IMPACT OF SALES PROMOTION’S BENEFIT ON BRAND EQUITY

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, JINNAH UNIVERSITY FOR

WOMEN

BBA-IIIB

Global Business Review

19(6) 1–18
© 2018 IMI
SAGE Publications
sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0972150918794977
http://journals.sagepub.com/home/gbr
SUBMITTED BY:
WARISHA SHAHZAD

SUPERVISOR: MISS SHAISTA KAMAL

Page | 1
 1. ABSTRACT:
While maintaining brand equity, sales promotion is one of the most consider area that not only
improves sales but also create position in consumer’s mind. Now companies are become highly
competitive to provide hedonic and utilitarian benefits to the customers through sales promotion.
The tool of sales promotion play role in creating and maintaining brand image has increased its
significance. The purpose of this study is to measure the effects of sales promotion on brand
awareness, brand loyalty, perceived quality and brand equity. The questionnaire is designed by
Google docs having five points likert scale and based on four constructs i.e., brand loyalty, brand
awareness, perceived quality and brand equity. The sample size of this study is 150. The study
further process to check the reliability and validity of constructs and then tested through SPSS
having three major tests used of subtypes i.e., Regression (model summary, anova, coefficient),
Test Reliability (chron back alpha), and Descriptive stats (demographic factors). The findings
shows that all the variables has strongest effect on sales promotion. Further comparing earlier
study and findings of this study suggest that hedonic and utilitarian benefits have positive impact
on sale promotion. This creates highly competition in market.

Key Words: Sales promotion, Brand loyalty, Brand awareness, Perceived quality, Brand equity,
Hedonic benefits, Utilitarian benefits

2. INTRODUCTION:
The trend of mall has been playing a remarkable role in life style of consumers (Bloach etal,
1994; Tervlanche,1999) and it is extremely important for managers of malls to create the
atmosphere of mall along with amusement, facilities, variety of services and products by aiming
customers liking( Robertson,1995) and shopping values (Babin etal,1994,2005 Babin and
Darden, 1995) study of Babin etal, (1994) confirm the reality of hedonic and utilitarian shopping
values and display that the satisfaction obtain will effect consumer behavior. In utilitarian
shopping values shoppers review shopping as a mission oriented experienced and only by each
product and service he finish this goal (Batra and Ahtola, 1991; Babin and Darden,1996)
example shopper recognize exceptional utilitarian shopping value only when they require to
purchase something; then purchase it and then leave Velitchka and Barton (2006) shows that task
placing shopper acquire shopping value from result the shopping activity itself and not
automatically by purchasing a product or services. Academicians think that studying about the

Page | 2
procurement of product or achievement of mission is not enough to represent shopping value. It
has been discover that basically some customers came to mall to get value of sensual and
pshylogiacl satisfaction throughout shopping process (Batra and Ahtola, 1991; Roy, 1994;
Wakpield & Bakar, 1998) constitute hedonic shopping values. These type of customer loves the
fun and entertainment and shopping process and look shopping mall as site of amusement and
exploration (Bloach etal, 1994). As stated by Khare (2011) purchasing behavior of India is
overblown by shopping orientation, personal values and social effect. According to which
different segment of consumer mirror divergent purchasing behavior and values. For example:
the purchasing pattern teenage consumers are more attentive towards finding amusement and
exploration where as mature consumers are attentive on having benefit and financial saving.
Now a days the malls in india metro cities undergo reduce in consumer footfall and decrease in
sale, hence the mall executive investigate their working activities in small cities of India. These
small cities are captivating through the low rental and operating cost(KPMG, 2009) and private
companies are putting their huge amount of money in progressing and designing shopping mall
to satisfy the shopper’s want of international brand, cinema, food court, hotel and restaurant and
playing arena etc. with inspirational and loosen market atmosphere. The buyer which are from
small cities thought that malls in their city make their way easy to get good quality of brand. The
sensual pleasure and experience are increased in mall as they touch, sense, and feel new products
which effect the shopping behavior (Khare, 2011), the reason of shopping of Indian consumers
are control by their part in society and responsibility they have to execute regarding their family.
Such as the utilitarian buyer comes to mall for fulfilling their duties as a mother, father, wife or
husband (Khare, 2011).

