STUDY OF THE SIMILARITIES OF THE CUSTOMER-BASED BRAND EVALUATION MODELS: A Literature Review

Transcription

1 STUDY OF THE SIMILARITIES OF THE CUSTOMER-BASED BRAND EVALUATION MODELS: A Literature Review Eduardo de Paula e Silva Chaves Author s credentials: graduated in Business at the Universidade de São Paulo (2007); has Master s Degree in Organization Business (Universidade de São Paulo (2010)), and Doctoral Candidate in Business at FEARP/USP. dupschaves@yahoo.com.br Marketing Estudo das Similaridades dos Modelos de Avaliação de Marcas baseados no Cliente: uma Análise Bibliográfica. ABSTRACT What are the implementation and measurement models of customer-based brand equity? This paper seeks to indicate an answer supported on scientific method, more specifically in this last question, that is, measure brand equity based on the customers differential responses to a brand. Therefore, a research is elaborated with several correlated themes (brands and brand valuation) to infer relevant conclusions to the theme: customer-based brand equity models. This work aims to label the basic and additional references on the theme by making use of tables and charts; from summaries with enumeration of quotations and comparison of theoretical models. Thus, the objectives of the paper are reached by the tables presented in the content analysis; in the presentation of the similarities of the valuation models of consumer-based brand equity. Therefore, the similarities and divergences of the brand valuation models, by the customer s point of view, are now organized and presented to the reader. Keywords: Costumer-based Brand Equity, Consumer-based brand equity concepts and constructs, brand evaluation models, content analysis. 1. INTRODUCTION According to Ana Corte-Real (2007), some questions are recurring. Does the brand influence the decision-taking process? What would this brand value be? How about the consumer s value? Questions such as these are part of the doubts of the marketing managers. There are many differences described in literature regarding brands: financial, legal, marketing and behavioral definitions. The last two perspectives of the brand value are closely connected to the marketing actions the company adopts. The customer-based brand equity is defined as the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer s response to the marketing of the brand (KELLER, 1993). It is a meter which seeks the consumer s cognitive value, that is, it infers the customer s response to certain brand. Which are the implementation and measuring models of customer-based brand equity? This paper seeks to indicate an answer supported on scientific method, more specifically in this last question, that is, measure brand equity based on the customers differential responses to a brand. Therefore, a research is elaborated with several correlated themes to infer relevant conclusions to the theme: customer-based brand equity. Society for Business Research Promotion 34

2 In a systemic conception, the brands are seen as objects which relate to the consumer, that is a brand can be understood as a mix of attributes (real versus illusory, rational versus emotional, tangible versus intangible) which generate satisfaction (LOURO, 2000). In this sense, Aaker (1991) refers to the brand as being not only strategic asset, but also the main source of competitive advantage for a company business-centered view. Thus, this paper aims to investigate the qualitative measuring of brand equity based on the customer s differential responses to the brand, that is, the consumer s cognitive response to the brand. When there is such a divergent literature, such as the one regarding the brand validation and brand equity from the customer s perspective, a term research on the theme is difficult. Therefore, the organization of a database containing Customer-based brand and equity brand valuation model is important, as well as the valuation of their similarities. The last one is the alternative chosen to explore the theme in this paper: documenting the similarities and complementarities between the brand equity from the customer s perspective. The following research problem comes up: What are the similarities between the customer-based brand equity measuring models? Richardson (1999) explains that the objective of a scientific study defines the target of the research. This project has as main objective: present the similarities between the customer-based brand equity measuring models. 