneedcontinuousintegrationandexcellenceintermsofservicequalitywhichhasstrongimpactonbrandloyalty.

3. Theservicequalityfeaturesdiscussedincontinuationwithpreviousliterature and achieved as part of this research include Teaching

74

quality, modern curriculum development, customer relationshipmanagement, teachers training, required accreditations, local andforeignallianceswiththeinclusionofnecessaryphysicalappearance;needforinfrastructuretoequipmentneeds,addalottoattainstudentloyalty.Thestatisticalsignificanceofthisargumenthasbeenprovedinanalysiswithpvalue=0.00andr=.48.ThesestatisticalresultsalsocorrespondwithAydin&Ozer(2005);Deng,Lu,Wei,&Zhang(2010);Etemadifard,Kafashpoor&Zendehdel(2013).

4. Also, in some cases these service quality features, though still beimpactful,cancomeviabrandtrustwhichthentransformsthattrustintoloyalcustomers.Thispositiveinterferenceoftrustforloyaltyofstudents(Rsquare=0.53,F=227atSig=0.00)inthisstudyisfoundrelevantwiththeresultsofSweeneyandSwait(2008)andMazodierandMerunka(2011).

5. The trust factorhas found tobe influencedmostly throughproperhandlingofcomplaints,efficientcustomerrelationshipmanagementandcompetencyandskillsofstaffi.e.bothfacultyandadministrative.Thesefindingsregardingimpactoftrustshowsconsistencywiththeresults of Moorman, Zaltman and Deshpande (1992); Morgan andHunt(1994).

6. Takingconclusionfurtheraboutqualityofservices,itwon’tbewrongtotakeaidfromoneoftheexpert’scommentas“awarenessbringspoolofstudentswhilequalitybringspoolofloyalstudents”.Inordertoseehighereducationnotdiminishingfromthemarketandenjoyinglongevity, HEIs must align themselves with all the modern andupdatedrequirementsofrunninganeducationalinstitution.Thisandroidusergenerationofstudentsissofastandinformedthatheightenedmarketingclaimsandfakepromiseswon’tservethepurposeanymore.Therefore,HEIsmustbeconsciousenoughinclaimingwhattheyarecapableofinreal.

7. HEIsneedtowelldefinethemselvesnotonlybeingarecognizedinstitutebuttheonebeingrealqualityproviderinstitution.Otherwise,inanerawherewordofmouthspreadsquickerthanfire–curtseysocialmedia,itwillbeverytoughforHEIstosurviveiftheirclaimlosestheworth.

75

8. On the contrary, the importance of awareness generation shouldcontinuetobeexercisedandit’stimeforstateandrenownedinstitutesalso to keep in constant connect with students through all latestmediums of promotion, so to avoid the fading effect. Relying on andaiming to survive at already earned name will make survival hard.Gettingassistance fromdevelopedbrand loyaltymatrix (BLM) in thisstudy could be handy for theseHEIs to set and evaluate their futuredirection.Nottoforgettheactiveroleofatrustfactorthatplaysitsroleforenhancingbrandloyaltytoedgebrandawarenessandservicequality.

9. Thoughitisevidentincomparisonthatqualityofservicescontributesmoretowards loyaltyorlong‐termretention,yetthe importanceofawarenessthroughpromotionissignificantinitsowndomainandinvaryingsituationsitmightbeneededthemost,evenforaspecifictimeperiod.Beitaggressiveorrhythmicattimes,HEIsshouldconnectitselftoallthemeanscontributingtowardsitsbrandbuilding.Andinthatcontext, provision of quality services and promotional attemptsbecomepartofthisestablishedbrandawarenessthataimsatcashingfutureawarenessandbrandloyaltyofstudents.Thisfurthermakesthepointclearraisedbyexpertpanelthatawarenessdoesimpacttheloyaltybutforconsistentandlong‐termretentionfocusingonawarenessonlycannotbetherightidea.However,atthesametime,thisdoesn’tallowHEIstooverlookawarenessaspects.

10. Adding to the understanding of loyalty, the concern forHEIs riseshereistheloyaltyofstudentsandstressonloyaltyisnotonlybaseduponstudentsgettingandbeingreadmittingintheinstitution,ratherthe loyalty factor should be considered as quintessential for theseHEIs.Thisloyalty,thoughisapartbutnotlimitedtogettingstudentsthroughawareness,retainingstudentsthroughservicesandtrust,butit’saboutgettingtheirsatisfactionforlifetime.Asperthisstudy,thepricefactorisalsofoundtobesignificantforquiteafewforattaining,maintainandretainingtheloyalty.

11. So,concludingfurtherfromabovediscussion,thestudentsshouldnotbe considered loyal only because of selecting and reselecting theinstitute but it’s how they trust, how they stand for and how they

76

speak for their chosen or attendedHEI iswhat should be point ofconcernforHEIs.That’swhatatrusted,enhanced,reliable,credibleanddurablebrandmeansandthat’swhattheconcernedmanagementshouldaimfor.Thepurposeofallthisbrandawarenessandservicesqualityeffortwillbejustifiedifastudentspeaksforandrecommendthespecificinstituteevenafterdecades,andthat’swhatitiscalledasalifetimebrand.HEIsneedtorealizeandkeepthemselvesbrandingwiththisapproachforbeing“Abrandforalltheseasonsandequallyforallthereasons”.

