Jjurnal klp1

Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity
Author(s): Kevin Lane Keller

Source: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Jan., 1993), pp. 1-22
Published by: American Marketing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1252054
Accessed: 30/09/2013 12:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Marketing.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 152.3.102.242 on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:03:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Kevin Lane Keller
Conceptualizing,Measuring,and
ManagingCustomer-BrandBased
Equity
The author presents a conceptual model of brand equity from the perspective of the individual consumer. Customer-based brand
equity is defined as the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer re-sponse to the marketing of the brand. A brand is
said to have positive (negative) customer-based brand equity when consumers react more (less) favorably to an element of the
marketing mix for the brand than they do to the same marketing mix element when it is attributed to a fictitiously named or
unnamed version of the product or service. Brand knowledge is conceptualized according to an associative network
memory model in terms of two components, brand awareness and brand image (i.e., a set of brand associations). Customer-based
brand equity occurs when the consumer is familiar with the brand and
holds some favorable, strong, and unique brand associations in memory. Issues in building, measuring, and managing
customer-based brand equity are discussed, as well as areas for future research.
M UCH attentionhas been devoted recently to the or divestiturepurposes. Several different methods of
of brand
concept equity (Aaker and Biel 1992; brand valuation have been suggested (Barwise et al.
Leuthesser 1988; Maltz 1991). Brandequity has been 1989; Wentz 1989). For example, Interbrand
Group
viewed from a of has used a of brand based
variety perspectives (Aaker 1991; subjectivemultiplier profits on the
In a
Farquhar1989; Srivastavaand Shocker 1991; Tauber 1988). brand's performancealong seven dimensions (leadership,
general sense, brandequity is defined in terms of the market
stability, stability, interational-
marketingeffects uniquely attributableto the brand-for and itan has
ity, trend, support, protection);GrandMetropol-
example, when certain outcomes re-sult from the marketing of a valued brands
newly acquired by determining the difference
product or service be-cause of its brand name that would not between the acquisitionprice and fixed assets. Simon and
occur if the
same productor service did not have that name. There Sullivan (1990) define brandequity in termsof the
incrementaldiscountedfuturecash flows
have been two general motivations for
brand One is a that would resultfrom a producthaving its brandname
studying equity. financially based mo-tivation to
estimate the value of a brand more pre- in comparisonwith the proceeds that would accrue if the
same productdid not have that brandname. Based
cisely for accounting purposes (in terms of asset val-
on the financial market value of the company, their
uationfor the balance
sheet) or for merger,acquisition, estimation technique extracts the value of brand eq-uity
from the value of a firm's other assets.
KevinLaneKelleris AssociateProfessor MarketingandFletcherJones
A second reason for studying brandequity arises from a
FacultyScholarfor 1992-1993,GraduateSchoolof Business,Stanford
UniverityThis.articlewaswrittenwhiletheauthorwasVisitingProfes-sor at the strategy-basedmotivation to improve market-
Given
AustralianGraduateSchoolof Management,Universityof ing productivity. higher costs, greatercompe-tition,
NewSouthWales,Sydney,AustraliaHe. thanksDavidAaker,Sheri and demand
Bridges,DeborahMacinnis,JohnRoberts,JohnRossiter,RichardStae- flattening in many markets, firms seek to
lin,JenniferAaker,andtheanonymousJMreviewersfordetailed,con- As a
increase the efficiency of their marketingex-penses.
structivecomments. consequence, marketersneed a more
thoroughunderstandingof consumerbehavioras a ba-
Journal of Marketing
Vol. 57 Customer-BasedBrandEquity/ 1
(January 1993), 1-22
sis for making better strategic decisions about target in memory. Then the concept of customer-basedbrand
marketdefinition and product positioning, as well as better equity is considered in more detail by discussion of
tactical decisions about specific marketingmix actions.
how it can be built, measured, and managed. After
Perhaps a firm's most valuable asset for im- the conceptual framework is summarized, areas
is the for future research are identified.
proving marketingproductivity knowledge that has been
createdabout the brandin consumers' minds
from the firm's investmentin previous marketingpro-grams.
Financial valuationissues have little relevance
Brand
if no underlyingvalue for the brandhas been created or if
Knowledge
managersdo not know how to exploit that value
Background
by developing profitable
brand
strategies.
A
brandcan be defined as "a name, term, sign, sym-bol, or
The goal of this article is to assist managers and design, or combination of them which is in-tended to identify
researcherswho are interestedin the strategic aspects
of brand brand is the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to
equity. Specifically, equity concep-tualized differentiatethem from those
from the perspective of the individual con-sumer and a
of
competitors"(Kotler 1991; p. 442). These individ-ual brand
conceptualframeworkis providedof what consumers know about components are here called "brandidenti-ties" and their totality
brandsand what such knowl- can be used to
for Customer-based "the brand."Some basic mem-ory principles
edge implies marketingstrategies.
understandknowledge about the brand and how it relates to
brandequityis definedas the differentialeffect of brand The of in to
on consumer to the of brand equity. importance knowledge memory
knowledge response marketing the consumer
decision making has been well documented (Alba,
brand. That is, customer-basedbrand equity in-volves and
consumers' reactionsto an element of the mar- Hutchinson, Lynch 1991). Understanding the content and
keting mix for the brandin comparisonwith their re-actions to structureof brandknowledge is important because they
influence what comes to mind when a
the same marketingmix element attributed to a fictitiously consumer thinks about a brand-for example,
in re-
named or unnamed version of the product or service. to for
sponse marketingactivity that brand.
Customer-basedbrand equity oc-curs when the consumer is Most of mem-
familiarwith the brandand widely accepted conceptualizations
holds ory structureinvolve some type of associative model
some favorable, strong, and unique brand as-sociations in
formulation
memory. (Anderson 1983; Wyer and Srull 1989). For example,
brand from this views semantic
Conceptualizing equity perspec-tive is the "associativenetworkmemorymodel"
or as
useful because it suggests both specific guide-lines for memory knowledge consisting of a set of nodes and links.
Nodes are stored infor-
marketing strategies and tactics and areas where research can mation connected by links that vary in strength. A
decision Two
be useful in assisting managerial making.
this "spreadingactivation"process from node to node de-termines
importantpoints emerge from conceptualization.First, and Loftus
marketersshould take a the extent of retrieval in memory (Collins 1975;
broad view of marketingactivity for a brandand rec-ognize the Raaijmakers and Shiffrin 1981; Ratcliff and McKoon 1988). A
various effects it has on brand knowledge, as well as how node becomes a po-tential source of activationfor other nodes
eitherwhen
changesin brandknowledgeaffect more traditionaloutcome
measures such as sales. Second, external informationis being encoded or when inter-
marketersmust realize that the long-term success of nal informationis retrievedfrom long-term memory. Activation
all future for a can spread from this node to other linked
marketingprograms brand is greatly affected by
the knowledge about the brandin memory that has been nodes in memory. When the activationof anothernode
establishedby the firm's short-termmar- exceeds some threshold level, the informationcon-
keting efforts. In short, because the content and struc-ture tained in that node is recalled. Thus, the strengthof
of memory for the brand will influence the ef-fectiveness of association between the activatednode and all linked
futurebrandstrategies, it is critical that managers nodes determines the extent of this "spreadingacti-
understandhow vation" and the particularinformationthat can be re-
their marketing programs affect
trieved from For in a
memory. example, considering soft drink
consumer learning and thus subsequent recall for brand-
relatedinformation. purchase, a consumer may think of Pepsi because of its strong
The next Consumer
section provides a conceptualizationof association with the productcat-egory. knowledge
brand most strongly linked to Pepsi should also then come to mind, such
knowledge by applying some basic memory no-
as per-
tions. Brand knowledge is defined in terms of two of
components,brandawarenessand brandimage. Brand ceptions its taste, sugar and caffeine content, or even
or
awarenessrelates to brandrecall and recognition per-formanceby recalled images from a recent advertisingcam-paign
past productexperiences.
consumers. Brandimage refers to the set of associationslinked to
the brandthat consumershold Consistent with an associative network memory
2 Journalof
/ Marketing,January1993
model, brand knowledge is conceptualized be a member of the consideration set (Baker et al. 1986;
Nedungadi 1990), the handful of brands that receive serious
sisting of a brand node in memory to which a variety of consideration for purchase. Second, brand awareness can
associations are linked. Given this conceptualiza-tion, the key affect decisions about brands in the consideration set, even if
question is, what properties do the brand node and brand there are essentially no other brand associations. For
associations have? As developed here, the relevant dimensions example, consumers have been shown to adopt a decision
that distinguish brand knowl-edge and affect consumer rule to buy only fa-miliar, well-established brands (Jacoby,
response are the awareness of the brand (in terms of brand recall Syzabillo, and Busato-Schach 1977; Roselius 1971). In low
and recognition) settings, a minimum level of brand
involve-ment decision
and the and of
favorability, strength, uniqueness the brand awareness may be sufficient for product choice, even in the
associations in consumer memory. These di-mensions are affected by Park
absence of a well-formed attitude (Bettman and 1980;
other characteristics of and Hoyer and Brown 1990; Park and Lessig 1981). The
relationships among the brand associations. elaboration likelihood model (Petty and Cacioppo 1986)
For ex-ample, factors related to the type of brand association that
suggests consumers may base choices on brand
as its level of abstraction
(such and qualitative nature)
and the brand awareness considerations when they have low involvement,
congruity among associations, among others, which could result from either a lack of consumer motivation
affect the favorability, strength, and unique-ness of brand (i.e., consumers do not care about the product or service) or
associations. To simplify the discus-sion, emphasis is placed on sumer consumers
a lack of con- ability (i.e., do not know
the brand name compo-nent of the brand identities, defined as anything else about the brands). Finally, brand awareness
"that part of a brand which can be vocalized" (Kotler 1991, p.
af-fects consumer decision making by influencing the
442), though other components of the brand identities (e.g.,
brand logo or symbol) are considered also.
formation and strength of brand associations in the brand
image. A necessary condition for the creation of a brand
Brand Awareness
image is that a brand node has been estab-lished in
The first dimensiondistinguishing brand knowledge is memory, and the nature of that brand node should affect
brand awareness. It is related to the strength of the brand
how easily different kinds of informa-tion can become
node or trace in memory, as reflected by con-sumers'
attached to the brand in memory.
conditions
ability to identify the brand under different
(Rossiter and Percy 1987). In other words, how well do the Brand Image
brand identities serve their function?
In particular, brand name awareness relates to the brand has been as
Though image long recognized an
likelihood that a brand name will come to mind and the in
importantconcept marketing (e.g., Gardnerand Levy
ease with which it does so. Brand awareness con- 1955), there is less agreement on its appropriate def-inition (Dobni and
sists of brand recognition and brand recall perfor-mance. Zinkhan 1990). Consistent with
Brand recognition relates to consumers' abil- definitions by Herzog (1963) and Newman (1957), among
to confirm to
ity prior exposure the brand when given others, and an associative network memory model of brand
the brand as a cue. In other words, brand recognition knowledge, brand image is defined here as perceptions
requires that consumers correctly discriminate the brand about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in
as
having been seen or heard previously. Brand recall relates to
consumer memory. Brand associations are the other
consumers' ability to retrieve the brand when informational nodes linked
given the product category, the needs fulfilled by the category, or to the brand node in memory and contain the meaning of the
some other type of probe as a cue. In other words, brand recall brand for consumers. The favorability, strength, and uniqueness
requires that consumers cor-rectly generate the brand from sions brand
of brand associations are the dimen- distinguishing
memory. The relative that an im-
knowledge play
of brand recall and role in that makes
importance recognition depends on portant determining the differential response
the extent to which consumers make decisions in the brand in in-
store be up equity, especially high volvement decision settings.
(where they potentially may exposed to the brand) versus
Before considering those dimensions, it is useful to examine the
outside the store, among other factors different types
(Bettman 1979; Rossiter and Percy 1987). Brand rec-
be of brand associations that may be present in consumer
ognition may more important to the extent that product memory.
decisions are made in the store.
Brand sumer Types of brand associations. Brand associations
important role in con-
awareness plays an
it is way to distinguish among brand
take different forms. One
decision making for three major reasons. First, important and
that consumers think of the brand when by their level of abstraction (Alba
associations is
think about the Hutchinson Johnson
they product category. Raising brand 1987; Chattopadhyay and Alba 1988;
awareness increases the likelihood that the brand will
1984; Russo and Johnson 1980)-that is, by
Customer-BasedBrandEquity/ 3
how much informationis summarizedor subsumedin of
type activity (formal or informal), among other as-pects.
the association. Along this dimension, brand associ- User and
usage image attributescan also pro-duce
ations can be classified into three major categories of brandpersonalityattributes.Plummer(1985) as-serts that one
increasing scope: attributes, benefits, and attitudes. component of brand image is the personality or
Severaladditionaldistinctionscan be made withinthese characterof the brand itself. He sum-marizes research
to the nature demonstratingthat brands can be characterized by
categories according qualitative of the
association. personality descriptors such as
Attributesare those descriptive features that char-acterize
"youthful," "colorful," and "gentle." These types of
a productor service-what a consumerthinks the product or associations seem to arise most often as a result of
service is or has and what is involved with its purchase or
in a of inferences about the underlying user or usage situa-tion. Brand
consumption. Attributescan be categorized variety
and attributesare personality attributes may also reflect emotions or feelings
ways (Myers Shocker 1981). Here,
how relate to evoked by the brand.
distinguishedaccordingto directly they product Benefits are the personal value consumers attach to the
or service productor service attributes-that is, what con-sumers think the
perfor-
mance. Product-related attributes are defined as the product or service can do for them. Benefits can be
for the
ingredients necessary performing product or service furtherdistinguishedinto three cate-
gories accordingto the motivationsto which
function sought by consumers. Hence, they underlying