2. THEORETICAL REFERENTIAL 2.1 Brand Concepts The brand is a name, term, sign, symbol, design (or a combination of them), which is intended to identify the goods and/or services of a seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of the competitors (KOTLER, 2000; KELLER, 1993). According to Chantérac (1989), the brand takes the concept of legal entity and source of differentiation of the company s supply. On the other hand, Chamberlin (1993) states that the brand is a set of nominal, figurative or emblematic signs which, applied in a product, make them distinguish from one another. In another additional concept, focused on the consumer, the brand can also be understood as the expression of a set of three benefits offered to the consumer: a) functional: related to the intrinsic quality of the good/service and with its functionality; b) economical: integrators of relative advantages valuated in terms of cost and time; and c) psychological: of subjective fundament, linked to the consumer s expectations and perceptions which are determining for their satisfaction. (AMBLER; STYLES, 1997 apud LOURO, 2000). When analyzing a brand s valuation and, consequently, the brand equity models, two main valuation guidelines are studied. They are concept definitions based on financial metrics: (KEPFERER, 1992; STOBART, 1994; AMBLER; STYLES, 1997; NUNES; HAIGH, 2003), and based on customer s cognitive responses: (KEPFERER, 1992; AMBLER; STYLES, 1997; RUST; ZEUTHAML; LEMON, 2001; GUPTA; LEHMANN, 2006). They are detailed explained in two separated chapters called: brand equity concept definitions through the financial perspective and brand equity concept definitions through the customer s perspective. 2.2 Brand Equity Concepts It is necessary to describe and analyze the existing concepts about brand equity in literature. This topic aims to explain the definitions of brand equity proposed by innumerous authors during the last two decades in ascending order/date of the publications. Society for Business Research Promotion 35

3 2.2.1 Srivastava, R. K. & Shocker, A. D. The definition of Srivastava & Shocker (1991) reflects in three levels. First level: in the function attributed to the consumer s memory, in the brand equity definition, as a mirror of its intermediary position between the marketing action and profit. Second: it lies on the consumer s cognitive processes, as active component, in the process of building brand equity, that is, on the socio-constructivist perspective of the development of meanings (SRIVASRAVA; SHJOCKER, 1991 apud LOURO, 2000). Finally, in the comprehension of brand equity as its own asset (being a good and/or asset independent from the others), in contrast to the view which states a brand or customer s financial valuation, (SRIVASRAVA; SHJOCKER, 1991 apud LOURO, 2000) Keller, Kevin Lane The basics of consumer s memory are the principles to understand the knowledge on the brand and how it relates to brand equity. These basics are related to psychological and perception issues. Brand equity is defined as the different effects the knowledge of the brand acts in the consumer s response based on marketing, it is defined as different effects on the answer of the consumer s brand knowledge by the marketing of the company actions (KELLER, 1993) Riezebos, R. There are two macro forms to build brand equity. One considers brand equity as additional attribute to the good and/or service, while the other one is measured by the financial value of the brand (RIEZEBOS, 1995). Discussing this topic, Riezebos (1995) elaborates the concept of brand equity on this dual perspective: the owner s (financial valuation) and the consumer s, called Brand Added Value (BAV). It is known that the financial valuation can be measured by innumerous financial constructions, as there are innumerous Brand Added Value (BAV) constructs Rijsman, J. Memory can be understood as the consumer s mental share which makes him recall his experiences and which pushes him positively or negatively. What is attributed to the memory in the brand equity definition, as a reflex of its intermediary position between the marketing action and the profit, is also from its cognitive reservoir nature. Set of associations, the customers and brand distributors behavior, which allow the last one to obtain greater sales and margin volume than it would be possible without the brand s name (RIJSMAN, 1995) Aaker, David A. Brand equity is a set of assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol, which add or subtract from the value provided by a product and/or service to a