91����

Reasons relate to evidence towards the power of brands in terms of market share^[2], consumer preference^[3], customer engagement^[4] and brand credibility^[5], among others. The challenge arises when defining the appropriate approach among different available frameworks to measure brand value.^[6]

Brand equity measures can be established from different perspectives: customers, company, and financial-based approach.^[7] Company and financial approaches have been criticised in literature regarding its capabilities to accurately measure brands´ worth. Evidence suggests that markets tend to overstate brand value.^[8] On the other hand, customer´s approach (such as customer based brand equity, CBBE) states that brands strength relies on consumers perceptions, emotions, and experiences^[9], and appears as the most cited approach used by managers to build brands. However, CBBE literature shows no agreement on how to measure brand equity, specially under modern dynamic and changing environments.

Research objectives

The aim of this research was to address the following objectives:

1. Identify dimensions that explain brand equity: The aim of this report is to determine "Brand" and "Brand Equity" constructs. Key sub-objectives are:
   • Determine meaning of brands for consumers
   • Determine relevant brand attributes for consumers
   • Identify number of dimensions that explain changes in brand equity
2. Identify attributes that explain brand equity dimensions: It is intended to provide a conceptualisation based on key brand attributes cited in literature. Sub-objectives include:
   • Determine attributes correlated with identified dimensions
   • Determine dimensions impact on brand equity
   • Propose a brand equity model and test its performance

Conclusions

This research proposes a brand equity model under a modern environment. Under this model, brand equity is a construct of five dimensions built by correlated attributes (Figure 1). These results are related with most cited brand equity framework in literature under customer-based brand equity approaches, where brand value is defined by customer´s perceptions, feelings, and experiences.

This research identified meaning and weight of each dimension over brand equity, allowing to generate an overall brand equity measure, a concept that has not been sufficiently mentioned in branding literature. This model intends to include possible changes in perceptions and behaviors in consumer due to Covid or Economic recession, specifically in the Chilean market.

Answers to research questions include:

Identify dimensions that explain brand equity

Under the proposed model, brand equity can be measured through 5 dimensions:“Quality and Trust”, “Relevance and Differentiation”, “Purpose”, “Personality” and “Engagement and Reputation”. Main conclusions include:

• These dimensions are related with past events, especially those who have impacted consumer´s buying behavior. Results suggests that elements related to perceived value are more relevant than Aaker´s perceived quality dimension.
• Differentiation shows to be less relevant to customers than literature suggested. Data shows that differentiation was less important in the rational evaluation (41% declared to be a relevant factor when choosing a brand) and obtained a standardised regression weight below the average. This could imply that differentiation is a key element but at specific stages of decision-making processes, such as need recognition, search, or evaluation stage. However, once consumers have passed these stages, other elements may start gaining relevance.
• Brand purpose appears as an independent dimension and more relevant compared to its role on frameworks from literature, where is embedded in corporate attributes.

Identify attributes that explain brand equity dimensions

Research identified correlations and weights that allowed to measure an overall brand equity measure and test it among Chilean brands. Under this proposed model, two brands can show the same brand equity but source it from completely different strengths.

Additionally, research allowed us to conclude that recent events such as Covid and its repercussions have shown to have impact on consumers perceptions towards brands. Besides the relevance of price-quality relationship, there are elements of trust and making more conscious decisions, in terms of health and social/environmental issues. Main conclusions are:

• Consumers are questioning and being more aware of price increases. Trust might be damaged if brands take external events as an excuse to rise prices. Older consumers seem more alert to these unjustified price increases and avoid those brands claiming ethical issues.
• Consumers are trying to choose brands that promote healthy lifestyles or offer healthier solutions. Motivations behind it are mainly related to protecting their health under uncertainty scenarios and stressed public and private health systems in the country.

References

^[1] Keller, K., and Lehmann, D. (2006). Brands and Branding: Research findings and future priorities. Marketing Science, pp.740-759. Aaker, D., and Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). Brand Leadership. New York: New York Free Press.

^[2] Smith, T., and Basu, K. (2002). A view from the top: The impact of market share dominance on competitive position. Journal of Brand Management, pp.19-32.

^[3] Feinberg, F., Kahn, B., and McAlister, L. (1992). Market share response when consumers seek variety. Journal of Marketing Research, pp.227-237.

^[4] Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R., and Unnava, H. (2000). Consumer response to negative publicity: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 203-214.

^[5] Erdem, T., Swait, J., and Louviere, J. (2002). The impact of brand credibility on consumer price sensitivity. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 1-19.

^[6] Keller, K. (1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managing brand equity. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

^[7] Keller, K., and Lehmann, D. (2003). The brand value chain: Optimizing strategic and financial brand performance. Marketing Management, pp.26-31.

^[8] Gerzema, J., and Lebar, E. (2008). The brand bubble: the looming crisis in brand value and how to avoid it. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

^[9] Keller (1998).