12. At last, it can be safely stated that HEIs should find a perfectmixbetweenawarenessandservicequality,dependinguponwhat theyneed themost at times. Off course the compromise on quality forpromotionisnotdesirable,yetconformancewithgeneralrecognitionis theneedof thehour.So,anyHEI i.e.bigorsmall,wideorshort,specialized or multidisciplinary, Government or Private etc. needloyalstudents,insteadthisfastpaced,informedandresultorientedlotofyouthwillmaketheseHEIsastoryofpast.

“Thereisabigdifferencebetweenasatisfiedcustomer

andaloyalcustomer.”ShepHyken

Summarizingtheinformationgatheredduringthisresearch,the

authorherebyconcludesthathypothesisisconfirmedasbrandawarenessandservicequalityaresignificantforachievingstudentloyalty,whileincomparison service quality whichmainly include quality teaching andbetterstudentrelationshipmanagementaspartofoverallstudyexperienceincreasesstudentstrustandcontributesmoretowardslongtermbrandloyaltyofHEIs.

Recommendations&Suggestions

Based on the outcome of comprehensive analysis comprisingliteraturereview,previousstudies,statisticalfindingsandanalysisfromthe expert interviews, the following stake holders i.e. both direct and

77

indirect, which are beneficiary of this research as well, are given thefollowingrecommendations(detailedindissertation).

TheHigherEducationInstitutionsshould:1) Usethegivenbrandloyaltymatrix(BLM)toposition,reposition

andre‐establishthemselves;2) Understandtheimportanceofoptimumandefficienteducational

servicesforconsistentandlong‐termbrandloyalty;3) Complywith respectiveaccreditationauthoritiesboth local

andinternationally;4) Overview students’ expectations with modern demands of

changingera;5) Usebrandpromotiontotheextentthatitcorrespondswith

deliveredorprospectdeliveryofservices;6) Allocateabalancedfitoffinancialresourcestopromotionand

actualdeliveryofservicessothatHighereducationinstitutionsmustnotfacethefinancialimbalancebydistributingalltheircapitaltopromotionandawarenessstrategies;

7) Undergocontinuoustraininganddevelopmentofstaffatalllevels.Incaseoffaculty,teacherstrainingworkshopsshouldbeorganizedperiodically;

8) Focuson attainingB/Cgrade andaverage students aswellandmakesincereefforttolightthemuptonextlevel.Thisisessentialfromperspectiveofrevenuegenerationaswell.

9) BringinSmallandMediumenterprisesectorincollaborationtoensureappliedandpracticalresearch;

10) EnsuremaximumjobplacementsthroughinitiationorupdatingofexistingQualityEnhancement/Jobplacementcells–Keepdiversifying,aimedatbothrelatedandunrelateddiversification–Identifyappropriatetargetmarketsforoperations.

11) The customers including students/guardians/caretakersortheconcernedcustodiansindecisionmakingprocessaresuggestedtoIdentifyinstitute/HEIusingBrandLoyaltyMatrixthushavingbetterunderstandingaboutpresentstandingor future of the selected institute and also get themselves

78

acquaintedwiththeknowledgeofmeritsanddemeritsofanaccreditedHEIsothatavoidanceofanyundesirablescenariosisensuredafterdegreecompletion.

12) TheRespectiveStateAccreditationEntitiesaresuggestedto have a constant and periodic check on accredited HEIs’performance.ThedevelopedBLMcouldbeveryusefultoolinthis domain.Also, these bodies shoulddevelope innovativeandchallengingKPIs(KeyPerformanceIndicators)forHEIsforsuccessfulaccreditations.

TheResearchandMarketAgenciesaresuggestedtheeffectiveuse

ofBrandLoyaltyMatrixwhichcanmaketheirworkeasy inRankingofHEIsandtheirperformance–developingandinterpretationofcustomers’(students etc.) surveys and questionnaires – Designing the marketingplansfortheInstitutesbasedupontheircurrentstandingsinthemarket–Makingcomparativeandcompetitiveanalysisetc.fortheirconsultedHEI.

TheInternationalBodies/Partners/AlliancesareRecommendedto useBLM in order tomonitor the performance ofHEIs to avoid anycompromisesontheirinternationalimage.Theseinternationalpartnersshoulddecideiftheyareassociatedorwantanassociationwithareputable,establishedoranordinary institute.ThedesignedclassificationinBLMwithalltheattributescanfurtherestablishthestrengthofrelationwiththeexistingorprospectivepartners.