firm. The assets and liabilities are strongly connected to the brand. Therefore, if the brand name or symbol is changed, some (or all) the assets and liabilities can be affected and even lost, even though part of it can be deviated to a new name and/or symbol (AAKER, 1998) Louro, Maria João Soares By inference, brand equity can be seen as an asset or a liability, since the negative and positive associations, respectively, will penalize or benefit the marketing effort developed by the company (LOURO, 2000). The measurement of brand equity can be direct or indirect, respectively, whether the consumer s response is cognitive and/or affective or linked to the communication management and/or effective behavior. The main dimensions to be considered in the direct Society for Business Research Promotion 36

4 method are the recognition, the associations/differentiations, the quality noticed/leadership, loyalty and market (LOURO, 2000). 2.3 Customer-Based Brand Equity Constructs For the better understanding of brand equity concept, it is necessary to explain and analyze the dimensions proposed in the literature that composes it. Thus, this chapter will describe, in detail, the models of brand equity metric construction Keller, Kevin Lane According to Kevin Lane Keller (1993), brand equity is built by the knowledge and image of the brand. The knowledge of the brand is the first dimension to be noticed and it is related to the brand strength (KELLER, 1993). The second dimension, the brand image, is defined as the perception on the brand reflected in associations, in the consumer s memory (KELLER, 1993). Kevin Lane Keller (1993) states that brand equity can be calculated or measured by two methods: direct and indirect. The indirect method measures the brand equity through the brand knowledge (KELLER, 1993). On the other hand, the direct method measures the brand equity through the elements present in the marketing programs (KELLER, 1993). Also, according to Kevin Lane Keller (1998), a brand brings the company s value when the customers present greater favorability to the product and/or service from the moment they know and identify the brand. This differential effect on the consumer happens at the cognitive, affective and behavioral level. In his thought evolution about brands and brand equity, Kevin Lane Keller added a third dimension in the construct (KELLER, 2001). The third dimension which he proposed was the loyalty to the brand, expressed by the satisfaction indexes (KELLER, 2001 apud TRINTA, 2008) Feldwick, P. Feldwick (1996) demonstrated the operationalization of three different types of construct for the concept of brand equity, that is, systematization from the three-part typology, in an exploratory way, about the discussion around this concept. Thus, the brand equity can be understood as an independent asset which is measured by its book value, that is, by its brand valuation. The second concept consists in the measurement of the connection strength of the customer to the brand, i.e., the concept of brand strength. The brand strength can be understood by the constructs of concepts: awareness, esteem, perceived quality and loyalty. Finally, Feldwick (1996) explores the associations, images and beliefs of the consumers to the brand (FELDWICK, 1996). Since the concept of brand image can be conceived in many ways, Feldwick works with the term brand description Ambler, T. & Styles, C. According to Ambler & Style (1997), the construction of brand equity can be operationalized making use of performance measures. It is worth remembering that the short-term metrics represent the current cash flow and the long-term metrics describe the future cash flow. The development of those measures are structured from a set of criteria and configuration principles: a) precision and sensitivity concerning the efficiency of the measures in presenting evolutionary tendencies; b) predictability since the brand equity stores the future cash flow, it is relevant to use measures capable of indicating the future; c) loyalty: the level which the measure is able to identify true correlations between communication campaigns and consumer s behavior; d) description of the brand essence the ability to measure the alignment between the organizational action and the proposition of fundamental brand value; economy the determination of a set of measures which, in an efficient way are able to correspond to the company s information needs (AMBLER e STYLES, 1997 apud LOURO, 2000). Society for Business Research Promotion 37

