Conceptualising and Measuring the Equity of Online Brands

Christodoulides, George; Chernatony, Leslie de; Furrer, Olivier; Shiu, Eric; Abimbola, Temi

doi:10.1362/026725706778612149

Cited by 175 publications

(166 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

141

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite relevant literature stressing the role of consumer-brand relationships in strengthening a brand, little empirical research incorporates relationships as such as a dimension of brand equity (Christodoulides et al, 2006;Lehmann et al, 2008). All previous attempts include only one brand relationship dimension (e.g.…”

Section: The Brand Relationship Block (Brb)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Partner quality refers to "the qualities of the partner in the relationship, and whether the brand takes good care of the consumer, shows interest and is reliable" (Smit et al, 2007, p. 628). Intimacy is the "psychological closeness between the relationship partners and the knowledge about the brand" (Smit et al, 2007, p. 628) and captures the emotional connection with the brand (Christodoulides et al, 2006) and the depth of the psychological consumer-brand bond (e.g., brand resonance; Broyles et al, 2010). Previous research treats both partner quality and intimacy as part of the consumer-brand relationship quality (Aaker et al, 2004;Smit et al, 2007).…”

Section: The Brand Relationship Block (Brb)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Decoding the complexity of the consumer-based brand equity process

Chatzipanagiotou

Veloutsou

Christodoulides

2016

Journal of Business Research

Self Cite

110

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brand equity is a valuable (intangible) asset for firms. Research examines brand equity from the side of consumers, firms, or other stakeholders. Consumer-based brand equity focuses on consumers and represents positive business outcomes. Despite its importance, most extant literature focuses on brand equity as a construct, thus failing to recognize the complexity of the phenomenon. This study uses complexity theory and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis to put forth an empirically validated framework that shows consumerbased brand equity as a dynamic and sequential process consisting of three blocks: Brand building, brand understanding, and brand relationships. This study provides insights into the creation process of brand equity, and helps progress the discussion from a focus on brand equity as a construct to a focus on brand equity as a process.Keywords: Brand equity; consumers; fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis; brand management 3 IntroductionResearchers widely acknowledge brand equity as a key marketing performance indicator, a source of competitive advantage, and a vital component of business success (Christodoulides et al., 2015). Although brand equity may derive from various stakeholders, consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) dominates marketing research. Despite the merits of existing research, failure to simultaneously capture the complex, dynamic, and idiosyncratic nature of CBBE highlights the need for more holistic, advanced, and actionable CBBE models that yield additional insights into the creation of brand equity .The literature on CBBE almost exclusively focuses on brand equity as a construct.Several studies (see Buil et al., 2013) suggest CBBE is an outcome of its dimensions and linearly associate numerous dimensions with overall CBBE. However, treating this undoubtedly complex phenomenon as linear might lead to simplistic or distorted interpretations. Building on previous research (e.g. Woodside, 2014), this study adopts complexity and configural theory to examine CBBE as a dynamic and evolving process that moves away from the logic that CBBE is a static and monolithic construct by shedding more light on the brand equity creation process. Academics rarely, and usually without empirical support, indicate that the development of CBBE is neither linear nor single pathway (Keller, 1993). However, the nature of the CBBE phenomenon suggests that many closely related brand concepts co-exist at different stages in the process (e.g., consumers' perceptions, feelings, relationships, and dynamic interactions) and that interrelationships among these concepts may occur (Henderson et al., 1998; Krishnan, 1996). Thus, the present study identifies CBBE as a complex system that includes separate development stages under which a sub-system of closely interrelated concepts lies, and empirically demonstrates the building blocks and various combinations that result in high CBBE. 4The contribution of this study to the literature is threefold. First, the study captures the multi-dimensionalit...

show abstract

Section: The Brand Relationship Block (Brb)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Brand Relationship Block (Brb)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Decoding the complexity of the consumer-based brand equity process

Chatzipanagiotou

Veloutsou

Christodoulides

2016

Journal of Business Research

Self Cite

110

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on their literature review, Christodoulides and de Chernatony (2010) identified various dimensions of consumer-based brand equity used by researchers including but not limited to social image (Lassar, Mittal and Sharma,, 2005), performance (Lassar et al, 2005), trust (Burmann, Hegner and Riley, 2009;Christodoulides et al, 2006), relationships (Blackston, 1992;Sharp, 1995), awareness (Aaker, 1991;Berry, 2000;Im et al, 2012;Keller, 1993), perceived quality (Aaker, 1991;Kamakura and Russell, 1993;Netemeyer et al, 2004;Pappu, Quester, and Cooksey, 2005;Yoo and Donthu, 2001), loyalty (Aaker 1991;de Chernatony et al, 2004;Im et al, 2012;Pappu et al 2005;Washburn and Plank, 2002;Yoo and Donthu, 2001), image (Im et al, 2012;Keller, 1993;Sharp, 1995), associations (Aaker, 1991;Im et al, 2012;Keller, 1993;Netemeyer et al, 2004;Pappu, Quester and Cooksey, 2005;Donthu, 2001), brand meaning (Berry, 2000), brand benefit uniqueness/clarity (Burmann, Hegner and Riley, 2009;Netemeyer et al, 2004;), satisfaction (Blackston, 1992;de Chernatony, Harris and Christodoulides, 2004;Ha, Janda, and Muthaly, 2010), reputation (de Chernatony et al, 2004), willingness to pay a premium (Netemeyer et al...…”

Section: Conceptualization Of Consumer-based Brand Equitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer-based brand equity measurement: lessons learned from an international study

Christodoulides

Cadogan

Veloutsou

2015

International Marketing Review

Self Cite

140

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. He researches issues in marketing strategy, international marketing and sales, and has published in a wide range of outlets on these topics, including in the Journal of the Academy Consumer-Based Brand Equity Measurement: Lessons Learned from an International StudyAbstract Purpose -The paper examines the performance of Aaker's dominant conceptualization of consumer-based brand equity (brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty) in a multi-national and multi sector European context and highlights important lessons vis-à-vis the measurement of brand assets across countries.Design/methodology/approach -Cross-category data was collected through a survey over a period of two months from a representative sample of consumers in three European countries (n=1829), the UK (n=605), Germany (n=600) and Greece (n=624).Findings -The findings suggest that Aaker's dimensions of consumer-based brand equity cannot be clearly separated. More specifically the dimensions of brand awareness, brand associations and brand loyalty could not be always clearly discriminated in all national contexts.Originality/value -The paper contributes to the limited amount of cross-national research on brand equity by assessing the most widely used conceptualization of consumer-based brand equity. Contrary to previous research, this study has used data from real consumers who evaluated a range of brands across product categories (including goods, services and Internet).

show abstract

“…In the same year, Netemeyer et al [49] based their study on works of Aaker [1] and Keller [31] to define the following dimensions: uniqueness, willingness to pay brand price premium, perceived quality and perceived value for cost. Christodoulides et al [17] worked with online brands doing qualitative research proposing the following dimensions: emotional connection, online experience, trust, fulfilment and responsive service nature. Kocak et al [35] made changes to the 22 item scale proposed by Vazquez et al [62] and reached a 16 item scale.…”

Section: Chronological Review Of Brand Equity Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%