3. PURPOSE OF STUDY:

The main purpose of this study is to investigate the positive effects of brand awareness,
perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand equity on sales promotion’s benefits (hedonic and
utilitarian). It describes how these benefits can effect the brand equity. This research studies
entail good and positive effect of sales promotions benefits on brand equity.

4. PROBLEM STATEMENT:
The problem which is highlighted in the study is that do the sales promotion have positive impact
on consumer buying behaviors. This gap is constructed by the previous research paper (Sinha

Page | 3
and Verma, 2018). Like do consumers tend to buy more when clothing brands of women pret
wear offer sales on there items. So, to check their impact the quantitative research is been held in
this concern.
5. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:
The following research objectives have been developed based on the above research
questionnaire:
 To ascertain the relationship between utilitarian benefits of sales promotion and
component of brand equity.
 To ascertain the relationship between utilitarian benefits and brand awareness.
 To ascertain the relationship between utilitarian benefits and brand loyalty.
 To ascertain the relationship between utilitarian benefits and perceived quality.
 To ascertain the relationship between hedonic benefit of sales promotion on brand
equity.
 To ascertain the relationship between hedonic benefit and brand awareness.
 To ascertain the relationship between hedonic benefit and brand loyalty.
 To ascertain the relationship between hedonic benefit and perceived quality.

6. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY:

Consumers are tend to but the product based on their expectations related to the particular
product or service which can be fulfilled by the product's performance (Oliver, 1997).
Consumer's loyalty is depending on the level of expectation which can provoke consumer to but
that product through the positive and negative impact. (Bagozzi, Gopinath and Nyer 1999;
Chaudhuri 2006; Westbrook and Oliver 1991). This study can enhance the acknowledgement of
the consumer by knowing the effects of utilitarian and hedonic benefits.

7. LITERATURE REVIEW:
7.1. Theory:
Combined theory:
combined theory is consist of pull and push factors which justify the consumer buying behavior
related to sales promotion. Push factors influence the consumer to but that product and pull
factors are those which attract consumers to buy that product.

Page | 4
In the theory their are factors of push and pull theory. As the theory of “push” is for getting extra
product for the sellers and shopkeepers during marketing and the product accompanied with
other products are used as “pull” to obtain many more people which like to buy the product.
Super market usually apply this technique. They place those product through which they get high
revenues. On (the push) and do the marketing which broadcast the mart.(“A significant area to
buy” or “ your homeland consumer good”) comparatively than a particular product(the pull)
(Dick, 2018).

7.2. Utilitarian benefits:

Those facilities of sales promotion which satisfy the purchasing behaviors rather than attracting
the consumers towards that certain product. The classical approach of utilitarian is totally based
on products to fulfill the needs of the consumer (Solomon, bamossy, soren, & hogg, 2006). It
consider on the saving factor and in deducting the pain of paying. Consumer purchase those
products which are promoted to attain the economic benefit (liao, shen, & chu, 2009).
The money saving factor is most important for the consumers who are price conscious and for
those whom are not sound financially. So they are more towards the utilitarian products
(Esfahani & Jafarzadeh, 2013). The utilitarian consumers have a high concern to get more value
of their paid money. It always starts with a goal to attain that goal efficiently (sherry et al., 1993;
babin et al., 1994). The psychic of Indians are to shop in a budget without compromising on their
time, efforts and money while shopping (bettman, 1979). Customers consumer perceives highly
valued utility products (batra and ahtola, 1991; sherry et al., 1993; babin et al., 2005) when
consumers get satisfied after purchasing the branded product with discount offers (babin and
darden, 1995; babin and darden, 1996). For increasing the utilitarian selling retailers provides
more branded and good in quality products in shops to shop from shopping malls.
(chandon et al., 2000) by obtain products from the availability of the products choices with the
feasibility.
(chandon et al., 2000). These types of study categorize the utilitarian purchasing values into the
financial selection, feasibility and customized demanded products and goods.

