The existing literature of brand loyalty has been essentially focused on the roles of perceived quality, brand reputation and especially satisfaction, due to the fact that they summarise consumers’ knowledge and experiences, guiding their subsequent actions. In this context, the shifting emphasis to relational marketing has devoted a lot of effort to analyse how other constructs such as trust predict future intention. The fact that there are conceptual connections of trust to the notion of satisfaction and loyalty, and thatthis effort is especially lacking in the brand‐consumer relationship, moves the authors to focus on analysing the relationships existing among these concepts. Research methodology consisted of regressions and multivariable analysis with a sample of 173 buyers. The results obtained suggest the key role of brand trust as a variable that generates customers’ commitment, especially in situations of high involvement, in which its effect is stronger in comparison to overall satisfaction.

Purpose-The most recent literature on competitive advantage views brand equity as a relational market-based asset because it arises from the relationships that consumers have with brands. Given the fact that trust is viewed as the cornerstone , as well as one of the most desirable qualities in any relationship, the objective of this study is to analyze the importance of brand trust in the development of brand equity. Specifically, the paper examines the relationships network in which brand trust is embedded. Design/methodology/approach-A quantitative methodology was adopted. The data are based on a survey conducted in a region in the southeastern part of Spain, resulting in 271 surveys. Findings-The findings reveal that brand trust is rooted in the result of past experience with the brand, and it is also positively associated with brand loyalty, which in turn maintains a positive relationship with brand equity. Furthermore, the results suggest that, although brand trust does not play a full mediating role as suggested by Morgan and Hunt, it contributes to a better explanation of brand equity. Originality/value-These results have significant implications. The fact that brand equity is best explained when brand trust is taken into account reinforces the idea that brand equity is a relational market-based asset. Therefore, branding literature may be enriched through the integration with the literature on the resource-based-view of the firm. From a practical point of view, companies must build brand trust in order to enjoy the substantial competitive and economic advantages provided by brand equity as a relational, market-based asset.

Despite increased attention and relevance drawn by trust as a key characteristic required for relationship marketing success, it has seldom been explicitly examined in end-consumer studies, especially those concerning consumer-brand domain. Consequently, no current scale exists to measure trust in a brand setting. This research presents the results of two studies conducted to develop a scale to measure brand trust, which is called brand trust scale (BTS), and analyse the equivalence of its psychometric characteristics when the scale is used in two different product categories. The findings derived from two random samples of consumers give empirical support for the consistency and validity of the scale developed, and the distinction of two main dimensions on the concept: brand reliability and brand intentions. The results also provide empirical evidence of the scale invariance, meaning that consumers of two different products interpreted brand trust in the same way.

Although price discounts are by far the most common form of sales promotions employed by firms, the increasing use of premiums as a promotional strategy may imply that they are occupying a more important place in the promotional strategy. Since price discounts are quite costly and can reduce consumers' reference prices, undermine perception of quality, and hurt brand equity, it is crucial to know what type of promotion is the most preferred and valued by consumers. As the most recent works in the field have argued that the promotional benefit level is an important determinant of promotional effectiveness, this research reports the results of two experimental studies that investigated the interaction effect between promotional benefit level and promotion type across three levels of benefit (low, moderate, high). The results obtained suggest that at high benefit levels price discounts are more effective than premiums, while the opposite occurs at low levels. However, a similar evaluation of promotional tools was found at moderate benefit levels. The findings offer guidance to managers who might benefit from knowing what is the best strategy to promote their products and services. Our work also extends prior related research because, to this date, the effectiveness of price discounts and premiums across promotional benefit levels is an under-researched issue.

PurposeFrom an integrated marketing communications perspective, this study aims to analyse what level of consistency among brand messages is more effective in terms of customer‐based brand equity. In particular it aims to evaluate its impact on brand knowledge structure, and how brand familiarity moderates this influence.Design/methodology/approachA sample of 194 subjects participated in a between subjects experiment. An integrated communication campaign composed of two different tools (advertising and nonmonetary promotion) was assessed by individuals. Brand familiarity (familiar brand vs unfamiliar brand) and consistency among messages (high vs moderate) were manipulated to test a set of hypotheses.FindingsResults show that the effectiveness of consistency among messages depends on brand familiarity. For familiar brands moderately consistent messages improve their awareness (recall), enrich their network of associations, and generate more favourable responses and brand attitudes. However, for unfamiliar brands, no significant differences are found between high and moderate levels of consistency, except for brand recall, being higher when highly consistent messages are used.Research limitations/implicationsLimitations of the study are those typically associated with the experimental methodology. Specifically, a single product category and only two communication tools were used in the experiment which may limit the generalisability of the results.Practical implicationsFor unfamiliar brands, brand managers should focus on consistent brand messages to build awareness for these unknown brands. By contrast, for familiar brands the goal of the communication strategy must be to revive the interest in them through moderate consistent messages that can excite consumers and make them think again about these brands.Originality/valueThe originality of this study resides in incorporating the newest approach of communication management (integrated marketing communication or IMC) to illustrate how consistency among messages could be used to build the type of brand knowledge structure that nurtures brand equity. Furthermore, compared to previous studies of IMC, which have addressed this issue under a merely conceptual perspective, this paper offers empirical evidences using a more practical perspective and focusing on managing brand knowledge structures as a way for improving brand image.