5 2.3.4 Aaker David A. The assets and liabilities linked to the brand, which are added or subtracted from the value provided by a product and/or service for an organization or for its customers, called brand equity, which can differ from context to context. However, in a practical way, they can be grouped in five categories: 1. Loyalty to the brand; 2. awareness of the name; 3. perceived quality; 4) Associations to the brand in addition to the perceived; 5. other assets of the brand owner patents, trademarks, relationship to distribution channel, etc. (AAKER, 1998) Louro, Maria João Soares The measures of brand equity can be direct or indirect. The direct measure is divided in inputs and outputs. The inputs mirror the communication management, while the outputs are related to the real customer s behavior. The direct method approaches the cognitive and affective dimensions of the customer through the brand awareness and associations (LOURO, 2000). A denomination of the direct and indirect concepts of measures opposed to the concepts proposed by Kevin Lane Keller (1993) for measuring brand equity, are similar to the direct and indirect measures proposed by Aaker & Joachimsthaler (2000). That means that there is denomination confusion among those authors. However, the variables, even though the thought is opposite, are identical. 2.4 Customer-Based Brand Equity Measurement Variables Loyalty to the Brand The loyalty to the brand, which is very well known in literature, is one of the marketing pillars. The loyalty to the brand is a measure of the connection of the customer to the brand (AAKER, 1998). Indirect ways to determine or measure the loyalty of a certain consumer, specially the habitual behavior, is considering the real patterns of the purchase. Among those measurements there are the customer s repurchase rates, the percentage of the customer s purchase and the number of brands bought (AAKER, 1998). David Aaker (1998) also states that a key diagnose for the consumer s loyalty measurement is the satisfaction assessment. To measure the satisfaction, the staggered appreciation feelings of the brand in several ways (i.e. like, respect, have friendship with or trust) can be used (AAKER, 1998). According to David A. Aaker (1998), brand loyalty is the customer s basis sign, it is the core of brand equity. The brand equity is at risk or weak when the consumers are indifferent and buy according to other traits besides the ones linked to the brand. Therefore, when the brand equity is low/little, the consumers buy according to the traits: price and convenience; considering the name and/or brand symbol just a little (AAKER, 1998) Awareness/Knowledge The brand knowledge is the ability a potential consumer has in recognizing a brand and recalling it as part of a product category (AAKER, 1998). The brand knowledge is also a dimension for building brand equity. Thus, a way to measure brand knowledge is to elaborate a survey with the consumers, who must be presented to a set of brands and who must say which brands they recognize, recall or remember (AAKER, 1998). The usual have you ever heard of a certain brand? way can be used (AAKER, 1998). Another way to conduct a survey, of how known and noticed a brand is, is the use of the top of mind method. This method assesses what the first brand to come to a consumer s mind is, when he is asked about the brands in a certain category. Society for Business Research Promotion 38

6 The power of the brand name is a key variable in determining the best and worst memories of the consumer. Landor Associates developed a measure system through the power of the brand name to assess the brand knowledge (AAKER, 1998). This methodology consists in using two smaller dimensions to measure the power of the brand and, consequently, the brand knowledge. These dimensions are share of mind, which consists in measuring the brand share in the consumer s mind, it is a measure for brand recognition; the regard, which consists in the favorability opinion the consumers have to the detriment of a brand (AAKER, 1998) Perceived Quality Perceived quality is defined as the knowledge the consumer has of quality in general or of the superiority of a product and/or service in relation to its opponents and substitute products (AAKER, 1998). The perceived quality demonstrates the level of satisfaction with a product and with a service acquired by a certain consumer. To measure such brand equity dimension, two groups which can assess the perceived quality by the consumer are used: product