7.3. Hedonic benefits:

Page | 5
Those advantages of promotional measures which cause liking in neurological wants, create
excitability and pleasure are hedonic benefits. Hirschman and Halbrook (1982) achieved result
about hedonic consumption and belonged it to instinctive feeling and neurological facet of
obtaining etiquette. Batra and Ahtola (1990) also propose that hedonic element is
corresponding with sensory aspect. Chandon et al. (2000) contributed further by recognizing and
classifying sale promotion’s advantage as hedonic and utilitarian. They proposed sone
advantages of sales promotion tools as hedonic benefit which are interlinked to neurological
aspect of buying behavior. Esfahani and Jafarzadeh (2013) underpin the thinking presented by
Chandon et al.,(2000) in their analysis. Hedonic benefit of sale assistance are having appreciable
impression on consumer’s neurons (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982) the quality of hedonic
benefit can also present a reason of long term relation among consumer and brand (Alba and
Williams, 2013). Hedonic benefits of sale promotion are also helpful for the betterment and
enhancement of brand equity which is not so much highlighted up till now. After collecting the
information related to hedonic benefits in sale’s promotions on brand equity can lead us to be
studied more for creating a new sense of profitability by attracting consumers due to the
neurological attraction.

7.4. Brand equity:

Brand is very important for companies which stuck in the mind of consumers and companies
generate high revenue from its recognition. When consumer used brands they associate with it
because of the attributes of a brand so it is called brand equity (Del Rio, Vazquez, & Iglesias,
2001). Consumers have ability to spend more on branded commodities due to the charm of brand
equity. The desire of consumers is to buy those products which have high brand equity in the
market (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, & Donthu, 1995). Brand equity cut down the brand switching.
The buyers of the brand which have low equity can easily shift to others brand with the
comparability to the buyers of brand which have high equity (Sloot, Verhoef, & Franses, 2005).
4 Global Business Reviews 19(6). In the ambience of companies, brand equity have high and
strong profit margin through the decrement in promotional activities (Aaker, 1991). Brand equity
defend companies on the time when it collapsing due to the failure of innovations (Sloot et al.,
2005). The four factors of brand equity given by Aaker (1996) were efficiently used in this study
to acquire more fine and authentic results.

Page | 6
The brand complements on the basis of distinct identifiers and these are name, symbol and mix
of these (Keller 1993; Kotler and Keller 2016). These units are used to differentiate among the
goods and services of firm’s from the competitors (Keller, 1993; Kotler and Keller, 2016). In the
abstract of branding, two brand equity approaches with a kind of distinct factors have been
leading. First, Aaker (1991, p.16) allocate brand equity as assets and liabilities into five classes
brand loyalty; name awareness; perceived quality; brand associations; and other proprietary
assets(e.g. patents). Second, Keller (1993) differentiates two great elements of brand knowledge
(seen as the brand equity distinguisher and compared to brand equity assets and liabilities, as
discussed by Aaker (1991): brand awareness and brand image. Brand awareness defines the
reflection of brand that fluently come in the mind of consumers, on the other hand brand image
imitate the types of affiliation with the consideration ‘determining the different response ‘to the
brand equity. Maximum studies expose that the brand equity altitude is all-around and according
to the definition of a ‘value added’ to the product. The estimation tools such as price premiums
(Aaker, 1996), collections of consumer based perceptions (Agarwal and Rao, 1996), or purchase
behavior (Kamakura and Russell, 1993) be consistent with this view. In the comparison, Yoo and
Donthu (2001) design measurement of consumer brand equity scale and analyze three factors:
Loyalty, perceived quality and brand association (approved by Washburn and Plank, 2002).
Guizani, Triguero and Valette Florence (2008) added fourth factor the social value of the brand,
which describe that customers can serve the similar value or that the brand can assemble the
chain of consumers in brand community (Muniz and O’ Guinn, 2001). This research exercises
the 12 – item scale with the elements (brand loyalty, brand knowledge, social value and
perceived quality). Yoo and Donthu (2001) come up with that the brand equity sum in inclusion
to multidimensional brand equity scale, the remarkable four factors added into a second order
factor that determined the range of brand equity or thorough added brand value.