79

REFERENCES

Aaker,D.A.(1996).Buildingstrongbrands.NewYork:TheFree

Aaker,D.A.,&Keller,K.L.(1990).Consumerevaluationsofbrandextensions.JournalofMarketing,54(1),pp.27–42

Aaker,D.A.(1991).ManagingBrandEquity,FreePress,NewYork,NY

Aaker,J.(1997).Dimensionsofbrandpersonality.Journalofmarketingresearch,34,pp.347–356

Abbas,Q.,Hussain,S.,&Rasool,S.(2019).DigitalLiteracyEffectontheAcademicPerformanceofStudentsatHigherEducationLevelinPakistan.GlobalSocialSciencesReview,4(1),pp.154–165

Agyei,P.(2013).TheRelationshipbetweenServiceQualityandCustomerLoyaltyintheKenyanMobileTelecommunicationServiceIndustry.EuropeanJournalofBusinessandManagement.ISSN2222‐1905(Paper)ISSN2222‐2839(Online)Vol.5,No.23

Alam,W.,Adnan,A.,&Afridi,S.(2018).ExploringandReflectingonEmergingInternalBrandingConcepts:ACaseofHigherEducationinPakistan.AbasynUniversityJournalofSocialSciences,pp.1–7

Alam,M.I,Faruq,M.O.,Alam,M.Z.,&Gani,M.O.(2019).BrandingInitiativesinHigherEducationalInstitutions:CurrentIssuesandResearchAgenda.MarketingandManagementofInnovations,1,pp.34–45,http://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2019.1‐03

Algesheimer,Rene,Dholakia,UptalM.,Herrmann,Andreas(2005).“TheSocialInfluenceofBrandCommunity;EvidencefromEuropeanCarClubs”,JournalofMarketing,Vol.69,p.1934

Ali,A.,Tariq,R.H.,&Topping,K.J.(2013).PerspectivesofacademicactivitiesinuniversitiesinPakistan.JournalofFurther&HigherEducation,37(3),pp.321–348

Alkhawaldeh,A.,Al‐Salaymeh,M.,Alshare,F.,&Eneizan,B.(2017).TheEffectofBrandAwarenessonBrandLoyalty:MediatingRoleofBrandCommitment.EuropeanJournalofBusinessandManagement.9.Pp.38–47

AlMaamari,A.(2013).LegalprotectionoftrademarksforhighereducationinstitutionsintheYemenilawandinternationalagreements.JournalofSocialStudies,19(1)

Amzat,I.H.(2016).BrandingHigherEducationInstitutions:WhatItTakestobeBranded.FastforwardingHigherEducationInstitutionsforGlobalChallenges,pp.147–162,Springer

Anctil,E.J.(2008).RecommendationsforSellingHigherEducation.ASHEHigherEducationReport,34(2),pp.89–98

80

Antony,J.(2014),UnderstandingKeyInteractionsinProcesses.DesignofExperimentsforEngineersandScientists(2ndEdition),pp.19–32.UK:Elsevier.https://doi.org/10.1016/B9780‐08‐099417‐8.00003‐1

Arpan,L.M.,Raney,A.A.,&Zivnuska,S.(2003).Acognitiveapproachtounderstandinguniversityimage.CorporateCommunications:AnInternationalJournal,8(2),pp.97–113

Asaad,Y.,Melewar,T.C.,Cohen,G.,&Balmer,J.(2013).Universitiesandexportmarketorientation:AnexploratorystudyofUKpost‐92universities.MarketingIntelligence&Planning,31(7),pp.838–856

Aydin,S.,&Özer,G.(2005).TheanalysisofantecedentsofcustomerloyaltyintheTurkishmobiletelecommunicationmarket.EuropeanJournalofMarketing,39(7/8),pp.10–925,doi:10.1108/03090560510601833

Ballester‐Delgado,E.andAleman‐Munuera,J.(2005),"DoesBrandTrustMattertoBrandEquity?"JournalofProduct&BrandManagement,14(3),pp.187–196

Batra,R.,Ahuvia,A.,&Bagozzi,R.P.(2012).Brandlove.JournalofMarketing,76(2),pp.1–16

Baron,R.M.andKenny,D.A.(1986).“TheModerator‐MediatorVariableDistinctioninSocialPsychologicalResearch–Conceptual,Strategic,andStatisticalConsiderations”,JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,51(6),pp.1173–1182

Bay,D.,&Daniel,H.(2001).Thestudentisnotthecustomer–Analternativeperspective.JournalofMarketingforHigherEducation,11(1),pp.1–19

Belanger,C.,Mount,J.&Wilson,M.(2002).“InstitutionalImageandRetention”.TertiaryEducationandManagement,3,pp.299–316

Bernard,H.R.,&Bernard,H.R.(2012).Socialresearchmethods:Qualitativeandquantitativeapproaches.Sage

BloemerM.M.&LemminkG.A.M.J.(1992).Theimportanceofcustomersatisfactioninexplainingbrandanddealerloyalty.Journalofmarketingmanagement,8,pp.351–364

Bosch,J.,Venter,E.,Han,Y.,&Boshoff,C.(2006).Theimpactofbrandidentityontheperceivedbrandimageofamergedhighereducationinstitution:Partone.ManagementDynamics,15(2),pp.10–30

BradyK.M.&Cronin,Jr.J,(2001).SomeNewThoughtsonConceptualizingPerceivedServiceQuality:AHierarchicalApproach,JournalofMarketing,65,pp.34–39.