relate to a or a ser- relate
product's physical composition they (Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis 1986): (1)
vice's requirements.Product-relatedattributesvary by functional benefits, (2) experientialbenefits, and (3) symbolic
or service at- intrinsic
product category. Non-product-related tributes are defined benefits. Functional benefits are the more
of or service
as external aspects of the product or service that relate to its advantages product consump-
tion and usually correspondto the at-
purchaseor consumption. The four main types of non-product- product-related

relatedattributes tributes.These benefits often are linked to fairly basic
are
(1) price information, (2) packaging or product motivations, such as physiological and safety needs
user of (Maslow 1970), and involve a desire for problem re-moval
appearanceinformation, (3) imagery (i.e., what type person
uses the or where and or avoidance (Fennell 1978; Rossiter and Percy 1987).
product service), and (4) usage imagery (i.e., Experientialbenefits relate to what it feels like to use the
in product or service and also usually corre-spond to the
what types of sit-uations the product or service is used).
Because product-relatedattributesare more com- product-relatedattributes.These benefits
monly acknowledged, only non-product-relatedattri-butes satisfy experiential
needs such as
sensory pleasure, variety,
and
are elaboratedhere. The price of the productor service is stimulation.
cognitive Symbolic benefits are the more extrinsic
because it
considered a non-product-relatedattribute advantagesof product or ser-
a in the but vice to non-
represents necessary step purchase process consumption. They usually correspond
does not relate product-relatedattributesand relateto needs
typically directly to the product
performanceor service function. Price is a particularly underlying
important attribute association because for social or and outer-
approval personal expression directedself-
consumers often have strong beliefs about the price and value of a esteem. Hence, consumersmay value the
brand and may organize their product or of a brandbe-
prestige, exclusivity, fashionability cause of
category knowledge in terms of the price tiers of dif- how it relates to their self-concept (Solomon 1983).
ferent brands(Blattbergand Wisniewski 1989). Sim- Symbolic benefits should be especially rele-
is considered and vant for
socially visible, "badge"products.
ilarly, packaging part of the purchase
consumptionprocess but, in most cases, does not Brand attitudes are defined as consumers' overall
relate to the evaluationsof a brand(Wilkie 1986). Brandattitudes are
directly necessary ingredientsfor product
User and
performance. usage imagery attributescan importantbecause they often form the basis for consumer
be formed directly from a consumer's own experi-ences and behavior (e.g., brandchoice). Though dif-ferent models of
contactwith brandusers or indirectlythrough the depiction brandattitudeshave been proposed,
of the targetmarketas communicatedin one is based on a multiat-
brand advertising or by some other source of infor-mation widely accepted approach tribute
ical formulation in which brand attitudes are a
(e.g., word of mouth). Associations of a typ- branduser function of the associated attributesand benefits that
may be based on demographicfactors are salient for the brand. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975; Ajzen
and tors and
(e.g., sex, age, race, income), psychographicfac- (e.g.,
to Fishbein 1980) proposed what has been probably the
according attitudes toward career, pos- most influential multiattributemodel to
the and other marketing (Bettman 1986). This expectancy-value model
sessions, environment, or political institutions),
factors. Associations of a typical usage sit-uation may be based views attitudes as a multiplicativefunction of
on the time of day, week, or year, the location (inside or outside (1) the salient beliefs a consumer has about the prod-uct
the home), or the or service (i.e., the extent to which consumersthink
the brandhas certainattributesor benefits) and (2) the
4 Journalof
evaluative judgment of those beliefs (i.e., how good or Not all associations for a brand, however, will be
bad it is that the brandhas those attributesor ben- relevant and valued in a purchaseor consumptionde-
efits). cision. For example, consumers often have an asso-
Brand attitudes can be related to beliefs about ciation in memory from the brand to the product or
attributesand the functional and ex-product-related package color. Though this association may facilitate
brand recognition or awareness or lead to inferences
perientialbenefits, consistent with work on perceived about it not be
quality (Zeithaml 1988). Brand attitudescan also be related product quality, may always consid-
and
to beliefs about non-product-relatedattributes
benefits ered a meaningful factor in a purchase decision.
symbolic (Rossiter and Percy 1987), con-sistent Moreover, the evaluations of brandassociations may
be or to
with the functional theory of attitudes (Katz 1960; Lutz situationally context-dependentand vary ac-cording
1991), which maintainsthat attitudescan consumers' in their
particulargoals pur-chase or
serve a function consumption decisions (Day, Shocker, and Srivastava 1979).
"value-expressive" by allowing in-
dividuals to express their self-concepts. Because it is difficult An association may be valued in
to specify correctly all of the relevant attri-butes and For
one situationbut not another(Miller and Ginter 1979).
benefits, researchersbuilding multiattribute and of service be
example, speed efficiency very may
models of consumer preferencehave included a gen-eral
componentof attitudetowardthe brandthat is not
importantwhen a consumer is under time pres-sure but
may have little impact when a consumer is less hurried.
capturedby the attributeor benefit values of the brand
(Park 1991; Srinivasan 1979). Moreover, as noted Strength of brand associations. Associations can
previously, researchalso has shown that attitudescan
be formed less decision making(Chaiken be characterizedalso by the strengthof connection to
by thoughtful
and on the the brandnode. The strengthof associations depends on how the
1986; Petty Cacioppo 1986)-for example,
informationenters consumermemory (en-
basis of simple heuristics and decision rules. If con-sumers lack
either the motivationor ability to evaluate coding) and how it is maintainedas part of the brand image
trinsic is of
the product or service, they may use signals or "ex- (storage). Strength a function both the amount or
ceives at
cues" quantity of processing the informationre- encoding
(Olson and Jacoby 1972) to infer product or service how
(i.e., much a person thinks about the information)and the
quality on the basis of what they do know aboutthe the
or natureor qualityof the processing informationreceives at
brand(e.g., productappearancesuch as color scent).
encoding (i.e., the mannerin which a person thinks about the
Thus, the different types of brand associations making infor-mation).For example,the levels- or depth-of-processing
the brand include approach(Craik and Lockhart 1972; Craik and Tulv-
up image product-relatedor non- ing 1975; Lockhart, Craik, and Jacoby 1976) main-tains
product-relatedattributes; functional, experien-tial, or
symbolic benefits; and overall brandattitudes. These that the more the meaning of informationis at-
tended to the the
associations can during encoding, stronger resulting associations
vary according to their favor-ability,
and in memory will be. Thus, when a con-sumer actively thinks about
strength, uniqueness.
and "elaborates"on the
Favorability of brand associations. Associations of
significance productor service information,stronger
differ according to how favorably they are evaluated. The
success of a marketingprogramis reflected in the creationof associations are created in memory. This strength, in turn,
increasesboth the likelihoodthat informationwill
favorablebrandassociations-that is, con- be accessible and the ease with which it can be re-
sumers believe the brand has attributesand benefits called by "spreadingactivation."
that satisfy their needs and wants such that a positive Cognitive psychologists believe memory is ex-
overall brand attitude is formed. tremely durable, so that once information becomes
MacKenzie (1986) summarizesresearchevidence
that the "evaluative of stored in memory its strength of association decays very
suggesting judgment"component slowly (Loftus and Loftus 1980). Though "avail-able" and
expectancy-value models of attitude (i.e., con- potentially retrievable in memory, infor-mation may not
sumer of the is both
perceptions favorability of an attribute) be "accessible" and easily retrieved withoutstrongly
conceptually and empirically related to attri- associatedremindersor retrievalcues
bute importance. attribute has and Psotka
Specifically, importance
(Tulving 1971). Thus, the particularas-

been equatedwith polarity
of attributeevaluation (Ajzen sociations for a brand that are salient and "come to
and mind" depend on the context in which the brand is
Fishbein 1980; Fishbeinand Ajzen 1975). In other words,
benefit
consumers are unlikely to view an attributeor as very considered. The larger the number of cues linked to
good or bad if they do not also con- a of
piece information,however, the greaterthe like-lihood
sider it to be
very important.Hence, it is difficult to thatthe informationcan be recalled(Isen 1992).
create a favorable association for an unimportantat-tribute. Uniqueness of brand associations. Brand associ-
ations may or may not be sharedwith other competing America or some other market leader to be the best
brands. The essence of brand positioning is that the brand
has a sustainable competitive advantage or "unique selling example of a bank.
that consumers Because the brand is linked to the product cate-gory,
proposition" gives a some
compelling reason for buying that particularbrand product category associations may be-come linked
(Aaker 1982; Ries and Trout 1979; Wind 1982). These to the brand, either in terms of specific beliefs or overall
attitudes.Productcategory attitudes
differences may be communicatedexplicitly by mak- can be a particularlyimportantdeterminantof con-sumer
direct with or banks are
ing comparisons competitors may be response. For example, if a consumer thinks
without a basically "unfriendly"and "bad,"he or she probablywill
highlighted implicitly stating competitive point
of reference. Furthermore,they may be based have similarlyunfavorablebeliefs about and
on or attributesor tue of
product-related non-product-related attitudetowardany particularbank simply by vir- its
functional, experiential, or image benefits. membershipin the category. Thus, in almost all cases, some
The productcategory associations that are linked to the
presenceof stronglyheld, favorablyevaluated brandare sharedwith other brandsin the
associations that are unique to the brand and imply category. Note that the strengthof the brand associ-ations
superiority over other brands is critical to a brand's success. with the product category is an important determinant of
Yet, unless the brandhas no competitors,the brand will most
likely share some associations with other brands. brand awareness (Nedungadi and Hutchinson 1985; Ward
and Loken 1986).
Sharedassociationscan help to establish with
category membership(Maclnnis and Nakamoto 1991) and Competitive overlap with other brands associated
the
define the scope of competition with other prod-ucts and productcategorydoes have a downside, how-ever, in terms
on of possible consumer confusion. For example, Keller (1987)
services (Sujanand Bettman 1989). Research and Burke and Srull (1988) have shown that the numberof
alternatives in a can
noncomparable (Bettman and Sujan 1987; competing brandsad-vertising productcategory
Johnson 1984; Park and Smith 1989) suggests that even if a affect
consumers' ability to recall communicationeffects for a
branddoes not face direct competition in its brandby creating"interference" memory. Keller (1991b) also
productcategory,and thus does not shareproduct-related
attributeswith other brands, it can still share more abstract showed that though these interferenceeffects can pro-duce
associations and face indirect compe- lower brandevaluations, they can be overcome throughthe use
titionin a more defined a of ad retrievalcues-that is, distinc-tive ad execution
broadly productcategory.Thus, though
railroad not other
may compete directly with an- railroad, it still informationthat is present when a consumer actually makes
competes indirectly with other a brandevaluation (e.g., at
forms of
transportation,
such as
airlines, cars, and buses.
the of
point purchase).
A productor service category can be characterized Interaction among characteristics of brand asso-
also by a set of associations that include specific be-liefs ciations. The level of abstractionand qualitativena-ture of
brand associations should affect their favora-
about any member in the category in additionto overall and
bility, strength, uniqueness. For example, image-
attitudestoward all members in the category. These beliefs related
attributes,such as user type or usage situation,
include many of the product-relatedat-tributes for the may easily create unique associations. Abstract as-sociations
relevant brands, as well as more de-scriptive attributes that
or service (e.g., benefits and especially attitudes), in contrast, tend to
do not necessarily relate to product
performance(e.g., the color of a product, such as red for be inherently more evaluative be-cause of the embedded
ketchup). Certain attributes meaning they contain. Be-cause of this evaluative nature,
or benefits be and es- abstractassociations
may
the
considered
"prototypical"
sential to all brands in the category, and a specific brand may tend to be more durableand accessiblein memorythan
underlying attributeinformation(Chattopadhyay and Alba
be considered an "exemplar"that is most
1988). In fact, brandattitudesmay be stored
of the or service
representative
and Basu 1987;
product and Hutchinson
category(CohenRosch
Nedungadi 1985; and retrieved in memory separatelyfrom the under-