7.5. Brand awareness:

The primary obligation to generate purchase intention towards product is brand awareness. It
help consumers to differentiate the brand with competitive brands Aaker, 1991).Brand awareness
provide facilities to consumers to distinguish brand with other competitive brands (Shrimp,
2010). Different stages of brand awareness are present that plays a significant role in purchase
decision. In the first stage, brand need to develop awareness among potential consumers for

Page | 7
purchasing. In the highest awareness stage the likelihood to brand consideration increases
(Rundle-Thiele & Bennet, 2001). The concept presented by Aaker (1991) provides four
distinguish stages of brand awareness. The first stage is “Brand unawareness”, second “brand
recognition”, third is “brand recall” and the last stage is “top in mind”. The first stage which is
“brand unawareness” where consumers have zero information related to the brand. The second
stage “brand recognition” is where consumers have little information related to a brand. The next
stage “brand recall” is in which consumers have much information about the brand and they can
recall it without any extra efforts. The fourth and the last stage that is “top in mind”, is while
considering purchase decisions the brand is in the first position in the mind if consumers. The
method to increase brand awareness is repeated explication (keller, 2003).This can be done
through advertisement and promotional activities. Advertisement provide related information and
sales promotion develops interest in purchasing (keller, 2003) and the sale promotional activities
have positive effects on brand knowledge (Palazon-Vidal & Delgado-Ballester, 2005) . So, it is
assumed that the utilitarian advantages and hedonic benefits of sales promotion have positive
impact on brand awareness.

7.6. Brand loyalty:

Brand equity consists of the most essential factor which is known as brand loyalty. Loyal
customers helps to the brand to come into a very powerful and good position to compete more
and more into the market. A brand loyalty is a state where the consumer have the quality to
retain on such brand without considering to any other competitive brand (Aaker ,1991). The most
essential promotion goal is to attain the consumer loyalty on the higher percentage.
(Aaker ,1991) has let us know some slabs or diameters of the brand loyalty which consist of five
stages as under.
Stage one: ‘switchers or price sensitive’
Stage two: ‘satisfied habitual buyer’
Stage three: ‘satisfied buyer with switching costs’
Stage four: ‘like the brand’
Stage five: ‘committed buyer’ they are considered as the most loyal and retained customers. they
also take part in positive words of mouth which directly gives the good result to the brand as
compared with the ads. As per Ravald and Gronroose (1996) the past experience generate trust

Page | 8
factor because trust results consumer loyalty the more. Keller (2003) told that the more
advertisements activities can generate the repetition of buying. But this is not assure that those
consumers will become sinha and verma 5 loyal. According to kapferer (2012), the best loyalty
is the brand loyalty rather than the price loyalty. In the suggestion of De chernatony and
Dall’olmo (1998) a great product can helps the firm to become a great brand. To be a part of the
market the advertisement activities are required. To increase the market share, market reputation
and to increase the repeat buying the affective promotion is sales promotion. When the quality is
absented from the product so that brand can’t be retain for long in the market. Without
advertisement activities the consumer interest cannot be take place.
Making new consumers are more difficult as compare to retain the older ones.