Bruce,G.,&Edgington,R.(2008).Factorsinfluencingword‐of‐mouthrecommendationsbyMBAstudents:Anexaminationofschoolquality,educationaloutcomes,andvalueoftheMBA.JournalofMarketingforHigherEducation,18(1),pp.79–101

81

Caceres,R.C.&Paparoidamis,N.G.(2007).ServiceQuality,RelationshipSatisfaction,Trust,CommitmentandBusiness‐T‐BusinessLoyalty,EuropeanJournalofMarketing,41(7/8),pp.836–867

Capriotti,P.(1999).Planificaciónestratégicadelaimagencorporativa.Barcelona:Ariel

Cardoso,S.,Carvalho,T.,&Santiago,R.(2011).FromStudentstoConsumers:reflectionsonthemarketisationofPortuguesehighereducation.EuropeanJournalofEducation,46(2),pp.271–284,https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465‐3435.2010.01447.x

Carter,R.E.(2009).TheimpactofperceivedservicequalityonMBAstudentsatisfactionandrecommendations:Doexpectationsmatter?ServicesMarketingQuarterly,30(3),pp.234–248

Carvalho,S.W.,&Mota,M.deO.(2008).Trust,ValueandLoyaltyinRelationalExchangesbetweenStudentsandHigherEducationInstitutions.AdvancesinConsumerResearch–LatinAmericanConferenceProceedings,2,pp.212–213

CasalÃ,L.Flavián,C.&GuinalÃu,M.(2007).Theimpactofparticipationinvirtualbrandcommunitiesonconsumertrustandloyalty:Thecaseoffreesoftware.OnlineInformationReview,31(6),pp.775–792

Celly,K.S.,&Knepper,B.(2010).TheCaliforniaStateUniversity:AcaseonbrandingthelargestpublicuniversitysystemintheUS.InternationalJournalofNonprofitandVoluntarySectorMarketing,15(2),pp.137–156

Chapleo,C.(2010).Whatdefines“successful”universitybrands?InternationalJournalofPublicSectorManagement,23(2),pp.169–183

Chapleo,C.(2011).Brandingauniversity:Addingrealvalueorsmokeandmirrors?InMolesworth,M.&Scullion,R.(Eds.).Themarketisationofhighereducationandthestudentasconsumer,pp.101–114,London:Routledge

Emery,C.,K.ramer,T.,&Tian,R.(2001).Customersvs.products:adoptinganeffectiveapproachtobusinessstudents.QualityAssuranceinEducation,9(2),pp.110–115,https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880110389681

Chaudhuri,A.,&Holbrook,M.B.(2001).TheChainofEffectsfromBrandTrustandBrandEffectstoBrandPerformance:TheRoleofBrandLoyalty,JournalofMarketing,65,pp.81–93

Chen,C.‐F.,&Chen,C.‐T.(2014).TheeffectofhighereducationbrandimagesonSatisfactionandlifetimevaluefromstudents’viewpoint.Anthropologist,17(1),pp.137–145

Clarke,K.(2009).BuildingCustomer‐BasedBrandEquityinHigherEducation:ApplyingBrandEquityTheorytoanInternationalHigherEducationMarketingContext.(MasterThesis),LundUniversity

82

Clayson,D.E.,&Haley,D.A.(2005).MarketingModelsinEducation:StudentsasCustomers,Products,orPartners.MarketingEducationReview,15(1),pp.1–10,https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2005.11488884

CronbachLJ.(1951).Coefficientalphaandtheinternalstructureoftests.Psychometrika,16(3),pp.297–334,doi:10.1007/bf02310555

Creswell,J.W.(2013).Researchdesign:Qualitative,quantitative,andmixedmethodsapproaches.Sagepublications

D'Astous,A.,&Boujbel,L.(2007).Positioningcountriesonpersonalitydimensions:Scaledevelopmentandimplicationsforcountrymarketing.JournalofBusinessResearch,60(3),pp.231–239

Davis,S.(2002).ImplementingyourBAM2strategy:11stepstomakingyourbrandamorevaluablebusinessasset.JournalofConsumerMarketing,19(6),pp.503–513

Deng,Z.,Lu,Y.,Wei,K.K.,&Zhang,J.(2010).Understandingcustomersatisfactionandloyalty:anempiricalstudyofmobileinstantmessagesinchina.Internationaljournalofinformationmanagement,30(4),pp.289–300

Dick,AlanS.andKunalBasu(1994).CustomerLoyalty:TowardanIntegratedConceptualFramework.JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience,22(Spring),pp.99–113

Dixon,J.,Bridson,K.,Evans,J.,&Morrison,M.(2005).AnAlternativePerspectionOnRelationships,LoyaltyandFutureStoreChoice,Revision.ofRetailDistributionandConsumerResearch,15(4),pp.351–374

Duesterhaus,A.P.,&Duesterhaus,M.(2014).AttributesofsuccessfuluniversitybrandsintheU.S.A.JournalofBrandStrategy,3(2),pp.169–183

Dwyer,F.R.,&LaGace,R.R.(1986).OntheNatureandRoleofBuyer‐SellerTrust.AMASummerEducators,pp.40–45.Chicago:AmericanMarketingAssociation

Eisend,M.,&Stokburger‐Sauer,N.(2013).Brandpersonality:Ameta‐analyticreviewofantecedentsandconsequences.MarketingLetters,24(3),pp.205–216

Elliott,K.M.,&Healy,M.A.(2001).Keyfactorsinfluencingstudentsatisfactionrelatedtorecruitmentandretention.JournalofMarketingforHigherEducation,10(4),pp.1–11