quality and service quality (AAKER, 1998). The product quality consists in assessing the performance (functionality of the product); the traits (convenience for its category); the conformity (specifications and defect incidence); the reliability (functionality of the product); durability (time); the services (convenience); the shape and finishing (appearance and design) (AAKER, 1998). The quality of the service elaborates an analysis concerning the service tangibility (physical facilities, equipment, and appearance); the reliability (safety and correct way of the service); the competence (technical staff); the customer service (salespeople) and the empathy (customization) (AAKER, 1998). Kin & Summers (1970) and Childers (1986) state that the consumer s opinion, concerning the product leadership, can be measured. At first, it was designed the idea that the leadership reflects as the people give information on the subject and thus, the information is required by other individuals in the lives of those people (KING; SUMMERS, 1970; CHILDERS, 1986) Brand & Image Associations The brand associations are related to the image in the memory. The image of a certain brand is defined as the perception of the brand reflected in associations in the consumer s memory (KELLER, 1993). As stated by David A. Aaker (1998), the association does not only exist, but also has a level of strength. A strong interlink with the brand is based on many experiences or exposures to communication. The brand associations, that is, the cognitive parcel referring to the brand image can be measured through assessments concerning the attributes related to the brand in comparison to its competitors. This method in statistics, of assessment of the perception to the brand, can be analyzed by the multidimensional staggering. A path for measuring the brand associations is analyzing how the consumer associates the brand to pictures, people, animals, experiences and personal values, besides the use of the consumers free association (AAKER, 1998) Leadership Opinion & Perceived Quality The leadership opinion concerning a product is thought to be a critic or a measure of interpersonal word-of-mouth communication determination and important influences for the diffusion of new products, concepts and services (KING; SUMMERS, 1970; CHILDERS, Society for Business Research Promotion 39

7 1986). The scale developed by King & Summers (1970) and Childers (1986), originally had 7 (seven) scale tracks for the correct measurement of opinion on leadership of a product and/or service in the consumer s mind. Also, according to Reynolds & Daren (1971), the opinion presentation concerning the leadership of a product in the Market, related to the consumer s cognitive process, is very similar to the building and scale method proposed by the former authors: King & Summers (1970) and Childers (1986). That means how much information the person is willing to share with his level of relationship Brand Attitude In their work, authors Barksdale & Darden (1972) presented a series of items which assesses the policy reactions and the business practices of the consumers aiming to measure the attitude concerning the marketing programs. With the evidences, several forms of the items were adapted and used by a series of other consumers and marketers. The assessment topics include philosophy directed by the company to the product quality, to the advertisement, the marketing activities, the consumerism and the government regulations (BARKSDALE; DARDEN, 1972). Still discussing the consumer s attitude, Klein (1982) presents a model which includes other topics in his construct. These topics are: environmental matters, advertisement and promotion; product testing the consumer s education, control and regulation, guarantee and services, public responsibility (KLEIN, 1982) Brand Personality According to Jennifer Aaker (1997), the brand personality reflects (or is defined) as a set of human traits associated to the brand. Thus, the brand tends to serve as the function of symbolic or self-expressive personality for the useful function of product attributes (AAKER, 1997). The measuring scale of brand personality encompasses 5 (five) dimensions: sincerity, competence, sophistication, excitement and robustness in 42 (forty-two) items in the questionnaire (AAKER, 1997) Value Perception & Perceived Quality For Lichtenstein, Ridgway & Netemeyer (1993), the value perception can be not only positive but also negative. This perception elaborates a mental map concerning the monetary value and the attribute value acquired in a certain purchased, i.e., when the monetary value is greater than the perception of purchase of the customer, he has a negative-value perception and vice-versa (LICHTENSTEIN; RIDGWAY; NETEMEYER, 1993). The value is the base of the customer s relationship with the firm (RUST, 2001). The product/services of a certain company need to satisfy the consumers needs and expectations. According to Ronald Rust et. al (2001), the value for the customer can be defined as the comparison between what the customer thinks he obtained in Exchange to what he thinks he gave the company. 