بررسی ارزش ارزش ویژه برند در بازار کالا
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|13672||2006||17 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), Volume 14, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 62–78
Most previous studies of the factors that influence brand equity have focused on non-commodities. This study examines the factors that influence brand equity for a commodity – branded beef. Branding remains in a fairly nascent state within the Australian domestic beef market. Several brands have begun to emerge in recent years including Certified Angus, 1824, Hereford Prime, Stockyard Beef and Diamantina. However, these primarily cater for the food service markets rather than household trade. This is in contrast to other countries, such as the US, where branded beef makes up a large proportion of the domestic market. Using conditional and random parameter logit models, we examine the willingness of consumers to pay for one type of branded beef, as well as specific beef attributes, in a regional area of NSW. We find that there is evidence that segments of the population would be willing to pay for branded beef. We also investigate whether brand equity for beef is moderated by self-image congruence, perceived quality and consumer involvement. Both perceived quality and self-image congruence were found to significantly moderate brand equity.
Virtually all of the testing of the factors influencing brand equity has examined consumer goods that are not commodities (e.g. sports shoes, sweaters, jeans, jewellery). This raises the question of whether it is possible to develop brand equity for commodities such as agricultural produce (Carter and Shaw 1993, Beverland 2001, Parker, Evans and Bridson 2005), and what are the factors that influence brand equity for commodities? In this article, we investigate the factors that influence brand equity for a single commodity, branded beef. Beef has traditionally been marketed as a commodity. However, there are advantages to suppliers from attempting to differentiate their products through branding. As Aaker (1991, p.8) noted, brand associations “reduce the primacy of price upon the purchase decision”, potentially allowing higher prices to be charged and larger profit achieved. In recent years, several brands have been launched in Australia, which include 1824, Certified Angus, Hereford Prime, Diamantina, and Stockyard. In the initial stages of brand development the focus has been on the food service market segment, with select retail markets developed. Cawood (2003) indicated that the branded beef presently only accounts for 5% sales in the Australian domestic beef market. There has been little research about the potential value of brand equity in this market, and the factors that contribute to brand equity. This contrasts with research conducted overseas regarding consumer preferences for branded beef and beef attributes (Lusk and Fox, 2001). This research indicates that there is potentially a substantial market for differentiated beef. Similar research in Australia would be expected to be of value for understanding consumers’ willingness to pay for specific beef attributes (which may be culturally specific), potential market segments for target marketing, and consumers’ additional willingness to pay for differentiated beef. This paper presents empirical evidence about the value of brand equity, and the factors that influence it in the Australian domestic beef market. Before going on, it is worth clarifying the meaning of brand equity. Broadly, brand equity can be defined as “the added value with which a given brand endows a product” (Farquhar, 1990, p.RC-7). This value is evident in consumers’ choices. Yoo, Donthu and Lee (2000) noted that brand equity is manifested in the difference in choice between products that are identical in terms of their features, but differ only in brand name. In some respects, brand equity can be considered to be an intangible. As Biel (1992, p.RC-7) suggested, brand equity is the value “beyond the physical assets associated with its manufacture or provision”. Brand equity is derived from several sources. According to Aaker (1991), brand equity results from brand loyalty, name awareness, perceived quality, brand associations and other proprietary brand assets (e.g. patents, channel relationships). The development of each of these aspects of a brand will result in increased brand equity. Keller (2003) identifies several similar bases of brand equity, but organises them according to what he describes as the Customer-Based Brand Equity Pyramid (see Figure 1). On the bottom of the pyramid is Brand Salience, which reflects brand awareness. On the next level is Brand Performance and Brand Imagery. Brand performance reflects the actual features of a brand, while imagery reflects the intangible aspects of a brand and is similar to what Aaker describes as associations. On the next level is Customer Judgements and Customer Feelings. Customer Judgements reflect customers’ opinions and evaluations of a brand. Aaker’s perceived quality is part of Customer Judgements, but it also includes other aspects such as credibility, consideration and superiority. Customer Feelings reflect consumers’ emotional responses to a brand, which can include excitement, selfassurance, social approval and self-respect. The pinnacle of the pyramid is Consumer-Brand Resonance, which reflects consumers’ loyalty, attachment, identification and engagement with a brand. Keller (2003) contended that building brand equity involves first developing brand salience, then brand meaning (via performance and imagery), which then influences brand response (via customer judgements and feelings) and the relationships of consumers with a brand (i.e. resonance). Many studies have empirically investigated the factors that influence brand equity described by Aaker (1991) and Keller (2003). Some of these studies have focused on estimating the influence of perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand attitudes on brand equity or brand preference (eg