7.7. Perceived quality:

It is about consumer’s perception about product’s quality that varies according to the aim of
buying. (Zeithaml 1988). Then, (Aaker 1991 ) he describes it as , is the views of consumer about
the quality of particular product. It is subjective base and is build on the basis of past experience
and information. Here are seven dimensions mentioned by Aaker about product quality. These
are: ‘performance’, ‘reliability’, ‘conformance to specifications’, ‘features’, ‘service ability’,
‘perfect fit’ and ‘finish’.
It is necessary to understand quality attributes for market because consumer uses this to
understand quality. (Fayrene & Lee, 2011). It is an important variable that affect the buyer
intention of purchase. (Kashi 2013). It is suddested to managers that work on this variable so that
it can develop brand equity. (Kimani & Zeithmal 1993). It is also reflected by some studies that
sale promotion have negative impact on consumer’s perception about quality. (Neslin &
Shoemaker, 1989; Clayton & Hoe, 2011). But according to DelVecchio and Puligadda (2012)
sales promotions not impact negatively and can be use to generate profit and on evaluating two
brands it is found that consumer views the higher priced- product as higher quality. . It is also an
opportunity to consumer who are financially constrain and they assumed that it in the lowest
opportunity cost they get quality product, (Reid et al, 2015). Hedonic benefits is also there such
as fun and enjoyment that adds the perception of quality, (Grohmann, 2003).
There is high relationship found between price and perceived quality. Price serves as indicator of
quality whenever the little risk is found. Stafford and Enis also summarizes this all concept that

Page | 9
perceived quality expectations varies directly with price. Whereas, McConnell defines this
relationship as non linear. Gabor and Granger determines that expensive product expected to be
highest quality possession. Thus, this relationship may be direct or monotonic and little chances
of non-linear or discontinuous.

7.8. Conceptual framework:

BRAND AWARENESS

HEDONIC BENEFITS
PERCEIVED QUALITY

BRAND LOYALTY
UTILITARIAN
BENEFITS

BRAND EQUITY

7.9. Variable description:

H1: Relationship between hedonic benefit and brand awareness.

Ho: There is no relation between hedonic benefit and brand awareness.

H2: Relationship between hedonic benefit and perceived quality.

Ho: There is no relation between hedonic benefit and perceived quality.

H3: Relationship between hedonic benefit and brand loyalty.

Ho: There is no relation between hedonic benefit and brand loyalty.

Page | 10
H4: Relationship between hedonic benefit of sales promotion on brand equity.
Ho: There is no relation between hedonic benefit of sales promotion on brand equity.

H5: Relationship between utilitarian benefits of sales promotion and brand awareness.
Ho: There is no relationship between utilitarian benefits of sales promotion and brand awareness.

H6: Relationship between utilitarian benefits and perceived quality.

Ho: There is no relationship between utilitarian benefits and perceived quality.

H7: Relationship between utilitarian benefits and brand loyalty.

Ho: There is no relationship between utilitarian benefits and brand loyalty.

H8: Relationship between utilitarian benefits and brand equity.

Ho: there is no relationship between utilitarian benefits and brand equity.

8. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
The selection of rights methodology is important for the research because it effect the result
extracted from the whole research. Quantitative is the basic nature of this research which helps to
find the effect of sales promotion’s benefits on brand equity.

8.1. Statistical technique:

Three statistical techniques are used. First is regression which includes model summary, anova,
coefficients. Second is test reliability which include cronbach’s alpha. And the third one is
descriptive stats which include demographic factors. These techniques are used for estimating
the relationship between dependent and independent variables.

8.2. Data source and sample size:

The sample size is of 150 respondents which were all females and the data is collected to analyze
the sales benefit of the women’ s pret wear.
The data is being collected by the secondary sources and the sample technique which is used in
this paper is non-probability (convenient sample technique).

Page | 11
As the sample size is 150 so it is tested through the SPSS SOFTWARE to make our result more
valid.
KMO and Bartlett’s test is used for the adequacy of the research. The table is shown below;

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
.905
Adequacy.
Approx. Chi-Square 666.995
Bartlett's Test of
df 15
Sphericity
Sig. .000

8.3. Questionnaire design:

The questionnaire is the judgement tool through which the secondary data is being analyze. It
consist of seven main factors; in which the first sixth factor shows the following relationship.
Relationship between the utilitarian benefit of sales promotion on component of brand equity,
brand awareness, perceived quality and brand loyalty. And also shows the relationship between
the hedonic benefit of sales promotion on components of brand equity, brand awareness,
perceived quality and brand loyalty.
And the seventh factor is related to the age, qualification, gender, income, job type.