3. CONTENT ANALYSES OF CUSTOMER-BASED EQUITY CONCEPTS The first result of the exploratory analysis on the theme customer-based brand equity, is the summary table of brand equity from customer s perspective, found in literature. This table shows, briefly, all the references concerning brand equity found in this paper. This table contains the method presented by the author (direct or indirect), the dimensions used in building the construct and the variables for measuring such dimensions, respectively. Society for Business Research Promotion 40

8 Table 1: Brand Equity Assessment Models Author - Year Direct/Indirect Dimensions Scales 1978 Direct Association/Differentiation Attitude Green & Srinivasan Indirect Market Relative Price Kamakura & Russel Keller Park & Srinivasan Lassar, Mittal & Sharma Feldwick Dyson, Farr-Hollins 1993 Direct Perceived Quality/ Leadership Leadership and Popularity Indirect Market Relative Price 1993 Direct Market Marketing Program Indirect 1994 Direct 1995 Direct Knowledge and Association/Differentiation Knowledge, Association and Perceived Quality/Leadership Knowledge, Association and Perceived Quality/Leadership Recognition and Image Recognition, Image and Personality Quotient/ Value/ Personality, Attitude and Perceived Quality, Financial Valuation/ Customer 1996 Mixed Brand Power and Brand Description Valuation 1996 Direct Association/Differentiation Attitude Indirect Market Behavioral loyalty and market shares Aaker Ambler &e Styles Aaker Louro Keller Simons Clancy & Krieg Troiano Rust, Zeithml & Lemon 1996 Direct 1997 Mixed 1998 Direct 2000 Direct Knowledge, Association and Perceived Quality/Loyalty Recognition/quotient/Value, Personality/ Perceived Quality Indirect Market Market shares Indirect Predictability, Fidelity Sensitivity, Description and Brand economy Knowledge, Association and Perceived Quality/Loyalty and other assets Knowledge, Association and Perceived Quality/Loyalty Market Elasticity Price-demand, Organizational alignment, Brand Power Recognition/Quotient/Value, Personality, Loyalty and Perceived Quality Repurchase, Market Leadership, Response to Communication, And Personality Expenses with communication, Elasticity Price/demand and Contribution Margin Purchase reason, expressed attitudes And knowledge Knowledge, 2001 Direct Associations/Differentiation and Loyalty, 2001 Direct Associations, Perceived Quality and Loyalty Attitude, Leadership and Loyalty expressed Indirect Market Sales and market shares 2003 Direct Indirect 2004 Direct Associations/Differentiation and, e Perceived Quality/ Leadership/ Market Knowledge, Association and Perceived Quality/Leadership Purchase reason, expressed attitude, Personality recognition, Perceived Quality Premium price, Behavioral Loyalty Recognition, Attitude and perceived Quality 2004 Direct Association/Differentiation Brand awareness Source: Adapted from: TRINTA, Increasing the power of content analysis, there is the enumeration between the dimension sightings of the construct of customer-based brand equity. The method used was the counting of the number of quotations of a certain dimension by the authors in scholarly literature. In this item of the paper, only the direct methodologies (AAKER, 1998) of customer-based brand equity were analyzed. Society for Business Research Promotion 41