Morton 1994, Chaudhuri 1999, Faircloth, Capella and Alford 2001, and Hellier et al 2003). These studies have been consistent in demonstrating the importance of these factors in creating brand equity.Other studies have focused more closely on customer feelings as a source of brand equity, especially identification or self-image (Underwood et al 2001). For example, Belen del Rio et al (2001) examined the influence of several factors, including personal and social identification and status on brand equity, in a study involving sports shoes. Wood (2004) also found for sports shoes that a brand being a reflection of selfimage influenced 18-24 year olds’ brand loyalty, but not for several other products. In two other studies involving motor vehicles (Ericksen 1996) and jewellery (Jamal and Goode 2001), self-image congruence, which is the consistency between brand image and how an individual sees himself or herself, was found to be a strong predictor of brand preference. Further studies have focused on the question of how product involvement influences brand equity. The findings of these studies have been equivocal: some have found that involvement tends to increase commitment to brands (eg Beatty, et al 1988, Iwasaki and Havitz 1998, and Shukla 2004), while others have found no relationship (e.g. Traylor 1981). Other studies have tried to examine the relationship in greater detail. For example, Warrington and Shim (2000) separated their sample into four segments based on degree of involvement and degree of commitment. Only 63% of their sample were either in the high involvement/strong commitment or low involvement/weak commitment segments, suggesting the existence of only a moderate link between involvement and commitment. In a second study, Miquel et al (2002) specified a structural equation model whereby involvement influenced (1) knowledge of the category, and (2) perceptions of differences. Involvement increased knowledge of the category which then led to increased purchases of store brands rather than national brands. However, increased perception of differences – due to increased involvement – led to reduced store brand purchases. The initial finding suggests that involvement led to greater brand purchases. However, the latter finding suggests that those with greater involvement are more able to discern actual differences between products, which can influence brand equity. These findings have implications for the branding of commodities, as discussed below. Thus we aim to test four hypotheses in this paper. The first hypothesis focuses on whether there is a potential market for branded beef in Australia. For this hypothesis we are interested in identifying whether regional consumers are willing to pay for branded beef, and any sociodemographic variables that may be useful in future studies of market segments. Hypothesis 1: A market exists for premium-priced branded beef Given the previous testing in the literature of the factors that influence brand equity, in this study we have also attempted to extend knowledge regarding the sources of brand equity for commodities. The effect of three constructs that moderate brand equity for noncommodities are examined in the branded beef context. These constructs are perceived quality, self-image congruence, and category involvement. Perceived quality is tested in the second hypothesis as it is considered to be a principal indicator of brand equity (Morton 1994) and is included in virtually all of the brand equity frameworks (e.g. Aaker 1991 and Keller 2003). It is anticipated that increased perceived quality will increase brand equity. Moreover, the emergence of branded beef in the Australian beef market has required developments in the early stages of the supply chain. The emergence of branded beef is underpinned by supply chain cooperation and meat science projects such as Meat Standards Australia (MSA). The quality management approach which is applied at each level of the supply chain through to the final consumer may be leveraged by brand managers. However, the value of quality management in terms of its effect on brand equity has not yet been demonstrated. This construct was therefore included in this study to provide brand managers with insight into the mediating effect of perceived quality on brand equity. Hypothesis 2: The perceived quality of the beef brand will affect brand equity The second construct tested in Hypothesis 3 is the effect of involvement on brand equity. It is hypothesised that, at the current stage of market development, those with higher involvement will be those more likely to purchase branded beef, which is consistent with the previous findings of Beatty et al (1988), Iwasaki and Havitz (1998) and Shukla (2004). However, the findings of Miquel et al (2002), that those with greater product involvement are more able to discern the differences between branded and unbranded products, may also be relevant here. If the perceived differences in quality between the branded and unbranded product is not large, more involved and knowledgeable customers may not purchase branded beef more frequently resulting in the hypothesised relationship being insignificant. Hypothesis 3: The consumer involvement in the beef product category will affect brand equity The final hypothesis relates to the influence of selfimage congruence on brand equity. This construct has been found to be an important moderator of brand equity in a number of studies (Ericksen 1996, Belen del Rio et al 2001, Jamal and Goode 2001, and Wood 2004), although none of these studies has focused on agricultural commodities. Given the importance of affective messages in marketing communications, the importance of self-image congruence in moderating brand equity is also tested in this paper. Hypothesis 4: Self image-congruence will affect brand equity The paper is structured as follows. Next, in Section 2, the methodology used is described. In Section 3, survey logistics are described, and in Section 4 results are presented. The results are summarised and implications are offered in Section 5.