8.4. Development and measurement tool:

The name of earlier research paper from which the latest research is conducted is “impact of
sales promotion : benefits on brand equity : an emperical investigation”. the authors of this
research paper are “somesh kumar sinnha, priyanka verma” this research paper is under SAGE
publications and was published in 2018. the independent variables which are abstracted from this
research paper are named as hedonic benefits and utilitarian benefits similarly the dependent
variables which are abstracted from the same research are named as brand awareness, perceived
quality, brand loyalty and brand equity.

8.5. Measurement scale:

Page | 12
The scale of measurement used in this study is based on likert scale having five points ranging
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Likert scaling determines that each items lies on equal
distance. Further more, the questionnaire is designed in a way that each question is to be have
structured answer. This shows the effect of sales promotion on other related variables.

9. RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

The following questions have been developed from the conceptual framework;

Q1. What Is the impact of hedonic benefit on brand awareness?

Q2. What Is the impact of hedonic benefit on perceived quality?

Q3. What Is the impact of hedonic benefit on brand loyalty?

Q4. What Is the impact of hedonic benefit on brand equity?

Q5. What is the impact of utilitarian benefit on brand awareness?

Q6. What is the impact of utilitarian benefit on perceived quality?

Q7. What is the impact of utilitarian benefit on brand loyalty?

Q8. What is the impact of utilitarian benefit on brand equity?

10. RELIABILITY OF THE CONSTRUCTS:

This test is apply in order to analyze the reliability of verification, in order to determine the
cronbach’s alpha and standardized cronbach’s alpha. SPSS 2011is used to analyse the items and
cronbach’s alpha formula. The outcome of the calculation is then show in SPSS 2011, and is
shown below.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's N of Items
Alpha
.927 6

Page | 13
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Scale Corrected Cronbach's
Item Deleted Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Correlation Deleted
hedonic total 17.9617 15.318 .762 .917
utilitarian total 18.0323 15.669 .787 .914
brand total 17.8107 15.113 .836 .908
perceived quality
17.7679 14.918 .836 .907
total
brand loyalty total 18.0523 15.279 .720 .924
brand equity total 17.8368 15.649 .803 .912
The above
table show the reliability of all the dependent and independent variables. The average of
reliability of cronbach’s alpha is .927 and the reliability of all the variable is above 0.7 which are
in the acceptable range which shows that all the variables are reliable and the interpretation
which is drawn from this data is reliable to perceived and forecast.

11. HYPOTHESIS:
11.1. Hypothesis 1:

The hypothesis 1 predict that hedonic benefits has effect on brand awareness. Linear
regression analysis was used to calculate the effect. The abstract results are shown in the
following table.

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of
Square the Estimate
1 .721a .520 .517 .62352

Page | 14
a. Predictors: (Constant), hedonic total

ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Regression 62.447 1 62.447 160.622 .000b
1 Residual 57.540 148 .389
Total 119.987 149
a. Dependent Variable: brand total
b. Predictors: (Constant), hedonic total

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.232 .200 6.161 .000
1 hedonic
.694 .055 .721 12.674 .000
total
a. Dependent Variable: brand total
The result of hedonic benefit is that (M=1.232, SD=.93291) explain that 52%
difference of the the dependent variable brand awareness (R2=.520,F=160.622 & P
value <0.05)

11.2. Hypothesis 2:

The hypothesis 2 predict that hedonic benefits has effect on perceived quality. Linear regression
analysis was used to calculate the effect. The abstract results are shown in the following table

Page | 15
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of
Square the Estimate
1 .702a .493 .489 .66101
a. Predictors: (Constant), hedonic total

ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Regression 62.834 1 62.834 143.808 .000b
1 Residual 64.665 148 .437
Total 127.499 149
a. Dependent Variable: perceived quality total
b. Predictors: (Constant), hedonic total

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.267 .212 5.978 .000
1 hedonic
.696 .058 .702 11.992 .000
total
a. Dependent Variable: perceived quality total
The result of hedonic benefit is that (M=1.267,SD=.9321) explain that 49.3% difference of the
dependent variable perceived quality (R2=.493,F=143.808 & P value <0.05)

11.3. Hypothesis 3:

Page | 16
The hypothesis 3 predict that hedonic benefits has effect on brand loyalty.
Linear regression analysis was used to calculate the effect. The abstract results are shown in the
following table.