and Mervis 1975; Ward and Loken 1986). For ex-ample, lying attributeinformation(Lynch, Mamorstein, and
consumers vide Weigold 1988).
might expect a runningshoe to pro- supportand One reason for
comfort, be built well enough to last important considering brand atti-tudes to be
and so a brand association is that they can vary
through repeated wearings, on, and they may believe that
in strength(Farquhar1989). Attitude has been
Nike or some other leading brand best strength
a a measured by the reaction time needed to evaluative

represents runningshoe. Similarly,consumers might expect
bank to about
offer a variety of checking and sav-ings accounts, provide queries the attitude object (Fazio et al. 1986). Individualswho
branchand electronic delivery services, and so on, and they may can evaluatean attitudeobject quickly
consider Bank of are assumed to have a highly accessible attitude. Re-
6 Journalof
searchhas shown that attitudesformed from direct be- the of infor-
information-though unexpectedness mation
havior or experience are more accessible than atti- inconsistent in meaning with the brandsome-
tudesbasedon informationor indirectformsof behavior times can lead to moreelaborate stronger and
processing
(Fazio and Zanna 1981). Highly accessible brand at-titudes associationsthaneven consistentinformation(Houston,
are more likely to be activated spontaneously Childers, and Heckler 1987; Myers-Levy and Tybout 1989;
Wyer and Srull 1989). That is, consumersmay have
upon exposureto the brandand guide brand expectations as to the likelihood that a product
or service has a association given that it has
subsequent particular
choices (Bergerand Mitchell 1989; Fazio, Powell, and some otherassociation(Bettman,John, and Scott 1986; Sujan
Williams 1989). 1985). These expectations should affect con-sumers' ability to
Figure 1 summarizes the dimensions of brand learn new brand information. For example, if a running shoe
knowledge. with durable and
has a brand association "very long-lasting,"
it
Congruence of brand associations. The presumably would be easier to establish an association with "all
favora- weather"than with "stylish." As noted subsequently, these
bility and strength of a brand association can be af-fected by expectationsalso may result in the formationof inferredbrand
other brand associations in memory. Con-gruence is defined associations. Thus, the strengthof an association should depend
as the extent to which a brand association shares content and on how its content relates to the content of other associations for
the brand.
meaning with another brand association. The congruence of The congruence among brand associations deter-mines
brand associa-tions should affect (1) how easily an existing the "cohesiveness" of the brand image-that is, the extent to
associ-ation can be recalled and (2) how easily additional which the brand image is character-ized by associationsor
associations can become linked to the brand node in subsetsof associationsthatshare
memory. In general, informationthat is consistent in
meaning with existing brand associations should be
more easily learned and rememberedthan unrelated
FIGURE 1
Dimens ions of Brand Know ledge
meaning. The cohesiveness of the brand image may brand with the response to the same marketingof a
determine consumers' more holistic or gestalt reac- fictitiously named or unnamedversion of the product or
service. Brand knowledge is defined in terms of brand
tions to the brand. Moreover, a "diffuse" brand im-
age, where there is little congruenceamong brandas- awareness and brand image and is conceptual-ized
sociationsfor consumers,can presentseveral potential according to the characteristicsand relationships of
problemsfor marketers.First, consumers may be con- brandassociationsdescribedpreviously. Consumer
fused as to the meaning of the brand and, because they response to marketing is defined in terms of consumer
and behavior
do not have as much informationto which new perceptions, preferences, arising from
informationcan be easily related,new associations may mix
marketing activity (e.g., brand choice, compre-
be weakerand possibly less favorable(Heckler,Keller, and
Houston 1992). Moreover, because any one as-sociation hension of copy points from an ad, reactionsto a cou-
shares little meaning with other associa-tions, pon promotion, or evaluations of a proposed brand
extension).
brandassociations may be more easily changed by
Thus, accordingto this definition, a brand is said
competitive actions. Finally, anotherproblemwith to have positive (negative) customer-based brand eq-uity if
a diffuse brand image is the greater likelihood that consumers react more (less) favorably to the product, price,
consumers will discount or overlook some potentially relevant or distribution the brand
promotion, of than they do to the
brand associations in making brand deci-sions. For example, same marketing mix element when it is attributed to a
research on "part-listcuing ef-fects" has shown that recall of fictitiously named or unnamed ver-sion of the product or
informationcan inhibit and lower the recall of other service. Favorable consumer
informationfrom mem- and customer-basedbrand in
and response positive equity,
ory (Alba Chattopadhyay1985a,b, 1986; Hoch 1984; turn, can lead to enhanced revenue, lower costs, and
Keller 1991a). Hence, only some of the poten-tially Brand is centralto this def-
greaterprofits. knowledge
inition. In the and
retrievable brand associations actually may be recalled particular, favorability, strength,
uniqueness of the brandassociations play a criticalrole
when the brand image is not cohesive and consistent.
in determiningthe differential response. If the brand is seen
by consumersto be the same as a prototypical version of the
Customer-Based Brand Equity productor service in the category, their response should not
or
As noted, brandequity has been defined in a variety differ from their response to a hypotheticalproduct service;
of on the if the brandhas some
ways, depending particularpurpose. Be-cause the goal salient, unique associations, those responses should
of this article is to facilitate the de-
of more effective differ. The actual nature of how the responses differ
velopment marketingstrategies and depends on consumers' evaluations of these associa-
tactics, the focus is on brandeffects on the individual
consumer. The of brand tions, as well as the particular marketingmix element under
advantage conceptualizing
equity
to consider consideration.Thus, establishing brandaware-
from this perspective is that it enables man-agers ness and a and
"positive brand image" (i.e., favorable, strong,
how their the value brand in consumer
specifically marketing programimproves unique associations)
of their brands.
Though the eventual goal of any memorycreatesdifferenttypes of customer-basedbrand
on what
marketingprogram to in-crease sales, it is first necessary
is equity, depending marketingmix element is under
to establish knowl-edge structuresfor the brand so that consideration. A brief discussion highlighting some relevant
consumers re- considerations for each of these ele-
to
spond favorably marketingactivity for the brand. The ments follows.
preceding section provides a detailed framework of brand Fundamentally,high levels of brandawarenessand
knowledge. In this section, that framework a brand
is positive image should increase the probability of
used to consider in more detail how knowledge af-fects
consumer response to the marketingof a brand by defining brandchoice, as well as produce greaterconsumer (and
retailer) loyalty and decrease vulnerability to
customer-basedbrand equity and exam- actions. Thus, the view of brand
how it competitivemarketing
ining is built, measured, and managed. loyalty adopted here is that it occurs when favorable beliefs
Defining Customer-Based Brand Equity and attitudes for the brand are manifested in
reflect the
ential repeat buying behavior. Some of these beliefs may
Customer-based brand equity is defined as the differ- of the in which
objective reality product, case no
effect of brand knowledge on consumer re-
to the underlyingcustomer-basedbrandequity may be present, but in
sponse marketing of the brand. Three impor-
tant other cases they may reflect favor-
conceptsare includedin the definition:"differential and
to able, strong, unique associations that go beyond
effect," "brandknowledge," and "consumerresponse the
objective reality of the product (Park 1991). High levels
marketing." Differential effect is determined by of brandawarenessand a positivebrand
consumer also have
comparing response to the marketingof a image specific implicationsfor the pricing,
8 Journalof
distribution, and promotion activities related to the Choosing brand identities. To see how the initial
brand. First, a positive image should enable the brand to choice of the brandidentities can affect brandequity,
command larger margins and have more inelastic consider the choice of a brandname. A variety of cri-
responses to price increases. The most importantas-pect teria have been suggested for the selection of a brand
of the brand image that affects consumer re-sponses to name (e.g., Aaker 1991; Kotler 1991;Robertson1989).
prices is probably overall brand attitude. Consumers
They generally can be classified accordingto
with a strong, favorable brand attitude should be more
whether they help enhance brand awareness or
brand
willing to pay premiumprices for the (Starr and facilitate the linkage of brandassociations.
Rubinson 1978). Similarly, a posi-tive image should Alba and Hutchinson(1987) give an extensive dis-cussion of
result in increasedconsumer search psychological principlesthat can be useful
and in how the choice of a nameaffectsbrand
(Simonson, Huber, Payne 1988) and a willing-ness to seek understanding

