عملکرد نام های تجاری (برند) جهانی در بحران مالی سال 2008 : آزمون اندازه گیری ارزش دو برند

Previous literature has argued that high brand equity helps stabilize financial returns and reduce share price volatility. This research investigates how some of the strongest brands in the U.S. market fared in terms of financial performance during the Fall 2008 stock market downturn. Initial results using a financially based measure of brand value (Interbrand) show that, counter to expectations, these top brands did not outperform the market as a whole. However, the findings are in the hypothesized direction when an alternative, consumer-based brand equity measure (EquiTrend) is used to replicate the analysis. After first employing the three Fama–French factors to evaluate stock performance, we assess the added brand equity effect using both aforementioned measures. The consumer-based measure shows a significant incremental effect on stock performance after controlling for risk and financial fundamentals. Furthermore, this positive effect also applies to share volatility and firm betas. None of these effects hold for the financially based measure.

Relating marketing indicators to financial indicators of stock market performance and shareholder value has been the focus of several recent publications in the academic marketing literature (e.g., Mizik and Jacobson, 2009b, O'Sullivan et al., 2009 and Srinivasan and Hanssens, 2009). These analyses have shown that some of the firm's customer-level assets, such as customer satisfaction, customer equity, and brand equity, have a significant impact on financial performance ( Fornell et al., 2006, Krasnikov et al., 2009 and Kumar and Shah, 2009). Specifically, the brand equity of a firm brand has been shown to have a significant positive impact on stock market performance. For example, Barth, Clement, Foster, and Kasznik (1998) used a sample of 1204 brand value estimates from 1991 to 1996 and found them to be positively related to stock prices and returns. Madden, Fehle, and Fournier (2006) juxtaposed a portfolio of 111 firms' brands from the Interbrand list of most valuable brands between 1994 and 2001 to a benchmark market portfolio and observed higher returns and lower risk for the Interbrand set. Finally, Rego, Billett, and Morgan (2009) used data from 252 EquiTrend listed firms between 2000 and 2006 to show that high brand equity reduces volatility and, thus, the risk associated with a brand's stock. Despite the published research on the topic, there is no strong agreement in the marketing literature on how to define and measure brand equity. Two basic approaches can be distinguished. Brand equity can be measured either at the consumer level (Aaker, 1996) or at the financial markets level (Simon & Sullivan, 1993). Researchers following the consumer-level approach view brand image, consumer affinity, and customer loyalty as the main drivers of brand value (e.g., Aaker, 1996 and Keller, 2007). Examples of commercially available, customer-based brand measures include Harris Interactive's EquiTrend measure and Young & Rubicam's Brand Asset Valuator. Alternatively, researchers employing financially based measures (e.g., Madden et al., 2006) focus on financial metrics, such as projected revenues and return on investment, to determine a brand's net present value. Commercially available monetized values of brands include the Interbrand Brand Value measure and Millward Brown's BrandZ. Whereas the consumer-based approach defines brand equity according to levels of consumer engagement, the financially based approach essentially translates intangible assets into financial figures by assessing a brand's ability to generate future earnings. It is not a priori obvious that the two approaches will concur in terms of what brands are more valuable. In fact, the two corresponding measures employed in this research (EquiTrend and Interbrand) only correlate at r = .22 (ns) during 2008 (N = 50). Previous literature does not explain the reasons for such a low correlation. For example, brands ranked high according to consumer mindset measures supposedly command deep customer loyalty and are highly visible in consumer markets. These benefits ensure steady revenue levels and reduce firm idiosyncratic risk as well as its cost of capital (Rego et al., 2009). Alternatively, brands that fare well on financial markets-based measures tend to belong to firms with greater revenue streams and more predictable earnings (i.e., the so-called “large cap firms”). Large cap firms have a wider shareholder base and more prominent research coverage among analysts ( Brennan and Subrahmanyam, 1996 and Chordia et al., 2001). Thus, both types of measures suggest lowered risk and possibly higher returns for high equity brands. To date, no empirical comparison of the two types of measures has been undertaken. The purpose of this research is to present one such comparison.1 The effect of brand equity on stock performance has been shown to be particularly beneficial in an economic downturn, when firms face reduced consumer demand (Deleersnyder, Dekimpe, Sarvary, & Parker, 2004) and thus earn lower revenues and profits (Srinivasan, Lilien, & Sridhar, 2011). In an economic crisis, firms with high brand equity would thus be more likely to sustain revenues than firms with lower equity. Furthermore, because investors are likely to search for less risky investments in such an environment, high equity brands should become particularly attractive as “safe harbor.” One would therefore expect the share prices of the strongest brands to lose less than those of weaker brands in an economic downturn. The financial crisis of 2008 and the stock market downturn in the Fall of 2008 (i.e., the September to December period when the market lost over 30% of its value) offer an ideal opportunity to test this general hypothesis. In what follows, we analyze the stock market performance of 50 of the Interbrand Top 100 global brands from September to December of 2008. The 50 brands selected represent the subset where brand and stock market shares are directly related, and for which we have corresponding EquiTrend measures. We compare the Fall 2008 stock returns for the selected brands against the rest of their industries and the overall market. Initial results are consistent but not encouraging: shares of the highly rated brands did not drop significantly less than the market. The study then uses the three-factor Fama–French model (Fama & French, 1993) to account for differences in market-based risk for the 50 brands. The model shows that brands scoring the highest on brand equity as measured by EquiTrend do in fact show superior performance, in line with the basic hypothesis. We then introduce the financial fundamentals in order to avoid spurious inferences and to identify the incremental contribution from EquiTrend brand equity. For each of three dependent variables (stock returns, volatility, and betas) we investigate the additional explanatory power of brand value by introducing the Interbrand and the EquiTrend scores associated with each stock. Throughout the analyses we test for omitted variables and model misspecification by introducing additional variables and testing alternative functional forms (including an explicit consideration of the Fama–French market factors). Results are robust: within the sample, the EquiTrend measure is more successful than the Interbrand measure in identifying the brand equity that matters. The rest of the article is organized as follows: the next sections develop the hypotheses and describe the data and the methodology used. A subsequent section presents the results and interpretation of the findings. The paper concludes with a discussion section, which includes an explanation of the differential impact of the two measures.

The likely explanation for the differing performance of the two measures lies in the way equity is captured. The EquiTrend brand equity measure assesses consumer allegiance to a brand and is thus largely exogenous to the stock market. In contrast, Interbrand brand values partially rely on financial projections, which are necessarily predicated on specific assumptions about future growth. If the assumptions used to generate financially projected brand values no longer hold, the calculated brand values will not surprisingly be misleading. In contrast, the customer-based measures would point to a sustainable edge in the marketplace, even in, or perhaps particularly in, a down economy.