Etchegaray,J.M.,&Fischer,W.G.(2009).UnderstandingEvidence‐BasedResearchMethods:DescriptiveStatistics.HealthEnvironmentsResearch&DesignJournal(HERD)(VendomeGroupLLC),3(1),pp.111–117

Etemadifard,M.,Kafashpoor,A.,&Zendehdel,A.(2013).TheEffectofBrandCommunicationandServiceQualityintheCreationofBrandLoyaltythroughBrandTrust(CaseStudy:Samsung'sRepresentativesCompanyinMashhadCity).InternationalJournalofAdvancedstudiesinHumanitiesandSocialScience,1(8),pp.1067–1077

83

Fontana,R.,Rapallo,F.,&Rogantin,M.P.(2014).Acharacterizationofsaturateddesignsforfactorialexperiments.JournalofStatisticalPlanning&Inference,147,pp.204–211,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2013.10.011

FullertonG.(2005).TheImpactofBrandCommitmentonLoyaltytoRetailServiceBrands.CanadianJournalofAdministrationandSciences,22(2),pp.97–110

Galletta,A.(2012).MasteringtheSemi‐StructuredInterviewandBeyond:FromResearchDesigntoAnalysisandPublication.NewYork:NYUPress

Galinienë,B.,Marèinskas,A.,Miḥkinis,A.,&Drûteikienë,G.(2009).Theimpactofstudyqualityontheimageofahighereducationinstitution.InformacijosMokslai,48,pp.68–81

Gay,L.R.,Airasian,P.W.(2002).EducationalResearch:CompetenciesforAnalysisandApplications,7thEdition.PrenticeHall

Ghodeswar,B.M.(2008).Buildingbrandidentityincompetitivemarkets:aconceptualmodel.JournalofProductandBrandManagement,17(1),pp.4–12

Grohmann,B.(2009).Genderdimensionsofbrandpersonality.JournalofMarketingResearch,46(1),pp.105–119

Haedrich,G.(1993).ImagesandStrategicCorporateandMarketingPlanning.JournalofPublicRelationsResearch,5(2),pp.83–93,https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr0502_03

Hair,J.F.,Black,W.C.,Babin,B.J.,&Anderson,R.E.(2006).Multivariatedataanalysis.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall

Hawkins,D.,Best,R&Coney,K.(2000).ConsumerBehaviorBuildingMarketing.USA:McGrawHill

Heithman,M.,Lehman,D.R.,andHerrmann,A.(2007).ChoiceGoalAttainmentandDecisionandConsumptionSatisfaction,JournalofMarketingResearch,Xl,May,pp.234–250

Hemsley‐Brown,J.,&Alnawas,I.(2017).Servicequalityandbrandloyalty.InternationalJournalofContemporaryHospitalityManagement,28(12),pp.2771–2794,https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM‐09‐2015‐0466

Hemsley‐Brown,J.,&Goonawardana,S.(2007).Brandharmonizationintheinternationalhighereducationmarket.JournalofBusinessResearch,60(9),p.942–948

Hemsley‐Brown,J.,&Oplatka,I.(2006).Universitiesinacompetitiveglobalmarketplace:Asystematicreviewoftheliteratureonhighereducationmarketing.InternationalJournalofPublicSectorManagement,19(4),pp.316–338

Hennig‐Thurau,T.,Gwinner,K.,&Gremler,D.(2002).Understandingrelationshipmarketingoutcomes.JournalofServiceResearch,4,pp.230–247

84

Hennig‐Thurau,T.,Langer,M.F.,&Hansen,U.(2001).Modelingandmanagingstudentloyalty:Anapproachbasedontheconceptofrelationshipquality.JournalofServiceResearch,3(4),pp.331–344

Hess,J.&Story,J.(2005),Trust‐BasedCommitment:MultidimensionalConsumer‐BrandRelationships,JournalofConsumerMarketing,22/6,pp.313–322

Hoyer,W.D.&Brown,S.P.(2001).Effectsofbrandawarenessonchoiceforacommon,repeat‐purchaseproduct.JournalofConsumerResearch,17,pp.141–8

Hsteh,Y.C.,Hiang,S.,T.(2004).AStudyofTheImpactsofServiceQualityonRelationshipQualityinSearchExperinceCredenceServices,TotalQualityManagement,15(1),pp.43–48

Jacoby,Jacob&D.B.Kyner.(1973).BrandLoyaltyVersusRepeatPurchasing,JournalofMarketingResearch,l0(February),pp.1–9

James,L.R.,&Brett,J.M.(1984).Mediators,moderators,andtestsformediation.JournalofAppliedPsychology,69,pp.307–321

Jha,M.(2016).CustomerExperienceManagement:Determinants,Dynamics&StrategiesforIntegrationofBrandTouchPointsatVariousStagesofServiceEncounter.GlobalJournalforResearchAnalysis,4(10)

Johnson,M.D.,Herrmann,A.&Huber,F.(2006).TheEvolutionofLoyaltyIntentions,JournalofMarketing,Vol.70,S.122–132

Jongbloed,B.(2003).MarketisationinHigherEducation,Clark’sTriangleandtheEssentialIngredientsofMarkets.HigherEducationQuarterly,57(2),p.110,https://doi.org/10.1111/1468‐2273.00238