9 Table 2: Analysis of the Dimension Contents of the Direct Brand-Equity Valuation Models (Brand Equity Construct) Quotation Number Association/Differentiation Perceived Quality Recognition Green & Srinivasan (1978) Kamakura & Russel (1993) Park& Srinivasan (1994) Keller (1993) Park & Srinivasan (1994) Keller (1993) Park & Srinivasan (1994) Lassar, Mittal & Sharma (1995) Aaker (1996; 1998) Lassar, Mittal & Sharma (1995) Simons (1997) Dyson, Farr- Hollins (1996) Louro (2000) Troiano (2004) Aaker (1996; 1998) Simons (1997) Louro (2000) Aaker (1996; 1998) Louro (2000) Clancy &Krieg (2002) Troiano (2004) Clancy & Krieg (2002) Troiano (2004) Rust, Zeithml & Lemon (2004) Loyalty Simons (1997) Aaker (1996; 1998) Louro (2000) Keller (2001) Leadership Park & Srinivasan (1994) Lassar, Mittal & Sharma (1995) Troiano (2004) Kamakura & Russel (2003) Financial Valuation Feldwick (1996) Customer Valuation Feldwick (1996) Brand Predictability Brand Fidelity Brand Sensitivity Brand Description Brand Economy Ambler & Styles (1997) Ambler & Styles (1997) Ambler & Styles (1997) Ambler & Styles (1997) Ambler& Styles (1997) It is interesting to highlight that the dimensions proposed longer ago have a higher number of quotations. They are: association/differentiation; perceived quality/satisfaction; reputation/knowledge; loyalty/fidelity and leadership. These dimensions were incurred in the customer-based brand equity construct by the first researchers of the theme (KELLER, 1993; AAKER, 1998). 3.1 Similarities and Complementarities of the Models To start an evaluation and comparative model of the brand equity construct, there was the elaboration of tables in which the authors were approximated by dimensions proposed for building the mensuration model of the cognitive share of the customer to the brand. The first table demonstrates the use of the Association and/or Differentiation Dimension by these three authors: Green & Srinivansan (1978), Dyson & Farr-Hollins (1996) and Rust, Zeithml & Lemon (2004). These authors indicate the use of just one dimension in building the measurement: customer s perspective on brand equity. Table 3: Comparative Analysis of Brand-Equity Constructs Green & Srinivasan Dyson & Farr-Hollins Rust, Zeithml & Lemon Direct Direct Direct Associations/Differentiations Associations/Differentiations Associations/Differentiations On the other hand, the authors Lassar, Mittal & Sharma (1995) and Clancy & Krieg (2002) included more than one dimension in the brand-equity construct. This dimension is the Perceived Quality/Leadership. Society for Business Research Promotion 42

10 Table 4: Comparative Analysis of Brand-Equity Constructs Lassar, Mittal & Sharma Clancy & Krieg Direct Direct Associations/Differentiations Associations/Differentiations Perceived Quality/Leadership Perceived Quality/Leadership The three authors, in the table below, propose inserting Recognition (KELLER, 1993), as well as Perceived Quality and/or Leadership (PARK; SRINIVANSAN, 1994; TROIANO, 2004), besides the first Associations/Differentiations Dimension. Table 5: Comparative Analysis of Brand-Equity Constructs Keller Park & Srinivasan Troiano Indirect Direct Direct Associations / Image Associations / Differentiations Associations / Differentiations Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge Perceived Quality/Leadership Perceived Quality/Leadership The table below shows the sum of the Loyalty Dimension, proposed by Keller (2001) and Simons (1997). Table 6: Comparative Analysis of Brand-Equity Constructs Simons Aaker Louro Keller Direct Direct Direct Indirect Associations/ Associations/ Associations/ Differentiations Differentiations Differentiations Associations/Image - Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge Perceived Quality / Perceived Quality / Perceived Quality / Leadership Leadership Leadership - Loyalty Loyalty Loyalty Loyalty Finally, the constructs with greater number of dimensions are proposed by David Aaker (1998) and Maria Louro (2004), and they contain Associations and/or Differentiations, Recognition, Perceived Quality and/or Leadership and Loyalty. 4 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS Thus, the objectives of the paper were reached through the tables presented in the content analysis and in the presentation of the similarities of the customer-based evaluation models. The divergences of the customer-based evaluation models are more organized now and were presented to the reader, as proposed at first. A future proposal is the elaboration of a quantitative comparative research between the customer-based evaluation models. REFFERENCES Society for Business Research Promotion 43