out distributionchannels for the product or service. Finally, recall and recognition processes. Some criteriaoften noted by
high levels of brandawarenessand otherresearchersare that brandnames should
be
a positive brand image can increase marketingcom- simple, familiar, and distinctive, along the follow-ing lines. To
municationeffectiveness. All aspects of the brandim-age are enhance the likelihood of successful pro-
relevant in determiningconsumer response to advertising to
and For several cessing at encoding, the brand name should be easy
promotion. example, au- comprehend,pronounce, and spell. In fact, market researchers
thors note that and sometimes evaluate the "flicker percep-
advertisingresponse decay patterns are a
function of consumers' attitudes and behavior tion" of brandnames (i.e., how quickly a brandname can be
towardthe brand(Ray 1982; Rossiterand Percy 1987). They
perceived and understoodwhen exposed only for an instant) to
maintainthat consumers who are positively pre-disposed toward
to meet assess consumer learning of candi-date brand names (Dolan
a brand may require fewer ad ex-posures
communication 1985). To improve con-sumer learningof the brand, mnemonic
objectives. Similarly, one could argue that strong
attributeor benefit asso- factors (e.g., One-A-Day) and vivid words are often employed
ciationsfor the brandrequireless reinforcement through have rich evaluativeor
that experientialimagery(Robertson
marketingcommunications. but see the
In these different ways, customer-basedbrandeq-uity is 1987; Myers-Levy 1989). Similarly, use of a familiar
enhanced by creating favorable response to word should be advantageousbecause much informationis
and present in memory to which the name relates. Finally, a
pricing, distribution, advertising, promotion ac-tivity
for the brand. Moreover, a familiar brand with distinctiveword is often sought to attractattentionand reduce
a brand can also
positive image yield licensing op-portunities
confusion among com-peting brands.
(i.e., the brand name is used by another firm on one of its
These different choice criteria for a brand name
products)and supportbrandexten-sions (i.e., a firm uses an are not and it
necessarily mutually compatible, may be
existing brandname to in-
troducea new or service), two importantgrowth difficult to choose names that are simple, familiar, and
product
strategies for firms in recent years. Licensing can be distinctive. Moreover, factors affecting the ease with which a
brandname is recalled differ from fac-
a valuable source of royalty income, as evidenced by the
tors affecting the ease with which a brand name is
substantialmerchandisingefforts in recent years, For
ations have recognized. example, past research suggests that high
and typically has been employed when brand associ- words
user or brand frequency (according to conventional use in language)
strong imagery personality attributes.A more
substantialinvestmentand risk pro- are easier to recall than low frequency words, but low
file for the company, however, is requiredwith brand than
frequencywords may be easier to rec-ognize high
frequencywords (Gregg 1976; Lynch
extensions. Because of their potentiallylasting effects and Srull
1982). This finding suggests that choosing a familiarword
on consumer knowledge and the effectiveness of fu-
ture representinga well-known concept or
marketingactivity, brand extensions are consid- some or property as a brandname
othercommo n
object
ered in more detail in the section on managing customer-
may facilitate brandrecall, but that choosing a more unusual or
basedbrand equity.
distinctive word may facilitate brandrec-
Building Customer-Based Brand Equity ognition. Deciding whether to emphasize recall or
in
Building customer-based brand equity requires the recognition properties choosing a brand name de-
on the extent
pends managerialpriorities concerning
creationof a familiarbrandthat has favorable, strong,
of consumers' in-store processing for the product,the natureof the
and unique brandassociations. This can be done both
the competitive environment, and so on.
through initial choice of the brandidentities, such
as the brand The choice of a brand name may also affect the
name, logo, or symbol, and throughthe
of the brand favorability, strength, and uniqueness of brand asso-
integration identities into the supporting
marketingprogram. ciations. The suggestiveness or meaningfulnessof the
brand name should affect how easily brand associa-
tions are created. The brand name can be chosen to product or service specifications themselves are the
suggest semantically (1) the product or service cate- primary basis for the product-relatedattributeasso-
gory or (2) importantattributesor benefits within that ciations and determinea consumer's fundamentalun-
category. The first considerationshould enhancebrand
derstanding of what the product or service means.
name awareness and the identificationwith the prod- the for the
Similarly, pricing policy branddirectlycre-ates
uct category. The second consideration affords two
importantbenefits. First, even in the absence of any associations to the relevant price tier or level for the brand in the
the semantic of a or
marketingactivity, meaning sugges- product category, as well as its cor-respondingprice volatility
variance in of the
(e.g., terms frequency and magnitudeof
tive brand name may enable consumers to infer cer- discounts).
The marketingcommunicationefforts by the firm, in
tain attributesand benefits. For example, consumers
contrast, afford a flexible means of shaping con-sumer
could assume on the basis of the names alone that perceptionsof the productor service. At times,
Daybreak cereal is wholesome and natural, Chief
laundrydetergentremoves tough stains, and Diamond marketersmay have to translate attributesinto their
whitens and teeth.
toothpaste brightens Second, a correspondingbenefits for consumers through adver-tising or
suggestive brand name may facilitate marketing ac-
other forms of communication. Marketing communicationsalso
tivity designedto link certainassociationsto the brand.
the brand name can be may be helpful in creating user and usage imagery attributes.
Ideally, effectively supported through
marketingcommunicationsand a distinctive slogan that ties The strength of brand associations from communicationeffects
together the brand name and its po- depends on how the brand identities are integratedinto the sup-
sitioning. the
porting marketing program-for example, posi-tion and
Similar choice criteria apply to the other brand vision ad
identities, such the brandlogo or symbol. Moreover, prominenceof the brand identities in a tele-
another importantobjective is to choose the various (Keller 1992). Though delaying brand identificationuntil
the end of a television commercial
brandidentitiesto be mutuallyreinforcingso that they
may increase attention levels during commercial ex-posure,
interact positively to satisfy these criteria. Neverthe-less, in
resulting many communicationeffects being stored in memory
although the judicious choice of brandidentities can
(e.g., ad execution and brandclaim information, as well as
contribute significantly to customer-basedbrand equity,
the comes from affective and cognitive re-
primaryinput supportingmar-keting to that
sponses information),it may also produceweak links from
activities for the brandand the variousproduct, price, these effects to the brand. Finally, word-of-mouth and other
and
advertising, promotion, distributiondeci-sions, as social influences also play an im-
discussed next. portantrole, especially for user and usage imagery
Developing supporting marketing programs. at-tributes.
are to
Marketing programs designed enhance brand Leveraging secondary associations. The defini-
awarenessand
establish favorable, strong, and unique tion of customer-basedbrand equity does not distin-guish
brandassociations in memory so that consumers pur- between the sources of brandbeliefs (Fishbein and Ajzen
chase the product or service. Brand awareness is re-lated to 1975)-that is, whetherbeliefs are created by the marketeror
brandfamiliarity.Alba and Hutchinson(1987) define brand by some other source of influence such as
familiarity as the number of product-relatedexperiencesthat referencegroups or publicity. All that matters
consumer is the and of brand
have been accumulatedby the (throughproduct favorability, strength, uniqueness
usage, advertising, etc.). associations which, combined with brand awareness,
Greaterbrand
familiarity, throughrepeatedexposures to a can produce differential consumer response to the
brand, should lead to increased consumer ability to recognize marketingof a brand. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to
and recall the brand. Thus, the appro-priate consider in greater depth how belief associations about
marketingstrategyto increase brandawareness the attributesand benefits of the brandarise.
and is clear from the One way belief associations are created is on the basis
familiarity definition-anything that causes
to of direct experience with the productor service.
the consumer to "experience"or be ex-posed the brand has the
and awareness. A second way is by informationabout the
potential to increase fa-miliarity Frequent and productor
mentions in service communicated by the company, other com-
prominent advertising and promotion vehicles can
mercial sources, or word of mouth. Of the two, direct
intrusively increase consumer exposure to the brand, experience may create stronger associations in mem-ory
as can event or its These
sportssponsorship,publicity,and other given inherent self-relevance (Hertel 1982).
activities. episodic memory traces (Tulving 1983) may be especially
Favorable, strong, and unique associations can be for
important user and usage image attri-bute associations.
created the
by marketingprogramin a variety of well- A third importantway that belief associations are
established created is on the basis of inferences
ways that are only highlighted here. The
10
/ Journalof Marketing,January1993
from some existing brandassociations. That is, many choose a or
hybrid sub-brandstrategy whereby they
associations are assumed to exist for the brand be-
cause it is characterized otherassociations.The type combine their company name with individual brand
by names (e.g., Kellogg's Corn Flakes and Courtyardby
and strengthof inferencing are a function of the cor- Marriott).The latter two types of brandingstrategies
relations perceived by consumers among attributesor should facilitate access to consumers'overall attitudes
benefits (Ford and Smith 1987; Huber and McCann towardthe company. The sub-brandstrategyoffers
1982). For example, some consumers in certain cat- an additionalpotentialbenefit in that it can allow
egories may infer a high level of product or service
from a as well as infer for the creation of more specific brand beliefs.
quality high price, specific Similarly, a brand may be associated with its
of
attributesor benefits such as prestige and social sta- "country origin" (i.e., the country in which the
tus. Dick, Chakravarti,and Biehal (1990) referto these makes
company the product or provides the service) in such
types of inferences as based on "probabilisticconsis-
a way that consumersinfer specific beliefs and evaluations
tency." They note that "evaluative consistency" in- (Erickson, Johansson, and Chao 1984;
ferences may also occur, as when consumersinfer the and
Hong Wyer 1989, 1990). For example, French wines,
favorabilityof a brandattributeor benefit on the basis Germanautomobiles, and Japaneseelectronics probablyall
of their overall brand attitude or their evaluation of benefit from such inferences. Finally, the distributionchannels
some other perceived attributeor benefit. for a product may also create secondaryassociations.
of retailers and
Another type of inferredassociation occurs when the Consumerscan form "brand" images (Jacoby
brand association itself is linked to other infor- the basis of
Mazursky 1984) on
mation in memory that is not directly related to the their
productassortment,pricingand credit policy, quality of
productor service. Because the brandbecomes iden- service, and so on. These store im-ages have associations that
tified with this other entity, consumers may infer that the brand may be linked to the prod-
shares associations with that entity, thus ucts sell and vs.
producingindirector links for the brand.
they (e.g., prestige exclusivity bargain-driven and
"secondary" mass appeal). Similartypes of images may be formed for catalogs
These secondary associations may lead to a transfer of global and other forms of direct mar-
associations such as attitude or credibility keting.
and The final two types of secondary associations oc-cur when
(e.g., expertise, trustworthiness, attractiveness) or more and situation
specific attributesand benefits related to the the primarybrand associations are for user usage
or service
product meaning. Secondary associations may attributes, especially when they are for a particular person or
arise from primaryattributeassociations related event. Considerthe case in which
to the the advertisingcreates an
(1) company, (2) country of origin, (3) the
distribution a association between a brand and a celebrity endorser (Rossiter
channels, (4) celebrity spokespersonor
endorsorof the productor service, or (5) an event. and Percy 1987). As a result, other associations for the celebrity
The first three types of secondaryassociations in-volve may become related to the brand. Ideally, one such association
"factualsources"for the brand(i.e., who makes would be a favorable attitude toward the
a
it, where it is made, and where it is purchased).This celebrity-for example, well-known person could lend credibility
informationis almost always potentially available to to product or service claims because of his or her expertise,
but its
associationwith the brandof trustworthiness,or attractive-
consumers, strength
depends on the emphasis it receives. First, the brand ness. Additionally, more specific beliefs may be in-
may vary by the extent to which it is identified with volved (Kahle and Homer 1985; McCracken 1989).
a a a Thus, consumers have images of celebrity endorsors
particularcompany. Establishing connection with
company may cause existing associations for that company to in their minds as a result of observing the celebrities in
brand their own field of endeavor or as a result of media
become secondary associations for the (e.g., perceptions
of The A has some
company reputationand credibility). branding strategy coverage. celebrity invariably personality
the attribute
adopted by the company making productor providingthe associations,as well as possibly some product-related
is the most attributeassociations, that may become linked
service importantfactor affecting the strength of
the company's association with the brand.Three main to the brand. Similarly, a brandmay also become as-
are sociatedwith a event. Again, that event may
brandingstrategies possible (Kotler 1991). First, particular
companies may choose individual brand names for be characterizedby a set of attributeand attitudeas-
different products and services without any explicit mentionof sociationsin memory. When the brandbecomes linked with
the company (e.g., Procter& Gamblewith the event, some of these associations with the event may
Tide, Bold, Dash, Cheer, Gain, Oxydol, and Duz become indirectlyassociatedwith the brand. Finally, as
laundry detergents). Second, companies may choose
their name for noted previously, identification with the product category
all of their productsor services (e.g., itself can also result in inferences producing secondary
General Electric and associations.
Heinz). Third, companies may Secondary brandassociations may be importantif
existing brandassociations are deficient in some way. the characteristicsand relationshipsamong brand as-
In other words, secondary associations can be lever- sociations. Because any one measure typically cap-
aged to create favorable, strong, and unique associ- tures a
only particularaspect of brand knowledge, multiple
ations that otherwise may not be present. Choosing to
the or a measures must be employed to capture the
emphasize company particularperson, place, or multidimensionalnatureof brandknowledge.
event should be based on consumers' awarenessof Brandawarenesscan be assessedeffectivelythrough
that entity, as well as how the beliefs and attitudes about the a variety of aided and unaided memory measures(see Srull
entity can become linked to the brand (see chapter 11 of 1984 for a review) that can be applied to test brandrecall and
Rossiter and Percy 1987 for an excellent discussion). Such a
have recognition. For example, brandrec-ognition measures
strategymakes sense if consumers already
associations for the may use the actual brandname or some
company, person, place, or event that
are congruentwith desired brand associations. For example, perceptuallydegradedversion of the brandname (Alba and
Hutchinson 1987). Brand recall measures
consider a country such as New Zealand, which is known for use
may different sets of cues, such as progressively narrowly
defined labels. Besides
having more sheep than people. A New product category
Zealandsweatermanufacturerthat promotes its producton correctness, the ease of recall and recognitionperfor-
the basis of its New Zealand mance can be assessed with more subtlemeasuressuch
wool presumably could more easily establish strong and as response latencies to provide a fuller picture of
favorable brand associations because New Zea- with
memory performance respect to the brand(Fazio 1987).
land may alreadymean "wool" to many people. Sec- Brandrecall can also be coded in terms of the orderof recall to
ondarybrandassociations may be risky, however, be-cause some capturethe extent to which the name is "top of mind" and
control of the brand image is given up. The company, person, thus strongly associated with the
in
place, or event that makes up the primarybrand association will productcategory memory.
undoubtedlyhave a host of associations of which only some There are many ways to measure the characteris-tics of brand
smaller set associations (i.e., their type, favorabil-
will be of interestto the marketer. the transfer and to
ity, strength). Qualitativetechniques can be em-ployed
Managing suggest possible associations. For example, free association
process so that only the relevant secondary associa-tions become tasks can be used wherebyconsumers describe what the
linked to the brand may be difficult. brandmeans to them in an unstruc-
Moreover, these images may change over time as con-sumers tured format, either individually or in small groups.
learn more about the entity, and new associ-ations may or consumers be
Specifically, might probed in terms
may not be advantageousfor the brand. of "who, what, when, where, why, and how" types of
about the
Brand questions brand.Projectivetechniques(Levy
Measuring Customer-Based Equity 1978, 1981, 1985) such as sentence completion, pic-
ture and brand also
Thereare two basic to customer- interpretation, personality descriptors may
based brand
approaches
The "indirect"
measuring
or otherwise
equity. approachattempts be useful, especially if consumers are un-willing
unable to express their feelings.
to assess potential sources of customer-basedbrand
brand These indirect measures, however, may not ade-
equity by measuring knowledge (i.e., brand awareness and the
brand The "direct"approach attemptsto quately capture favorability or strength of asso-ciations, and
image). to
measurecustomer-basedbrandequity more more direct measuresoften are necessary provide
the of brand and Fishbein
additionalinformation.For example, Ajzen (1980)
directly by assessing impact knowledge on a
consumerresponseto differentelementsof the firm's marketing give detaileddescriptionof how beliefs and evaluations of
to attributesand benefits can
program. The indirect and direct ap-proaches measuring be scaled and how attitudescan be measuredthrough
customer-basedbrand equity
a structured in a
are complementaryand should be used together. The format, providing an illustrativeexample
indirect is useful in consumer As noted
approach identifying what aspects setting. previously, response time measures
of brand knowledge
cause the differential response
that
is of attitudeshave been used as a proxy for attitude strength.
creates customer-based brand equity; the direct ap-proach useful measured
ferential Relationships among brand associations can be
in determiningthe natureof the dif- response. Though
two
detailed descriptions and by general approaches:(1) comparing the characteristicsof
of the brand associations in some way and (2) directly asking
critiques many specific techniquesbehind these
two consumersfor informationrel-
approaches are beyond the scope of this article (see evant to the or le-
Aaker 1991 for additional discussion), it is worthwhile to congruence, competitive overlap,
highlight them briefly.