Joseph,M.,Mullen,E.W.,&Spake,D.(2012).Universitybranding:Understandingstudents'choiceofaneducationalinstitution.JournalofBrandManagement,20(1),pp.1–12

Judd,C.M.,&Kenny,D.A.(1981).ProcessAnalysis:EstimatingMediationinTreatmentEvaluations.EvaluationReview,5(5),pp.602–619,https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X8100500502

Judson,K.M.,Aurand,T.W.,Gorchels,L.,&Gordo,G.L.(2009).Buildingauniversitybrandfromwithin:Universityadministrators'perspectivesofinternalbranding.ServicesMarketingQuarterly,30(1),pp.54–68

Kaiser,H.(1974).Anindexoffactorsimplicity.Psychometrika39,pp.31–36

Kapferer,J.‐N.(2004).TheNewStrategicBrandManagement:CreatingandSustainingBrandEquityLongTerm.London:KoganPage

Kantanen,H.(2007).BrandinginHigherEducation–Exploringanemergingphenomenon,EAIRSeriesResearch,PolicyandPracticeinHigherEducation,pp.56–69

85

Kayombo,K.,&Carter,S.(2017).CompetitivePositioningofaHigherEducationInstitutioninZambia:TheCaseofZCAS.JournalofEducationandVocationalResearch,8(2),pp.6–21,doi:10.22610/jevr.v8i2.1858

Keller,K.L.(1993).“Conceptualizing,measuring,andmanagingcustomer‐basedbrandequity”,JournalofMarketing,Vol.57,pp.1–22

Kennedy,J.M.(1982).MetaphorinPictures,InPerception,11,pp.598–605

Kitchroen,K.(2004).Literaturereview:Servicequalityineducationalinstitutions.ABACJournal,24(2),pp.14–25

Korkmaz,M.(2019).AstudyovertheFormulationoftheParameters5orLessIndependentVariablesofMultipleLinearRegression.JournalofFunctionSpaces,pp.1–14,https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1526920

Kotler,P.(2002).MarketingManagementMillenniumEdition.10thEdition.USA:PearsonCustomPublishing

Kujala,L.C.(2015).Pre‐purchasecustomerexperience.NorwegianSchoolofEconomics

Lamboy,J.V.(2011).ImplicationsofBrandingInitiativesinHigherEducationAmongTrademarkedInstitutionsinCalifornia.DoctoralDissertations,8,https://repository.usfca.edu/diss/8

Lang,B.,&Lawson,R.(2013).Dissectingword‐of‐mouth’seffectivenessandhowtouseitasaproconsumertool.JournalofNonprofit&PublicSectorMarketing,25(4),pp.374–399

Lee,J.W.,Miloch,K.S.,Kraft,P.,&Tatum,L.(2008).Buildingthebrand:AcasestudyofTroyUniversity.SportMarketingQuarterly,17(3),p.178

Leiva,R.,Ferrero,I.,&Calderón,R.(2016).CorporateReputationintheBusinessEthicsField:ItsRelationwithCorporateIdentity,CorporateImage,andCorporateSocialResponsibility.CorporateReputationReview,19(4),pp.99–315,https://doi.org/10.1057/s41299‐016‐0008‐x

Leshan,D.(2012).Strategiccommunication.London:Pangpang

Linderman,A.,Baker,J.,&Bosacker,S.(2011).Surfacingandtransferringexpertknowledge:thesense‐makinginterview.HumanResourceDevelopmentInternational,14(3),pp.353–362,https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2011.585071

Liu,L.,Lee,M.K.O.,Liu,R.,&Chen,J.(2018).Trusttransferinsocialmediabrandcommunities:Theroleofconsumerengagement.InternationalJournalofInformationManagement,41,pp.1–13,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.02.006

Lavidge,R.,Steiner,G.(1961).AModelforPredictiveMeasurementofAdvertisingEffectiveness,JournalofMarketing,OctoberEdition

86

Lockwood,R.C.,&Hadd,J.(2007).Buildingabrandinhighereducation:whybusinesspractice‐particularlybrandstrategies–arebecomingessentialintoday’suniversities.GallupManagementJournalOnline,12,pp.1–6

Mabkhot,H.A.,Shaari,H.,&Salleh,S.M.(2017).TheInfluenceofBrandImageandBrandPersonalityonBrandLoyalty,MediatingbyBrandTrust:AnEmpiricalStudy.JournalPengurusan,50,pp.1–18

MacCallum,R.C.,Browne,M.W.,&Sugawara,H.M.(1996).Poweranalysisanddeterminationofsamplesizeforcovariancestructuremodeling.PsychologicalMethods,1(2),pp.130–149

Maringe,F.,&Gibbs,P.(2009).Marketinghighereducation:Theoryandpractice.McGrawHillInternational

Marsh,H.W.,&Roche,L.A.(2000).Effectsofgradingleniencyandlowworkloadonstudents’evaluationsofteaching:Popularmyth,bias,validity,orinnocentbystanders?JournalofEducationalPsychology,92(1),pp.202–228,https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.92.1.202

Mazodier,M.Merunka,D.(2011).Achievingbrandloyaltythroughsponsorship:Theroleoffitandself‐congruity,AcademyofMarketingScience,Availableat:DOI:10.1007/s11747011‐0285‐y

