Brand competitiveness

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to introduce the concept of consumer-based brand value (CBBV), a change in the perspective of brand-equity and brand value from one where the brand is considered separately from other brands. The purpose of this paper is threefold: highlighting the theoretical difference between brand equity and brand value (Raggio and Leone, 2007); conceptually linking brand equity with brand value and then with brand competitiveness; and demonstrating a straightforward method for scholars and practitioners to measure brand value and then to forecast and simulate brand competitiveness. Design/methodology/approach On a sample of 190 postgraduate students, the authors apply the conjoint analysis and best-worst scaling to illustrate our CBBV model. Following Keller (1993), the authors operationalise brand equity as the outcome of consumers’ internal mental processes, in the form of brand preference, and show how preferences data can be transformed into estimates of brand value in the form of price premium. Finally, the model allows market share simulation based on manipulation of branding and brand features. Findings The paper is more a conceptual piece, highlighting the distinction between brand equity and brand value. It also demonstrates a relatively new measurement technique for transforming measures of brand equity, in the form of brand preferences, into estimates of brand value. The paper used airlines as a service-provider example, but the technique can be applied to many hospitality and service environments. Research limitations/implications The study demonstrates how brand equity drives brand value via consumer utility, and proposes a CBBV–competitiveness chain. The authors convert individual consumer preference data to brand value with subsequent preference-based market segmentation, and estimate competitiveness in two ways: market share ceteris paribus and price premium for brand indifference. They also demonstrate how market simulation can be performed so that it allows forecasting of competitiveness (market share) based on product attributes that affect brand value. Practical implications The CBBV–competitiveness chain constitutes a (new) mindset in the marketing of hospitality, tourism and other services. The study provides a method to measure and test the components of this model and determine brand competitiveness. It used airlines in the example, but the method can be applied to many different settings such as, for example, hotel management group (Starwood, Accor, Intercontinental, Hilton). The authors show how the method allows for benefit-based market segmentation, market-share forecasting and estimation of price premium. Originality value The CBBV chain provides a conceptual link between brand equity, brand value and brand competitiveness. When equity and related constructs are often conceptualised as relative to competition, they are rarely actually measured in that manner. The study shows how brand equity measured as preferences can be transformed into brand value and competitiveness relative to the competition. The combination of conjoint analysis and best–worst scaling is relatively new to the hospitality and services industries. The authors show that these tools can be applied to these industries without depending on costly software or high-priced consultants.

Hospitality business models, customer well-being and trust: the mediating role of competitive service advantage

“…Competitive service advantage (CSA) in this study is defined as consumer judgment of firm performance, when its leadership in service, experience and solutions are compared to its competitors in the market place (Baumann et al, 2017;Carbonell and Rodriguez-Escudero, 2014). The hospitality and services marketing research has only given slight attention to customer perceptions of firm competitive advantage or competitiveness, though, acknowledging its association with brand loyalty, brand equity and brand value (Baumann et al, 2017;Winzar et al, 2018). The majority of studies conceptualized and explored competitiveness from the firm's meso-level of analysis (Baumann et al, 2019).…”

“…Moreover, researchers used a resource-based view of competitiveness (Barney, 1986), innovativeness as competitive advantage (Anning-Dorson and Nyamekye, 2020) and competitive destination position based on a number of broad econometrics (Kozak et al, 2009). However, competitive advantage is a relative construct that is meaningful when compared to competitive brands in the mindset of the individual consumer (Winzar et al, 2018), where "favorable comparison constitutes competitive advantage" (Baumann et al, 2017, p. 64). Therefore, we argue that consumers' level of analysis should be considered when firms measure, manage and improve their CP (Baumann et al, 2019) to establish how consumers benchmark firms' CSA against the competition.…”

Discovering Emerging Research Topics for Brand Personality: A Bibliometric Analysis

“…To achieve the advance of the marketing science as a whole, the application of these tools are highly recommended, or indispensable. However, addressing novel topics with great potential to unfold, for instance, the brand competitiveness ( Winzar et al, 2018 ) that seeks assess brand value, differentiating it from brand equity. Also, the adoption of promising indexes, as the 'Brand Health' towards demonstrate the role of a brand in the advertising-customer equity relationship, pointed out by Mirzaei et al (2016) .…”

Investigation into waiting time, self‐service technology, and customer loyalty: The mediating role of waiting time in satisfaction

“…SST check-in systems incur minimal costs from the prospective customers to avoid long queues at the airport, which, in turn, creates value (Kelly, Lawlor, & Mulvey, 2017). Winzar, Baumann, and Chu (2018) demonstrated a new measurement technique for measuring the transformation of brand equity to form brand preferences in the airline industry. The use of SSTs creates a feeling of independence by operating desired transactions at a particular point in time, which will result in a reduction in costs (Davis, Spohrer, & Maglio, 2011).…”