verage for the brand associations. Congruence is the
Indirect extent to which brand associations are shared. Con-
approach. The first approachto measur-ing can
gruence be assessed by comparingthe patternof
customer-based brand equity, measuring brand associations across consumersto determinewhich as-
knowledge, requires measuring brand awareness and
12
sociations are common or distinctive. Additionally, brandattribution.Past researchof this type has shown
consumers could be asked directly their conditional that knowledge of the brandaffects consumerpercep-
expectations for attribute,benefit, or attitude associ- tions, preferences, and choices for a product (e.g.,
ations (i.e., the likelihood that a product or service has
Allison and Uhl 1964; Jacoby, Olson, and Haddock
one association given that it has another). 1971). Blind tests could be used to examine consumer
Competitive overlap of brand associations is the as
response to other elements of the marketingmix such proposed
extent to which brand associations are linked to the and channels
pricing, promotion, of dis-tributionchanges.
product category (i.e., identification) and are or are not One importantconsideration with the direct ap-
shared with other brands(i.e., uniqueness). Iden- proachis the realismthat can be achieved
tification can be assessed by examining how con-sumers experimental

when some aspect of the marketingprogramis attrib-
respondto brandrecall tasks with productcat-egory or uted to a fictitiously named or unnamedversion of the
some other type of cues. Uniquenessof brand
associations can be assessed by comparing the char- productor service. Detailed concept statementscan be
employed in some situations when it may be other-wise difficult
acteristicsof associationsof the focal brand(i.e., their for consumersto examine or experience the marketingmix
and with the character-
type, favorability, strength) istics of element withoutbeing awareof the brand. Thus, concept
associations for competing brands. Addition-ally, statementsmay be useful in as-sessing customer-
consumerscould be asked how
directly(1) strongly they identify
the brandwith the basedbrandequity when consumers make a product choice or
productcategory and
evaluate a change in the
(2) what they consider to be the unique and shared aspects or service composition,judge a brand
product proposed
of the brand. Multivariatetechniques such as extension, or respond to a proposed price or distri-
multidimensional scaling
also can be employed (Aaker
and bution change. Assessing customer-basedbrand eq-
Day 1986).
uity with marketing
communications
presents
a bigger
Leverage is the extent to which other brand as- with the direct to a
challenge approach(e.g., consumerre-sponse
sociations linked to a brand association become sec- new
proposed advertisingcampaign). In
ondary associations for the brand. Leverage can be assessed this case, and animaticor ver-
storyboards photomatic
by comparingthe characteristicsfor the par- sions of an ad could be used ratherthan a finished ad
ticular
company, person, place, event, or productcat-egory to allow for the necessarydisguiseof the brand.Though
with those characteristicsfor the focal brandac-
to their
this approachshould work well with "informational"
cording type, favorability, and ads, it probably would be less appropriate
for "trans-
formational"ads other of
strength. Additionally, consumerscould be asked
in which
emphasizing user, usage, or some
values
type
directly what inferences are made about the brand on the imagery, production are
basis of a critical ingredientin achieving communicationgoals
of the
knowledge particular person, place, event, (Rossiter and Percy 1987).
or another for di-
company, productcategory. Finally, potentiallyuseful approach rectly
or
Direct approach. The second approach to mea-suring assessing customer-basedbrand equity is con-joint
Green
customer-basedbrandequity, directly measur-ing the effects of tradeoffanalysis (Green and Srinivasan1978, 1990;
and Wind can
brand knowledge on consumer re- 1975). Conjoint analysis be used to explore
sponse to marketing
for the brand,
requiresexperiments
the main effects of the brandname
(i.e., differencesin or choice for the brand)
preference
in which one group of consumersresponds to an ele-ment and interactioneffects between the brand name and
of the marketingprogramwhen it is attributed to the
other marketingmix elements such as price, product or service
brandand anothergroup of consumersresponds to that
same element when it is attributedto a ficti- features, and promotionor channel choices (i.e., differences in
tiously named or unnamed version of the product or service. perceptions for the brand). For
unfamiliaror example, Rangaswamy, Burke, and Oliva (1990) use
By attributingthe marketing element to an to
anonymous product, consumers should conjoint analysis explore how brandnames interact
it with to their with physical product features to affect the extenda-
interpret
the or
respect
as well
generalknowledge
about
or service of brandnames thatif

product service, as prototypicalproduct bility to new productcategories. Note
is
conjointanalysis employed,care must be taken that consumers do
specifications and price, promotion, and
distribution the of the not evaluate unrealistic product
strategies.Comparing responses
two due to profiles or scenarios that violate their basic expecta-

groups thus provides an estimate of the effects
the specific knowledge about the brand that tions for the productor brand(Park 1991; Srinivasan
goes beyond
basic
product or service knowledge.
The classic 1979).
Table 1 summarizesthe differentmeasuremental-
example of this approach is the so-
called "blind" test in which consumers evaluate a ternativesfor customer-basedbrandequity.
on the
product basis of a description, examination, or
actual
consumptionexperience, either with or without
TABLE 1
Measurement of Brand Knowledge Constructs Related to Customer-Based Brand Equitya
Construct Measure(s) Purpose of Measure(s)
Brand Awareness
Recall Correct identification of brand given Capture "top-of-mind" accessibility
product category or some other type of probe of brand in memory
as cue
Recognition Correct discrimination of brand as having been Capture potential retrievability or
previously seen or heard availability of brand in memory
Brand
Image
Characteristics of brand associations
Type Free association tasks, projective Provide insight into nature of brand
interviews associations
techniques, depth
Assess key dimension producing
Favorability Ratings of evaluations of associations differential consumer response
Assess key dimension producing
Strength Ratings of beliefs of association differential consumer response
brand associations
Relationships among
Uniqueness Compare characteristics of associations Provide insight into the extent to which
with those of competitors (indirect brand associations are not shared with
measure) other brands; assess key dimension
Ask consumers what they consider to be the producing differential consumer response
unique aspects of the brand (direct
measure)
Congruence Compare patterns of associations across Provide insight into the extent to which
consumers (indirect measure) brand associations are shared, affecting
Ask consumers conditional expectations their favorability, strength, or uniqueness
about associations (direct measure)
characteristics of
Leverage Compare secondary Provide insight into the extent to which brand
associations with those for a primary a
associations to particular person,
brand association (indirect measure) place, event, company, product class, etc.
Ask consumers directly what inferences are linked to other associations,
they would make about the brand based associations for the
on the primary brand association (direct producing secondary brand
measure)
'This table describes the indirect approach of assessing potential sources of customer-based brand equity by measuring brand
on
knowledge. The direct approach to measuring customer-based brand equity involves measuring the effects of brand knowledge consumer
to in to an
response marketing-for example, by conducting experiments which one group of consumers respond element of the marketing mix
when it is attributed to the brand, and another group of consumers respond to the same marketing mix element when it is attributed to a
fictitiously named or unnamed version of the product or service.
Managing Customer-Based tentially can create value for the brand by improving
brand
consumers' ability to recall or recognize the and/
Brand Equity or or the favora-
by creating, maintaining, changing bility,
According to the definition of customer-basedbrand strength,
or
uniqueness
of various
types
of brand associations.
equity, no single number or measure captures brand brand in one or more of these
By influencing knowledge
equity. Rather, brand equity should be thought of as different
a multidimensionalconcept that depends on (1) what ways, marketing activity can potentially affect sales.
Second, marketers should define the knowledge
knowledge structuresare present in the minds of con-sumers
and (2) what actions a firm can take to capi-talize on the
structures that they would like to create in the minds
awareness
potential offered by these knowledge structures.Different firms of consumers-that is, by specifying desired levels of
and and of
may be more or less able favorability, strength, uniqueness product- and non-
to maximize the potential value of brandaccordingto the func-
product-related attributes; tional, experiential, and symbolic
are able and over-
type and nature of marketingactivities that they benefits; all attitudes. In particular, marketers should
to
undertake.Nevertheless, six generalguide-lines based on the decide on the core needs and wants of consumers to be satisfied by
the brand. Marketers should also decide the extent
preceding conceptual framework are presented here to to which it is to asso-
necessary leverage secondary ciations
help marketersbetter manage customer-basedbrand equity. for the brand-that is, link the brand to the
First, marketersshould adopt a broadview of mar-
decisions. for a brand
keting Marketing activity po-
14 / Journalof Marketing,January1993
or
company, product class, particularperson, place, or event marketers should also conduct controlled experi-
in such a way that associations with those ments. Consumer knowledge of competitive brands should be
entities become indirect or similarly trackedto provide informationon their sources of
"secondary"associations for the brand. customer-basedbrandequity. Exper-
Third, marketersshould evaluate the increasingly iments with consumer to
response marketingactivity for
large numberof tacticaloptionsavailableto createthese
knowledge structures,especially in terms of various competitive brands can also provide a useful benchmark-for
marketingcommunicationalternatives. For example, example, to determine the unique-ness of brand associations.

the recent growth of "nontraditional"media, promo- Finally, marketers should evaluate potential ex-tension
tions, and other marketingactivity (e.g., sports and event
candidates for their viability and possible feedbackeffects
sponsorship; in-store advertising; "minibill- on core brandimage. Given their po-tential importanceto
boards" in transitvehicles, on parkingmeters, and in long-termbrandvalue, brandex-tension decisions are
other locations; and productplacement in movies and considered in detail in the rest
television shows) is from the perspective of this section from the perspectiveof customer-based
appropriate
of customer-basedbrandequity. As noted previously, the brandequity and other relevant research.