Melewar,T.C.,&Akel,S.(2005).Corporateidentityinthehighereducationsector:Acasestudy.CorporateCommunications:AnInternationalJournal,10(1),pp.41–57

Miller,J.,&Muir,D.(2004).TheBusinessofBrands.Chichester:JohnWiley&Sons

Moorman.C.,Zaltman.G.,&Deshpande.R.(1992).RelationshipsBetweenProvidersandUsersofMarketResearch:TheDynamicsofTrustWithinandBetweenOrganizations,JournalofMarketingResearch,29(August),pp.314–29

Moorman.C.,Deshpande.R.,andZaltman.G.(1993).FactorsEffectingTrustinMarketResearchRelationships,JournalofMarketing,57,pp.81–101

Morgan,M.R.&HuntD.S.(1994).TheCommitment‐TrustTheoryofRelationshipsMarketing,JournalofMarketing,Vol.58(July),pp.20–38

Murphy,J.M.(1987).Branding:Akeymarketingtool.USA:Springer

Mavondo,F.T.,Tsarenko,Y.,&Gabbott,M.(2004).Internationalandlocalstudentsatisfaction:Resourcesandcapabilitiesperspective.JournalofMarketingforHigherEducation,14(1),pp.41–60

NationalPlanofAction2001–2015(2006).MinistryofEducation,GovernmentofPakistan.Archivedfromtheoriginal(ZIP)on17May2006

NationalEducationPolicy2017–2015(2017).MinistryofFederalEducationandProfessionalTrainingIslamabad,GovernmentofPakistan,http://www.moent.gov.pk/userfiles1/file/National%20Educaiton%20Policy%202017.pdf

87

Nguyen,N.,&LeBlanc,G.(2001).Imageandreputationofhighereducationinstitutionsinstudents’retentiondecisions.InternationalJournalofEducationalManagement,15(6),pp.303–311

"Numberofuniversitiesriseswhileeducationstandardfalls".DailyTimes.10September2015.Archivedfromtheoriginalon6October2015.Retrieved11September2015

Nunnally,J.C.(1978).PsychometricTheory(2nded.).NewYork:McGraw‐Hill.

Oliver,R.(1999).Whenceconsumerloyalty.JournalofMarketing,63,pp.33–34

Oppong,P.K.,&Phiri,M.A.(2018).ImpactofBrandAwarenessandAssociationonLoyalty:TheRoleofEquityinPlantMedicineMarketinKumasi,Ghana.AfricanJournalofBusiness&EconomicResearch,13(2),pp.163–181,https://doi.org/10.31920/1750‐4562/2018/v13n2a8

“PakistanBureauofStatistics–6thPopulationandHousingCensus”(2016).www.pbscensus.gov.pk

Parasuraman,A,Ziethaml,V.andBerry,L.L.(1985).SERVQUAL:AMultiple‐ItemScaleforMeasuringConsumerPerceptionsofServiceQuality.JournalofRetailing,Vo.62,No.1,pp.12–40

Parasuraman,A.,Zeithaml,V.A.,&Berry,L.L.(1988).SERVQUAL:Amultiple‐ItemScaleforMeasuringConsumerPerceptionsofServiceQuality.JournalofRetailing,64(1),pp.12–40

Pember,E.R.,Owens,A.,&Yaghi,S.(2014).Customerrelationshipmanagement:acasestudyfromametropolitancampusofaregionaluniversity.JournalofHigherEducationPolicy&Management,36(2),pp.117–128,https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2013.861056

Perin,M.G.,Sampaio,C.H.,Simões,C.,&dePólvora,R.P.(2012).Modellingantecedentsofstudentloyaltyinhighereducation.JournalofMarketingforHigherEducation,22(1),pp.101–116,https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2012.705797

Polat,S.,Arslan,Y.,&Yavaş,E.(2016).Importancelevelofimageattractorsintheprocessofuniversityselection:anapplicationonprospectiveuniversitystudentsinturkey.Kastamonueğitimdergisi,24(4)

Priporas,C.‐V.,&Kamenidou,I.(2011).PerceptionsofpotentialpostgraduateGreekbusinessstudentstowardsUKuniversities,brandandbrandreputation.JournalofBrandManagement,18(4–5),pp.264–273

Rauschnabel,P.A.,&Ahuvia,A.C.(2014).You'resoloveable:Anthropomorphismandbrandlove.JournalofBrandManagement,21(5),pp.372–395

Rindfleish,J.M.(2003).Segmentprofiling:Reducingriskinhighereducationmanagement.JournalofHigherEducationPolicyandManagement,25(2),pp.147–159

88

Robert,C.(2019).IndependentRandomSamplingMethods.Chance,32(1),pp.62–63,https://doi.org/10.1080/09332480.2019.1579592

Rowley,J.,&Dawes,J.(2000).Disloyalty:Acloserlookatnon‐loyals.JournalofConsumerMarketing,17,pp.538–549

Schiffman,L.,Bednall,D.,O’Cass,A.,Paladino,A.andKanuk,L.(2005),ConsumerBehavior,3rded.,PearsonEducationAustralia,Sydney

Schertzer,C.B.,&Schertzer,S.M.B.(2004).Studentsatisfactionandretention:Aconceptualmodel.JournalofMarketingforHigherEducation,14(1),pp.79–91