11 AAKER, D. A. Managing brand equity: capitalizing on the value of a brand name. Free Press, New York, AAKER, D. A. Building strong brands. New York: Free Press, AAKER, D. A. Marcas: Brand Equity gerenciando o valor da marca. trad. André Andrade. São Paulo: Elsevier, 13 a edição, AAKER, D. A.; JOACHIMSTHALER, E. Brand leadership. Free Press, USA, AAKER, J. Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, v.34, p , AMBLER, T.; STYLES, C. Marketing in the modern world: networks of silk. London, BARKSDALE, H. C.; DARDEN, W. R. Consumer attitudes toward marketing and consumerism. Journal of Marketing, v.36, p.28-35, CHAMBERLIN, E. The theory of monopolistic competition. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press, CHANTÉRAC, V. La marque moteur de la competitivité dês entreprises et de la crissance de l economie. Paris: McGraw-Hill, p , CHILDERS, T. L. Assessment of the psychometric properties of an opinion leadership scale. Journal of Marketing Research, v.23, p , CLANCY, K. J.; KRIEG, P. Marketing Contra-Intuitivo Como Atingir Grandes Resultados Usando o Senso Incomum. Rio de Janeiro: Campus, CÔRTE-REAL, A. O Valor da Marca. Prisma. Universidade do Porto, DYSON, P.; FARR, A.; HOLLIS, N. S. Understanding, measuring and using brand equity. Journal of Advertising Research, Oxfordshire, v. 36, n.6, p. 9-20, nov./dez FELDWICK, P. Do we really need brand equity?. Researching brands. Netherlands : Esomar, p , GREEN, P. E.; SRINIVASAN. V. Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, v.5, n.2, p GUPTA, S.; LEHMANN, D. R. Gerenciando clientes como investimentos: o valor estratégico dos clientes a longo prazo. trad. Patricia Lessa Flores da Cunha. Porto Alegre: Bookman, KAPFERER, J. Strategic Brand Management: New Approaches to Creating and Evaluating Brand Equity. London: Kogan Page, KELLER, K. L. Conceptualizing, measuring and management customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, vol. 57, p. 1-22, KELLER, K. L. Strategic brand management: building, measuring, and managing brand equity. Upper Saddle River : Prentice-Hall, KELEER, K. L. Building Customer-Based Brand Equity. Marketing Management, Ilinois, v 10, n.2, p.14-19, Jul/Ago, KING, C. W.; SUMMERS, J. O. Overlap of opinion leadership across product categories. Journal of Marketing Research, v.7, p.43-50, KLEIN, G. D. Development of a cross-cultural instruments to measure the attitude of consumers and business people toward consumerism. Journal of Marketing and Public Policy, v.1, p , KOTLER, P. Administração de Marketing: a edição do novo milênio. Prentice Hall, 10ª edição, São Paulo, LASSAR, W.; MITTAL, B.; SHARMA, A. Measuring customer-based Brand equity. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Bingley, v. 12, n. 4, p , LICHTENSTEIN, D. R.; RIDGWAY, N. M.; NETEMEYER, R. G. Price perception and consumers shopping behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, v.30, p , LOURO, M. J. S. Modelos de Avaliação de Marca. RAE Revista de Administração de Empresas. São Paulo, Abr./Jun., v. 40, n. 2, p , MALHOTRA, N. Pesquisa de Marketing: uma orientação aplicada. trad. Nivaldo Montigelli Jr. e Alfredo Alves de Faria. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 3ª edição, NUNES, G.; HAIGH, D. Marca: valor do intangível, medindo e gerenciando seu valor econômico. São Paulo: Atlas, PARK, C. S.; SRINIVASAN, V. A Survey-Based Method for Measuring and Understanding Brand Equity and Its Extendibility. Journal of Marketing Research, Illinois, v. 31, n. 2, p , Society for Business Research Promotion 44

12 REYNOLDS, F. D.; DARDEN, W. R. Mutually adaptive effects of interpersonal communication. Journal of Marketing Research, v.8, p , RICHARDSON, R. J. Pesquisa Social: métodos e técnicas; colaboradores Jose Augusto de Souza Peres, (et al.). São Paulo: Atlas, RIJSMAN, J. Comportamento organizacional e gestão. Lisboa: Publicações Dom Quixote, RIEZEBOS, R. Unravelling brand value: a conceptual model on consumer and producer-based brand value. Erasmus Universiteit/Rotterdam School of Management, Working Paper, n. 213, RUST, R.; ZEITHAML, V. A.; LEMON, K. N. O valor do cliente; o modelo que está reformulando a estratégia corporativa. trad. Nivaldo Montingelli Jr. Porto: Alegre: Bookman, RUST, R. T.; ZEITHAML, V. A.; LEMON, K. N. Customer-centered brand management. Harvard Business Review, Boston, v.82, n.9, p , set SIMONS, P. Sizing up a brand s equity. Marketing Week, Londres, v.20, n.28, p.38-41, out SRIVASTAVA, R. K.; SHOCKER, A. D. Brand equity: a perspective on its meaning and measurement. Cambridge, Mass: Marketing Science Institute, STOBART, P. Brand Power. MacMillan, London, TRINTA, J. L.; CAMPOMAR, M. C.; BACELLAR, F. C. T. Estudo Comparativo de Diferentes Modelos de Avaliação de Marcas sob à ótica de Marketing. In: Seminários em Administração, 11º SemeAd - Empreendedorismo em organizações. Anais: São Paulo: FEA/USP: TROIANO, J. Além da retórica: medindo a força da marca. Revista ESPM, São Paulo, mar./abr., Society for Business Research Promotion 45