manner in which a brand association is created Brandextensions capitalizeon the brandimage for the core
does not the productor service to efficiently inform con-sumersand
matter-only resulting favorability,
strength, and uniqueness. Thus, many of these new retailersaboutthe new productor service.
alternatives can offer a cost-effective means of af- Brandextensions can facilitate acceptanceof the new product
brand and thus
fecting knowledge sales, especially to the or service by providing two benefits. First, awareness for the
the brand
extent that they complementmore traditionalmar-keting extension may be higher because node is already
tactics. Regardless of which options are cho-sen, the entire present in memory. Thus, consumers should need only to
marketingprogram should be coordi-
natedto create and brandassociations.
establish a connection
congruent strong in memory between the existing brand node and the
Different marketing tactics with the same strategic new product or service extension. Second, inferred
goals, if effectively integrated,
can create multiple
links associations for the attributes, benefits, and overall
to core benefits or other key associations, helping to produce perceived quality may be created. In other words,
a consistent and cohesive brandimage. Mar-keters should consumers may form expectations for the extension on
judge the consistency and cohesiveness of the brandimage the basis of what they alreadyknow aboutthe core
with the businessdefinitionin mind brand. These inferences can lower the cost of the in-
(Levitt 1960) and how well the specific attributesand benefits for the extension-for
troductorycampaign
that the productor service is intendedto pro-vide to example, by increasing advertisingefficiency (Smith
consumers satisfy their core needs and wants (Kotler 1991; and Park 1992).
Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis 1986). Keller and Aaker (1992) review relevantliterature
Fourth, marketersshould take a long-termview of marketing to provide a conceptual model of how consumersuse their
decisions. The changes in consumer knowledge about the brand knowledge to evaluate a brand extension. They maintainthat
extension evaluationswill dependon the
from current marketing activity also will have an indirecteffect salience of the core brand associations in the exten-
of activities.
on the success future marketing Thus, from the per- sion context, how relevantconsumersperceive this in-
of customer-basedbrand in formationto be to theirextensionevaluations,and how
spective equity making
marketingdecisions, it is importantto consider how resulting favorable inferred associations are in the extension
in brandawareness and or hurt context. In other words, extension evaluations will
changes image may help
subsequent marketingdecisions. For ex- depend on what kind of informationcomes to mind
the use of sales
ample, promotionsinvolving tempo-rary price about the core brandin the extension context, whether
decreases may create or strengthena "dis-count" association with the
this informationis seen as suggestive of the type of
brand, with implications for customer loyalty and responses to productor service that the brandextension would be,
future price and whetherthis informationis viewed as good or bad
or
changes non-price-orientedmarketing communi-cation
efforts. in the extension context in comparisonwith compet-itors.
Fifth, marketersshould employ trackingstudies to The salience or accessibility of the core brandas-sociations
measure consumer knowledge structuresover time to depends on their strength in memory, as
(1) detect any changes in the different dimensions of well as the retrieval cues provided by the extension context. Some
brand and
knowledge (2) suggest how these changes associations may be salient when con-
might be related to the effectiveness of differentmar- sumers evaluate some extensions but not others. The
keting mix actions. To the extent that a more precise relevance of the salient core brand associations de-
assessment of customer-basedbrandequity is useful, in on their
pends, part, perceived similarityto the pro-
Customer-BasedBrandEquity/15
posed extensionproductor service (Feldmanand Lynch
be
implications, may especially likely when the ex-
1988). When overall similarityis high, consumersare isting associations for the core brandare alreadyfairly
more likely to base their extensionevaluationson their weak. For example, the successful introductionof the
attitudetowardthe core brand(Boush and Loken 1991; Miller Lite beer in the U.S. may have accentuated
Boush et al. 1987; Herr, Farquhar,and Fazio 1990). perceptionsof the flagship Miller High Life beer as a "less
Overall similarityjudgments could be made in differ-ent hearty"beer because thatperceptionhad already been created in
ways (Loken and Ward 1990), though researchers consumers' minds by its clear bottle
typically assume that they are a function of salient (in contrast to Budweiser's dark bottle). As another example
of a
shared associations between the core brand and the potential dilution effect, successful ex-tensions for brands
extension These with an exclusivity and prestige image effectively
that
product category. similarity judg-
ments could be based on product-relatedattributes,as broadenthe
target marketmay produce negative feedback
well as attributessuch as user type
or
non-product-related
effects on the brandfrom members of the original consumer
usage situation (Bridges 1990; Park, Milberg, and
Lawson 1991).Whenoverall is not franchise who re-sent the market expansion. For example,
similarity very high,
the intro-duction of the lower priced Cadillac Cimaron model
consumers are more likely to consider specific attri-butes
is thought to have led to declines in image and sales for the
and benefits involved. If relevant, the favora-bility of
inferredattributeand benefit beliefs will de- entire Cadillac division (Yovovich 1988).
pend on how they are valued in the extension context.
the Thoughthese differenttypes of dilutioneffects may
Though these evaluationswill generally correspondto
of the core brand occur, multiple productor service extensions may not be as
favorability associations, they can harmfulto certain abstractassociations such as
differ, and in fact be negative, even if the core brandattitudes
and perceived quality. In other words, although
brandassociations themselves are positive (Aaker and or service
the brand may not have the same specific product
because
Keller 1990). Moreover, even if positive attributeand meaning of multiple ex-tensions, consumers may still see
benefit associations for the core brand lead to infer- the brand as rep-
ences of positive brand extension associations, in- a of or of
ferred associations still resenting range products services a certain
negative may emerge quality.
(Bridges 1990). Finally, when overall similarity is very An
unsuccessfulbrandextension, in contrast, can harmthe
low, consumer evaluations also will be very low.
associated core brandimage by creating undesirableas-sociations. Such
When multiple product or service extensions are
with effects are most likely when there is little differencebetween
the brand,the congruenceamong their associations becomes an
importantdeterminantof the the originalbrandand the ex-tension. For example, Sullivan
consistency and cohesiveness of the brand image. It is often argued (1990) conducted an econometric analysis that showed how
that an extension can help the core
the perceived "suddenacceleration"problemof Audi's 5000
brand the and
image by improving favorability strength model "spilled over" and reduced demand for its 4000 and
of associations andclarifying the business definition and Quattromodels. RoedderJohnand Loken (1990) found
that of for a core brandin the health
core benefits for the brand. Aaker (1991) claims that perceptions quality
and beauty aids area decreased with the hypothetical
brand extensions helped to fortify the brand im-ages of introductionof a lower quality extension in a similar
WeightWatchersand Sunkist.Kellerand Aaker (1992) found
that the successfulintroductionof a brand extension productcategory (i.e., shampoo). Quality perceptions
improved evaluations of a core brand that of the core brandwere unaffected, however, when the
was to be of
originally perceived only averagequality, proposed extension was in a dissimilar productcate-gory (i.e.,
although in their research setting consumers did not facial tissue). Similarly, Keller and Aaker
have strongly held attitudestowardthe core brandand (1992) found that unsuccessful interveningextensions in dissimilar
the a
company adopted family brandingstrategy that raised product categories did not affect evalu-ations of the core brand (also
of its see Romeo 1990).
the salience of its name (and thus perceptions
credibility). In summary, marketersshould evaluate potential
It has also been argued that successful brand ex- back
if extension candidatesfor their viability and their feed-
tensions may potentially harm the core brand image they weaken effects on core brand
image by (1) identifying
existing associations in some way. If possibleextensioncandidateson the basis of core brand
or
a brand becomes associated with a disparate set of products associations (especially with respect to brand posi-
and the and core
services, product category identification tioning benefits) and overall similarityof the extension to
correspondingproduct associations may be- the brand, (2) evaluating extension can-
come less For didate the
strong. example, Pepperidge Farm, potentialby measuring salience, relevance, and
Cadbury, and Scott Paper have been accused of
too favorabilityof core brandassociations in the pro-posed
"overextending"by introducing disparate prod- inferred
ucts. Dilution extension context and the favorability of any
effects, with potentially adverse profit associations, and (3) considering the exten-
16
sion's potentialfeedbackeffects on the core brandim- term view of marketing a brand; specifying the de-sired
and the fits for a
consumer knowledge structuresand core bene-
age favorability, strength, and uniqueness of core
brand; considering a wide range of tradi-
brand associations.
tional and nontraditional promotion, and
advertising,
Discussion other
marketing options; coordinatingthe marketing options
that are and controlled
chosen; conducting tracking studies
Summary and
This article introducesthe concept of customer-based experiments; evaluating potential extension candidates.
brandequity, defined as the differentialeffect of brand Future Research Directions

knowledge on consumer response to the marketingof the
In the presentation of a conceptual framework of
brand. A brandis said to have positive (negative) customer-
customer-basedbrand equity, several constructs and
basedbrandequity if consumersreact more are discussed.
(less) favorably to an element of the marketingmix for the relationships Consequently, additional
brandthan -heydo to the same marketingmix element research is necessary both to refine this framework
and to other for
when it is attributedto a fictitiously named or unnamed suggest implications marketingstrat-egies
and tactics.
version of the product or service. Brand Undoubtedly, much previous re-search may be
is to an useful in this effort. Because this re-
knowledge conceptualized according associ- in
search was most likely conducted with a different purpose
ative network memory model in terms of two com- mind, however, additionalinsights may be gained by
ponents, brandawarenessand brandimage (i.e., a set of considering it from the potentially broader perspective of
some
brand associations). Brand awareness consists of brand customer-basedbrand equity. In clos-ing,
recognition and brand recall. Brand associa-tions are research
conceptualized in terms of their character-istics by type prioritiesfor building, measuring,
(level of abstractionand qualitativena-ture), and managing customer-basedbrandequity are iden-tified.
favorability, and strength, and in terms of their Thereare several research about
with other associations important questions
relationship by congruence,
and how to build customer-basedbrandequity. First, bet-ter
competitive overlap (identification uniqueness), and
choice criteriashould be establishedfor the brand
leverage.Customer-basedbrandequityoccurswhen the identities
consumer is aware of the brand and holds some (brand name, logo, and symbol). For ex-ample,
favorable, strong, and unique brand associations in memory. remarkablylittle empirical research has sys-tematically
The differenttypes of customer-basedbrand equity are to
examined brand name considerations as they pertain
discussedby consideringthe effects of these dimensions of enhancingbrandawarenessand build-ing favorable, strong,
consumer
brandknowledge on brandloyalty and response and unique brandassociations.
to
product, price, promotion, and distributionstrategies. Such research should recognize the numeroustrade-offs in
this
The article also explores some specific aspects of choice criteria by suggesting when certain characteristicsof
how based the brand identities should be em-
conceptualizationby considering customer-
brand is For
equity built, measured, and managed. phasized. example, memory retrieval consider-ations that
brand name and theories in
Building equity requirescreatinga familiarbrand arise from associative strengthand part-list cueing
a brand psychology imply that a meaning-
positive image-that is, favorable,
and ful, "suggestive"brandname may facilitate initial po-sitioning,
strong, unique brand associations. Strategies to build
but a more
customer-based brand equity are discussed in terms of both nonsuggestive or neutralbrandname may effectively
the initial choice of the brandidentities accommodate later reposition-
(brand name, logo, and symbol) and how the brand of be
ing. Support this hypothesiswould imply that firms may
identities are better
supported by and integrated into the off adopting more flexible branding strategies, using
Two basic more neutral brand names, if they
marketing program. approaches to mea-suring customer-
indirect measures to
basedbrandequity are outlined. The approach anticipateneeding repositionthe brandlater. In de-
brand knowledge (brand awarenessand elements of brandimage) to
veloping contingency-basedchoice criteria,it also will be
assess the
tities
necessary to clarify the roles of variousbrandiden- by
potential sources of brandequity. The direct approach measures the consideringmore explicitlyhow brandnames,
effects of the brandknowledge on con- logos, symbols, slogans, and other trademarkscan contribute
sumer differentially to building customer-based
response to elements of the marketingmix. Ex-
of both of six brandequity. This line of researchcould consider vi-
amples types approachesare provided. Fi-nally,
based
sual and
guidelines for the managementof customer- brand
verbalpropertiesof these brandidentitiesand
the how they might affect brand awareness and the fa-
equity are discussed. These guidelines emphasize vorability, strength, and uniqueness of brand
of
importance taking a broadand long- associ-ations.
In terms of how the mar-
understanding supporting
Customer-BasedBrand
Equity/ 17
keting program builds customer-basedbrand equity, consistent and cohesive brandimage? This line of re-
two particularresearch directions could be pursued. search should clearly examine how traditional and
the nontraditionalmarketing options interact. Effective
First, factorsinfluencing favorability,strength,and for communications
uniquenessof brandassociations,a focus of much past strategies integrating marketing
research, should continue to be explored, but along several in terms of direct
advertising, promotion, publicity,
different lines. Are certain types of associa- and are needed.
marketing, package design especially
tions inherently more favorable, stronger, or unique in For example, how can be coordinatedacross
created advertising
memory?Which types of associations are more eas-ily broadcastand printmedia to enhancebrandawareness
a or communica-
by particularmarketing tion mix
and strengthen brand associations? These research studies
element?Which types of associationsare more likely to influence
might consider memory principles and theo-ries of encoding
consumer response with respect to and retrieval.
a mix element? what are Also, how should the consistency and cohesive-ness of
particularmarketing Finally, the
in a brandimage be managedover consumerseg-
tradeoffs involved creating favorable, strong, and unique
ments
brand associations? For example, it was suggested previously (includinggeographicboundaries)and over time?
that benefits can be more mem-orable than attributeinformation, A diffuse brandimage with weaker and less favorable brand
but attributesmay have to be communicatedto associations may be particularlyevident when
persuadeconsumers and create favorable benefit associations. It a brand to itself to a new
attempts reposition (e.g., switching
was also sug- targetmarket)(Heckler, Keller, and Houston 1992). Are there
gested above that non-product-related or image attri- ways in which a brandimage can be "flexible" and appeal to
butes, such as user type or usage situation, may create different consumer seg-
uniqueassociations,but undersome circumstances they ments? To manage the brandimage better over time,
may not be favorably received or strongly linked to the brand in more precise guidelines as to the "indirect"effects of
memory. current marketing activity on the success of future
Second, the costs and benefits of leveraging sec-ondary are
marketing activity needed-for example, by
associations should be For achieving a better of how brandknowl-
explored. example, how understanding
influences consumer
and underwhat conditions should a firm increase edge response.
the salience of source factorsrelatedto the brand(i.e.,
broader of
Finally, implications customer-based
brand should be
the company, countryof origin, and distributionchan- equity explored by considering ag-gregation
nel)? All of these source factors have their own set of issues associated with brandknowledge ef-fects on
associations. How do consumers merge or combine these marketsegments or the customerfranchiseas
associations with other brand associations? In a whole, as opposed to effects on an individualcon-sumer.
other words, how do these source and brand images An aggregate analysis also could consider the
interact?Another importantissue is when and how a brandshould implicationof customer-basedbrandequity for sales,
attemptto become associated with a par-ticularpersonor event. market share, and profits. This more extended anal-ysis
For example, Rossiterand Percy (1987) offer the following
should consider
aspects of the company (e.g., its
criteriafor choosing a pre- and and
strengths weaknesses) the competitive nature of its
senter in markets. Similarly, it may also be useful to in-corporatesome of
advertising:(1) visibility, (2) credibility (ex-pertise
and and the conceptsthat relateto customer-based brand equity to address
objectivity), (3) attraction(likability and similarity), other management
(4) power. These criteria could be adaptedto address when and to a
how a brandshould be-come identified with an event. questions pertaining branding-for example, to de-velop
One
important
research
priority
is to
develop valid
based of brand
financially conceptualization equity.
customer-
benchmarks for the direct approach to measuring
basedbrand
equity-that is, plausible de-
of the relevant Conclusions
scriptions activity (advertising, pro- The of this article is to
motion, product, pricing, etc.) with no or fictitious goal present a conceptual framework
brandidentification.Anotheruseful contributionwould that would provide useful structure for managersdeveloping
be to design efficient and effective approachesto con-ducting brand In
the brandstrategiesand researchers studying equity.
tracking studies. This would entail consider-ing pros and cons particular,the article builds a theoreticalfoundationbased on
of different qualitative and past researchin con-
to
quantitative approaches measuring brand knowl-edge sumer behavior that should be helpful in addressing some of the new
of consumers. challenges in developing brandstrat-
Several research questions are relevant for man- egies that have arisen because of changes in the mar-keting
customer-based environment
aging brand equity. What strategies (e.g., from the proliferationof brand extensions
are effective in creatingstrongbrandassociations?How and the growth of new, alternative
can different
marketingmix elements be integratedto promotionaland media alternatives).
create strong and congruent brand associations and a of the ideas
Though many expressed in this con-
18
ceptual framework may be familiar to managers, its marketers to take better short-term and long-term
value is in integrating these various notions to provide a mar-keting actions. Moreover, this framework may also
suggest some considerations that have been otherwise
more comprehensive picture of how marketers can create
value for a brand. For example, marketers may agree that overlooked. Thus, this broader context can help man-
they should take a broad and long-term view of marketing
decisions for a brand, but how they should do so may not be agers can make more insightful and informed brand decisions.
obvious. By recognizing that mar-keting activity can For researchers, the value of the framework is in
potentially enhance or maintain consumers' awareness of the areas where is
suggesting managerial guidance
brand or the favorability, strength, and uniqueness of needed but academic are
guidelines currently
various types of brand as-sociations, the customer-based the number of
lacking. As sug-gested by large
brand equity frame-work may provide the perspective
that will enable suggested future re-search directions identified, much
work needs to be done.
REFERENCES
Aaker, David A. (1982), "Positioning Your Product," Busi-
Paul Marsh (1989), Accounting for Brands. London: Lon-
ness Horizons, 25 (May/June), 56-62.
Brand don Business School and the Institute for Chartered Ac-
(1991), Managing Equity. New York: The Free
Press. countants in England and Wales.
Berger, Ida E. and Andrew A. Mitchell (1989), "The Effect of
and Alexander Biel, eds. (1992), Building Strong
Brands. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Advertising on Attitude Accessibility," Journal of
and George S. Day (1986), Marketing Research, 3rd ed. New sumer
Con- Research, 16 (December), 280-8.
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. James R. An
Bettman, (1979), Information Processing Theory of Consumer
and Kevin Lane Keller (1990), "Consumer Eval-
Choice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Pub-
27-41.
uations of Brand Extensions," Journal of Marketing, 54 (January), lishing Company.
tudes and (1986), "Consumer Psychology," Annual Review
Ajzen, Icek and Martin Fishbein (1980), Understanding Atti-
Social Behavior. of Psychology, 37, 257-89.
Predicting Englewood Cliffs, and C. Whan Park (1980), "Effects of Prior Knowledge and
NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
W. and Amitava Experience and Phase of the Choice Pro-cess on Consumer Decision
Alba, Joseph Chattopadhyay (1985a), "The Effects of
Processes: A Protocol Analy-
Context and Part-Category Cues on the Recall of sis," Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (December), 234-
Competing Brands,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 22
48.
(August), 340-9. , Deborah Roedder John, and Carol A. Scott (1986),
and (1985b), "The Effects of Part-List
"Covariation Assessment by Consumers," Journal of Con-
Cuing on Attribute Recall: Problem Framing at the Point of sumer Research, 13 (December), 316-26.
Retrieval," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, and Mita Sujan (1987), "Effects of Framing on Evaluation
ElizabethC. Hirschmanand Morris B. Holbrook, eds. Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research, 410-13. of Comparable and Noncomparable Alternatives by Expert and
and (1986), "Salience Effects in Brand Novice Consumers," Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (September),
141-54.
Journal Blattberg, Robert C. and KennethJ. Wisniewski (1989), "Price-
Recall," of Marketing Research, 23 (November), 363-9.
and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), "Dimensions of Induced Patterns of
Competition," Marketing Science, 8 (Fall),
Consumer 291-309.
Expertise," Journal of Consumer Research, of
Boush, David M. and Barbara Loken (1991), "A Process Tracing Study
13 (March), 411-53. Brand
Extension Evaluations," Journal of
and John G. Lynch, Jr. (1991), "Memory 28
Marketing Research, (February), 16-28.
and Decision Making," in Handbook of Con-
sumer Thomas S. , Shannon Shipp, Barbara Loken, Ezra Gencturk,
Theory and Research, Harold H. Kassarjian and Susan
Robertson, eds. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren- Crockett, Ellen Kennedy, Betty Minshall, Dennis Misurell,
tice-Hall, Inc., 1-49. Linda Rochford, and Jon Strobel (1987), "Affect Generalization
Brand to Similar and Dissimilar Brand Exten-
Allison, Ralph and Kenneth P. Uhl (1964), "Influences of Beer and 4
2 sions," Psychology Marketing, (3), 225-37. Bridges, Sheri
Identification on Taste Perception," Journal of Mar-keting Research, (1990), "A Schema Unification Model of Brand
(August), 36-9. School
Anderson,
John R. (1983), The Architecture of Cognition. Extensions," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Graduate
Cambridge,
MA: Harvard
University Press.
of
Business, Stanford University.
Baker, William,
J. Wesley Hutchinson, Danny Moore, and Prakash Nedungadi
R.
(1986), "Brand Familiarity and Adver-tising: Effects on the Evoked Set Burke, Raymond and Thomas K. Srull (1988), "Compet-
and Brand Preferences,"
in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.
13, itive Interference and Consumer Memory for Advertising,"
Richard J.
Lutz, ed. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (June), 55-68.
637-42. Chaiken, Shelley (1986), "The Heuristic Model of Persua-
Barwise, Patrick, ChristopherHigson, Andrew Likierman, and
sion," in Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium,
Mark P.
Vol. 4, Zanna, E. Tory Higgins, and C. P.
Herman, eds. Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Amitava and
Chattopadhyay, Joseph W. Alba (1988),
"The Situational Importance of Recall and Inference in Customer-BasedBrandEquity/ 19
Con-