Sierra,J.&McQuityS.(2005).ServiceProvidersandCustomers:SocialExchangeTheoryandServiceLoyalty,JournalofServicesMarketing,19/6,pp.392–400

Sirvanci,M.(1996).Arestudentsthetruecustomersofhighereducation?QualityProgress,29(10),p.99

Simoes,C.,&Soares,A.(2010).Applyingtohighereducation:Informationsourcesandchoicefactors.StudiesinHigherEducation,35(4),pp.371–378

Stephen,J.S.(1993),Understandingbrandawareness:letmegiveyouaclue.AdvancesinConsumerResearch,Vol.20,pp.383–8

Strong,E.(1925).ThePsychologyofSellingandAdvertising,McGraw‐Hill,NewYork

Sweeney,J.andSwait,J.(2008).Theeffectsofbrandcredibilityoncustomerloyalty,JournalofRetailingandConsumerServices,15,pp.179–193,doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2007.04.001

Tas,A.,&Ergin,E.A.(2012).Keyfactorsforstudentrecruitment:Theissueofuniversitybranding.InternationalBusinessResearch,5(10),p.146

Terblanche,N.S.&Boshoff,C.,(2001).MeasuringCustomerSatisfactionwithTheControllableElementsofTheIn‐StoreShoppingExperience,SouthAfricanBusinessManagement,32,pp.8–18

Timans,R.,Wouters,P.,&Heilbron,J.(2019).Mixedmethodsresearch:whatitisandwhatitcouldbe.Theory&Society,48(2),pp.193–216,https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186‐019‐09345‐5Twitchell(2002),Rankingracehurtshighereducation?Forbes,Nov‐25,2002

UNDPPakistan(2018).http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/unleashing‐potential‐young‐pakistan.Retrieved24July,2018

UNESCO(2014).http://uis.unesco.org/en/country/pk

Vaette‐Florence,P.,Guizani,H.,&Merunka,D.(2011).Theimpactofbrandpersonalityandsalespromotionsonbrandequity.JournalofBusinessResearch,64(1),pp.24–28

Valette‐Florence,R.,&DeBarnier,V.(2013).Towardsamicroconceptionofbrandpersonality:AnapplicationforprintmediabrandsinaFrenchcontext.JournalofBusinessResearch,66(7),pp.897–903

89

VanOsselaer,S.M.J.andJaniszewski,C.(2001).Twowaysoflearningbrandassociations,JournalofConsumerResearch,28(2),pp.202–23

Vijander,S.(2007).IndianHigherEducation:CommodificationandForeignDirectInvestment,TheMarxist,23(2),pp.45–188

Waeraas,A.,&Solbakk,M.N.(2009).Definingtheessenceofauniversity:Lessonsfromhighereducationbranding.HigherEducation,57(4),pp.449–462

Warwick(2003).Perceivedriskincollegeselection:Differencesinevaluativecriteriausedbystudentsandparents,JournalofMarketinginHigherEducation,13,pp.101–125

Waseem,M.(2016).Theimpactofservicequalityonbrandloyalty;AdescriptivestudyofSmartphoneusersinhighereducationalinstitutionsofdistrictVehari,Punjab,Pakistan.GlobalAdvancedResearch.JournalofManagementandBusinessStudies.5(1),pp.26–30

Watkins,B.A.,&Gonzenbach,W.J.(2013).Assessinguniversitybrandpersonalitythroughlogos:Ananalysisoftheuseofacademicsandathleticsinuniversitybranding.JournalofMarketingforHigherEducation,23(1),pp.15–33

Wolpert,A.J.(1999).MarketingStrategies:LessonsforLibrariesfromCommercialBrandManagement

Yeo,R.K.,&Li,J.(2014).BeyondSERVQUAL:ThecompetitiveforcesofhighereducationinSingapore.TotalQualityManagement&BusinessExcellence,25(1–2),pp.95–123,https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2011.637802

Yu‐Chun,C.,Shu‐Hsien,Liao,&Wen‐Jung,C.(2018).Longlivefriendship?Relationshipsamongfriendship,trustandbrandloyalty:astudyofStarbucks.InternationalJournalofWebBasedCommunities,14(4),pp.335–352

Yunker,P.J.,&Yunker,J.A.(2003).AreStudentEvaluationsofTeachingValid?EvidencefromanAnalyticalBusinessCoreCourse.JournalofEducationforBusiness,78(6),pp.313–317,https://doi.org/10.1080/08832320309598619

Zakaria,A.,Basset,H.A.,&Said,A.S.M.(2009).Theprinciplesofmodernmarketingbetweentheoryandpractice(2nded.).Amman:DarAlmasira

Zehir,C.,Şahin,A.,Kitapçı,H.,&Özşahin,M.(2011).TheEffectsofBrandCommunicationandServiceQualityinBuildingBrandLoyaltyThroughBrandTrust;TheEmpiricalResearchonGlobalBrands,ProcediaSocialandBehavioralSciences,24,pp.1218–1231

Zimmer,M.R.,&Golden,L.L.(1988).Impressionsofretailstores:Acontentanalysisofconsumerimages.JournalofRetailing,64(3),pp.265–293