20 Journalof
sumer Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research,
15 (June), 1-12.
Collins, Allan M. and Elizabeth F. Loftus (1975), "A
Activation of Semantic
Spread-ing Theory
Processing," Psycho-logical Review, 82, 407-28.
Craik, Fergus I. M. and Robert S. Lockhart (1972), "Levels of
Processing: A Framework for Memory Research," Jour-
nal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-84.
and Endel
Tulving (1975), "Depth of Processing and
the Retention of Words in Episodic Memory," Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 104 (3), 268-94.
Cohen, Joel B. and Kanul Basu (1987), "Alternative Models
of Towards a
Categorization: Contingent Processing
Framework," Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (March),
455-72.
Day, George S., Allan D. Shocker, and RajendraK. Srivastava
(1979), "Customer-Oriented Approaches to Identifying
Product-Markets," Journal of Marketing, 43 (Fall), 8-19.
Dick, Alan, Dipankar Chakravarti, and Gabriel Biehal (1990),
Inferences Consumer
"Memory-Based During Choice,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (June), 82-93.
Dobni, Dawn and George M. Zinkhan (1990), "In Search of
Brand Image: A Foundation Analysis," in Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, Marvin E. Goldberg,
Gerald Gorn, and Richard W. Pollay, eds. Provo UT:
Association for Consumer Research, 110-19.
Dolan, Carrie (1985), "Concocting Zingy New Names Starts
Turning Into a Business," Wall Street Journal.
Erickson, Gary M., Johny K. Johansson, and Paul Chao (1984),
"Image Variables in Multi-Attribute Product Evaluations:
Country-of-Origin Effects," Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 11 (September), 694-9.
Peter H.
Farquhar, (1989), "Managing Brand Equity,"
Mar-keting Research, 1 (September), 24-33.
Fazio, Russell H. (1987), "Category-Brand Associations and
Their Activation From
Memory," unpublishedreport, Ogilvy
Center for Research and Development, San Francisco, CA.
, Martha C. Powell, and Carol J. Williams (1989), "The
Role of Attitude Accessibility in the Attitude and Be-havior
Process," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (De-cember), 280-8.
, David M. Sanbonmatsu, Martha C. Powell, and
Frank R. Kardes (1986), "On the Automatic Activation of
50
Attitudes," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (February),
229-38.
and Mark P. Zanna
(1981), "Direct Experiences and Attitude-
Behavior Consistency," in Advances in Ex-
Social
perimental Psychology, Vol. 14, Leonard Berkowitz, ed.
New York: Academic Press, Inc., 161-202.
Feldman, Jack M. and John G. Lynch, Jr. (1988), "Self-Generated
Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on
Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior," Journal of Ap-plied
Psychology, 73 (August), 421-35.
Fennell, Geraldine (1978), "Consumer's Perceptions of the
Product-Use
Situation," Journal of Marketing, 42 (April), 38-47.
Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, In-tention,

search.
and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Re-
MA:
Reading, Addison-Wesley Publishing Com-pany.
T.
Ford, Gary and Ruth Ann Smith (1987), "Inferential Be-
liefs in Consumer Evaluations: An Assessment of Alter-
native
Processing Strategies," Journal of Consumer Re-search,
14 (December), 363-71.
B.
Gardner, Burleigh and Sidney J. Levy (1955), "The Prod-
uct and the
Brand," Harvard Business Review, 33
33-9.
(March-April),
Product Evaluation: An Information Processing Perspec-
tive," Journal of ConsumerResearch, 16 (September), 175-87.
and (1990), "Determinants of Product
Green, Paul E. and V. Srinivasan (1978), "Conjoint Analysis Evaluation: Effects of the Time Interval Between Knowl-
in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Its
edge of a Product's Countryof Origin and InformationAbout
Consumer Research, 5 (September), 102-23. Specific Attributes," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (December),
and (1990), "Conjoint Analysis in Con- 277-88.
sumer Research: New Developments and Directions," Houston, Michael J., Terry L. Childers, and Susan E. Heckler
Journal
of Marketing, 54 (October), 3-19. (1987), "Picture-Word Consistency and the Elaborative
and Yoram Wind (1975), "New Ways to Measure of
Processing Advertisements," Journal of Marketing Re-search,
Consumers' Judgments," Harvard Business Review, 53 24 (November), 359-69.
107-17.
(July/August),
H. Hoyer, Wayne D. and Steven P. Brown (1990), "Effects of
Gregg, Vernon (1976), "Word Frequency, Recognition, and Recall," in BrandAwareness on Choice for
a Common, Repeat-
Recall and Recognition, John Brown, ed. Lon-don: John Wiley & Purchase
Sons, Inc.
Heckler, Susan, Kevin Lane Keller, and Michael J. Houston Product," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (September), 141-8.
(1992), "The Effects of Brand Repositioning on Ad Re-
call," working paper, Karl Eller School of Management, Huber, Joel and John McCann (1982), "The Impact of Infer-ential
Beliefs on Product Evaluations," Journal of Market-
University of Arizona. ing Research, 18 (November), 428-41.
Herr, Paul M., Peter H. Farquhar,and Russell H. Fazio (1990),
Brand to New Graduate
Isen, Alice M. (1992), "The Influence of Positive Affect on
"Extending Equity Categories," working pa-per, Cognitive Organization: Some Implications for the Influ-
School of Business, Indiana University.
The Influence ence of Advertising on Decisions About Products and
Hertel, Paula T. (1982), "Remembering Reactions and Facts: in Advertising Exposure, Memory, and Choice,
of Subsequent Information," Journal of Ex- Brands,"
and Andrew A. Mitchell, ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
perimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, Cognition, 8 (6), 513- Associates, in press.
29. Jacob and
Jacoby, David Mazursky (1984), "Linking
Herzog, H. (1963), "Behavioral Science Concepts for Ana-
Brand and Retailer Images-Do the Potential Risks Outweigh
the the Potential Benefits?" Journal of Retailing, 60 (2), 105-22.
lyzing Consumer," in Marketing and the Behavioral
, Jerry C. Olson, and Rafael A. Haddock (1971), "Price,
Sciences, Perry Bliss, ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc., 76- Brand
86. Name, and Product Composition Character-istics as
J. and Determinants of Perceived Quality," Journal of Applied
Hoch, Stephen (1984), "Availability Interference in Psychology, 55 (December), 570-9.
, J. and
Predictive Journal George Syzabillo, Jacqeline Busato-Schach (1977),
Judgment," of Experimental Psychol-
"InformationAcquisition Behavior in Brand Choice
and 10
ogy: Learning, Memory, Cognition, (October), 629-62.
and Robert S.
Hong, Sung-Tai Wyer (1989), "Effects of
Country-of-Origin and Product Attribute Information on

Situations," Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (4), 209-16. That Influence Consumers' Evaluations of Brand Exten-
Johnson, Michael D. (1984), "Consumer Choice Strategies for sions," working paper, Karl Eller School of Management,
Comparing Noncomparable Alternatives," Journal of University of Arizona.
Con-sumer Research, 11 (December), 741-53. MacKenzie, Scott B. (1986), "The Role of Attention in Me-
Kahle, Lynne R. and Pamela M. Homer (1985), "Physical At- the Effect of on Attribute
diating Advertising Importance," Journal of
Consumer Research, 13 (September), 174-95.
tractiveness of the Celebrity Endorsor: A Social Adaptation
Maltz, Eliot (1991), "Managing Brand Equity: A Conference
Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (4), 954-61.
Summary," Report #91-110. Cambridge, MA: Marketing
Katz, Daniel (1960), "The Functional Approach to the Study Science Institute.
of Attitudes," Public Opinion Quarterly, 24 (Summer), Maslow, Abraham H. (1970), Motivation and Personality, 2nd ed.
163-204. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.
McCracken, Grant (1989), "Who Is the Celebrity Endorsor?
Keller, Kevin Lane (1987), "Memory Factors in Advertising: Cultural Foundations of the Endorsement Process," Journal
The Effect of Advertising Retrieval Cues on Brand Eval- of Consumer Research, 16 (December), 310-21.
uations," Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December), Miller, K. E. and J. L. Ginter (1979), "An Investigation of
316-33. Situational Variation in Brand Choice Behavior and Atti-
"
tude, Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 111-23.
(1991a), "Cue Compatibility and Framing
in
Ad-
Myers, James H. and Allan D. Shocker (1981), "The Nature of
Journal
vertising," of Marketing Research, 28 (February), 42-57. Product-Related Attributes," in Research in Marketing,
(1991b), "Memory and Evaluation Effects in Vol.
5, Jagdish Sheth, ed. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc., 211-36.
Com-petitive Advertising Environments," Journal of Myers-Levy, Joan (1989), "The Influence of a Brand Name's
Consumer Research, 16 (March), 436-76.
(1992), "Memory Retrieval Factors and Advertis-ing Association Set Size and Word Frequency on Brand Mem-
in Journal
Effectiveness," Advertising Exposure, Memory, and Choice, ory," of Consumer Research, 14 (September), 197-207.
Andrew A. Mitchell, ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Alice M.
Associates, in press. Tybout (1989), "Schema Congruity as a Basis
and David A. Aaker (1992), "The Effects of Se- for Product Evaluation," Journal of Consumer
quential Introduction of Brand Extensions," Journal of Research, 16 (June), 39-54.
Marketing Research, 29 (February), 35-50. Nedungadi, Prakash (1990), "Recall and Consumer Consid-
H.
Kotler, Philip (1991), Marketing Management: Analysis, eration Sets: Influencing Choice Without Altering
Planning, and Control, 8th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall, Inc. Brand Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, 17
Leuthesser, Lance, ed. (1988), "Defining, Measuring (Decem-ber), 263-76.
Brand A Conference and Hutchinson "The of
and Managing Equity: Summary," Report #88- Wesley (1985), Prototypi-cality
104. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Brands:
Relationships With Brand Awareness, Preference and
Theodore
Levitt, (1960), "MarketingMyopia," Harvard Busi-ness Usage," in Advances in Consumer Re-search, Vol. 12, Elizabeth C.
Review, 38 (July/August), 45-56. Hirschman and Morris B.
J.
Levy, Sidney (1978), Marketing Behavior: Its Meaning for Holbrook, eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Re-
Management. New York: AMACOM. search, 489-503.
Consumer W.
(1981), "Interpreting Mythology: A Structural Newman, Joseph (1957), "New Insight, New Progress for Marketing,"
Approach to Consumer Behavior," Journal of Harvard
45 Business Review, 35 (November-December), 95-102.
Marketing, (Summer), 49-61.
(1985), "Dreams, Fairy Tales, Animals, and Cars," Olson, Jerry C. and Jacob Jacoby (1972), "Cue Utilization in
Psychology
and
Marketing,
2
(2), 67-81.
the
Quality Perception Process," in The Proceedings of the Third
Lockhart, Robert S., Fergus I. M. Craik, and Larry Jacoby Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, M.
(1976), "Depth of Processing, Recognition, and Recall," Venkatesan, ed. Iowa City, IA: Association for Consumer Research,
in Recall and Recognition, John Brown, ed., New York: 167-79.
John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. Park, C. Whan, BernardJ. Jaworski, and Deborah J. Maclnnis
Loftus, Elizabeth F. and Gregory R. Loftus (1980), "On the (1986), "Strategic
Brand
Concept-Image Management,"
Journal of
Permanence of Stored Information in the Human Marketing,
50 (October), 621-35.
and V. Parker and
Lessig (1981), "Familiarity Its
Brain," American Psychologist, 35 (May), 409-20. Impact on Consumer Biases and Heuristics," Journal of
Consumer
to
Loken, Barbara and James Ward (1990), "Alternative Ap-proaches Research, 8 (September), 223-30.
Understanding the Determinants of Typical- , Sandra Milberg, and Robert Lawson (1991),
"Evaluationof Brand Extensions: The Role of ProductLevel
ity," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (September), 111-26. and Brand Consumer
in Similarity Concept Consistency," Journal of
Lutz, Richard J. (1991), "The Role of Attitude Theory in Mar-keting," Research, 18 (September), 185-93.
Perspectives
in Consumer Behavior, 4th ed.,
Harold H. Kassarjian and and Daniel C. Smith (1989), "Product-LevelChoice:
IL: Scott, Foresman and A or sumer
Thomas S. Robertson, eds. Glen-view, Company, Top-Down Bottom-Up Process?" Journal of Con-
317-39. Research, 16 (December), 289-99.
John G., Jr., Howard Mamorstein, and Michael
Lynch, Weigold Park, Chan-Su (1991), "Estimation and Prediction of Brand
Use of Equities Through Survey Measurement of Consumer Pref-
(1988), "Choices From Sets Including Remembered Brands:
Journal erence
Recalled Attributes and Prior Overall Evaluations," of Structures," unpublished doctoral dissertation pro-posal,
Consumer Research, 15 (September), 169-84. Graduate
School of Business, Stanford University.
and
Thomas K. Srull (1982), "Memory and Atten-tional Factors
in Consumer Choice: Concepts and Research Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1986), Communi-
Methods," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (June), 18-36. cation and Persuasion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Maclnnis, Deborah J. and Kent Nakamoto (1991), "Factors T.

Plummer, Joseph (1985), "How Personality Makes a Dif-
ference," Journal of Advertising Research, 24 (6), 27-31. Stimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective,"
Raaijmakers,J. G. W. and RichardM. Shiffrin (1981), "Search Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (December), 319-29.
of Associative Memory," Psychological Review, 88, 93- Srinivasan, V. (1979), "Network Models for Estimating Brand-
134. Specific Effects in Multi-Attribute Marketing Models,"
Rangaswamy, Arvind, Raymond Burke, and Terence A. Oliva Management Science, 25 (January), 11-21.
"Brand and the Srivastava, Rajendra and Allan D. Shocker (1991), "Brand
(1990), Equity Extendibility of Brand
Names," Working Paper No. 90-019, The Wharton School, Equity: A Perspective on Its Meaning and Measurement,"
The of working paper, Graduate School of Business, University of
University Pennsylvania.
Ratcliff, Roger and Gail McKoon (1988), "A Retrieval Theory Texas at Austin.
of in Thomas K.
Priming Memory," Psychological Review, 95 (3), 385-408. Srull, (1984), "Methodological Techniques for the Study of
Person Memory and Social Cognition," in Hand-book of Social
Ray, Michael L. (1982), Advertising and Communication Cognition, Vol. 2, Robert S. Wyer and Thomas K. Srull, eds.
NJ:
Management. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Ries, Al and Jack Trout (1979), Positioning: The Battle for Associates, 1-72.
Your Mind. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc. Starr, Martin K. and Joel R. Rubinson (1978), "A Loyalty
Model for Brand
Robertson, Kim R. (1987), "Recall and Recognition Effects Group Segmentation Purchasing Simula-
of Brand Name and 4 Journal
Imagery," Psychology Marketing,
tion," of Marketing Research, 15 (August), 378-83.
(1), 3-15.
(1989), "Strategically Desirable Brand Name Mita uation
Sujan, (1985), "Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Eval-
Char-acteristics," Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6 Consumer Jour-
Strategies Mediating Judgments," nal of Consumer
(Fall), 61-71.
Research, 12 (June), 31-46.
Roedder John, Deborah and Barbara Loken (1990), "Diluting and James R. Bettman (1989), "The Effects of Brand
Brand The of Brand on Consumers' Brand and
Equity: Impact Extensions," working paper, Positioning Strategies Category
Carlson School of of Min- nal
Management, University nesota. Perceptions: Some Insights From Schema Research," Jour- of
Marketing Research, 26 (November), 454-67.
Romeo, Jean B. (1990), "The Effect of Negative Information W. in
Sullivan, Mary (1990), "Measuring Image Spillovers
on the Evaluation of Brand Extensions and the Family Umbrella Branded
Brand," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, Products,"Journal of Business, 63 (July),
Rebecca H. Holman and Michael R. Solomon, eds. Provo, 309-29.
UT: Association for Consumer Research, 399-406. Edward M. for
Tauber, (1988), "Brand Leverage: Strategy
Rosch, Eleanor and Carolyn B. Mervis (1975), "Family Re-
Growth in a Cost Controlled World," Journal of Advertis-
semblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Cate- 28
7 ing Research, (August/September), 26-30.
gories," Cognitive Psychology, (October), 573-605. Roselius, Tulving,
Endel
(1983), Elements of Episodic Memory. Lon-don: Oxford University
Ted (1971), "Consumer Ranking of Risk Reduction Methods," Press.
Journal of Marketing, 35 (January), 56-61.
John R. and and Joseph Psotka (1971), "Retroactive Inhibition in Free Recall:
Rossiter, Larry Percy (1987), Advertising and Journal
Inaccessibility of Information Available in Memory Store," of
Promotion Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Experimental Psychology, 87
Company. (1), 1-8.
Russo, Edward J. and Eric J. Johnson (1980), "What Do Con- Ward, James and Barbara Loken (1986), "The Quintessential
sumers Know About Familiar Products?" in Advances in
Snack Food: Measurement of Product Prototypes," in Ad-
Consumer Research, Vol. 7, Jerry C. Olson, ed. Ann Ar-bor, vances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, Richard J. Lutz,
MI: Association for Consumer Research, 417-23. ed. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 126-
Simon, Carol J. and Mary W. Sullivan (1990), "The Mea- 31.
surement and Determinants of Brand Equity: A Financial Wentz, Laurel (1989), "WPP Considers Brand Valuation,"
24.
Graduate of Advertising Age,
Approach," working paper, School of Business, University Wilkie, William (1986), Consumer Behavior. New York: John Wiley
Chicago. &
Simonson, Itamar, Joel Huber, and John Payne (1988), "The Sons, Inc.
Yoram
Wind, (1982), Product Policy: Concepts, Methods, and
Relationship Between Prior Knowledge and Strategy. Reading,
MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing
Com-
pany.
Information Acquisition Order," Journal of Consumer
Research, 14 (March), 566-78. Wyer, Robert S., Jr. and Thomas K. Srull (1989), "Person
Smith, Daniel C. and C. Whan Park (1992), "The Effects of and
Brand Memory Judgment,"Psychological Review, 96 (1), 58-83.
Extensions on Market Share and Advertising Effi-
Yovovich, B. G. (1988), "WhatIs Your Brand Really Worth?" Adweek's
Journal
ciency," of Marketing Research, 29 (August), 296-313. Marketing Week (August 8), 18-21.
Valarie
Solomon, Michael R. (1983), "The Role of Products as Social Zeithaml, (1988), "Consumer Perceptions of Price,
the
Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of
Evidence," Journal of Marketing, 52 (July), 2-22.
Reprint No. JM571100
22 Journalof


Jjurnal klp1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jjurnal klp1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jjurnal klp1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity

Author(s): Kevin Lane Keller

function sought by consumers. Hence, they underlying

purchaseor consumption. The four main types of non-product- product-related

(Tulving 1971). Thus, the particularas-

Nedungadi 1985; and retrieved in memory separatelyfrom the under-

a a measured by the reaction time needed to evaluative

(Simonson, Huber, Payne 1988) and a willing-ness to seek understanding

highlight them briefly.

tification can be assessed by examining how con-sumers experimental

or service of brandnames thatif

two due to profiles or scenarios that violate their basic expecta-

marketingcommunicationalternatives. For example, example, to determine the unique-ness of brand associations.

of customer-basedbrandequity. As noted previously, the brandequity and other relevant research.

brandequity, defined as the differentialeffect of brand Future Research Directions

This content downloaded from 152.3.102.242 on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:03:07 PM

Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, In-tention,

This content downloaded from 152.3.102.242 on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:03:07 PM

Maclnnis, Deborah J. and Kent Nakamoto (1991), "Factors T.

This content downloaded from 152.3.102.242 on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:03:07 PM

You might also like