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of
Square the Estimate
1 .528a .278 .274 .83488
a. Predictors: (Constant), hedonic total

ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Regression 39.801 1 39.801 57.102 .000b
1 Residual 103.159 148 .697
Total 142.960 149
a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty total
b. Predictors: (Constant), hedonic total

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.484 .268 5.544 .000
1 hedonic
.554 .073 .528 7.557 .000
total
a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty total

Page | 17
The result of hedonic benefit is that(M=1.484,SD=.93291) explain that 27.4% difference of the
dependent variable brand loyalty (R2=0.0274,F=57.102 & P value <0.05)

11.4. Hypothesis 4:

The hypothesis 4 predict that hedonic benefits has effect on brand equity. Linear regression
analysis was used to calculate the effect. The abstract results are shown in the following table.

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of
Square the Estimate
1 .640a .409 .405 .65346
a. Predictors: (Constant), hedonic total

ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Regression 43.783 1 43.783 102.534 .000b
1 Residual 63.198 148 .427
Total 106.981 149
a. Dependent Variable: brand equity total
b. Predictors: (Constant), hedonic total

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.604 .210 7.656 .000

Page | 18
 hedonic
.581 .057 .640 10.126 .000
total
a. Dependent Variable: brand equity total
The result of hedonic benefit is that(M=1.604,SD=.93291) explain that 00040.9%
difference of the dependent variable brand equity (R2=0.409,F=102.534 & P value
<0.05)

11.5. Hypothesis 5:

The hypothesis 5 predict that utilitarian benefits has effect on brand awareness. Linear regression
analysis was used to calculate the effect. The abstract results are shown in the following table.

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of
Square the Estimate
1 .730a .534 .530 .61497
a. Predictors: (Constant), utilitarian total

ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Regression 64.015 1 64.015 169.264 .000b
1 Residual 55.973 148 .378
Total 119.987 149
a. Dependent Variable: brand total
b. Predictors: (Constant), utilitarian total

Page | 19
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.039 .209 4.966 .000
1 utilitarian
.764 .059 .730 13.010 .000
total
a. Dependent Variable: brand total
The result of the utilitarian benefit is that (M=1.039,SD=0.85820)explain that 53.4% difference
of the dependent variable brand awareness ( R2=0.534,F=169.264 & P value <0.05)

11.6. Hypothesis 6:

The hypothesis 6 predict that utilitarian benefits has effect on perceived quality.
Linear regression analysis was used to calculate the effect. The abstract results are shown in the
following table.

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of
Square the Estimate
1 .679a .461 .458 .68118
a. Predictors: (Constant), utilitarian total

Page | 20
ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Regression 58.826 1 58.826 126.779 .000b
1 Residual 68.673 148 .464
Total 127.499 149
a. Dependent Variable: perceived quality total
b. Predictors: (Constant), utilitarian total

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.191 .232 5.140 .000
1 utilitarian
.732 .065 .679 11.260 .000
total
a. Dependent Variable: perceived quality total
The result of the utilitarian benefit is that (M=1.191,SD=0.85820)explain that 46.1% difference
of the dependent variable perceived quality ( R2=0.461,F=126.779 & P value <0.05)

11.7. Hypothesis 7:

The hypothesis 7 predict that utilitarian benefits has effect on brand loyalty
Linear regression analysis was used to calculate the effect. The abstract results are shown in the
following table.

Page | 21
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of
Square the Estimate
1 .616a .380 .375 .77411
a. Predictors: (Constant), utilitarian total

ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Regression 54.271 1 54.271 90.565 .000b
1 Residual 88.689 148 .599
Total 142.960 149
a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty total
b. Predictors: (Constant), utilitarian total

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.007 .263 3.823 .000
1 utilitarian
.703 .074 .616 9.517 .000
total
a. Dependent Variable: brand loyalty total

The result of the utilitarian benefit is that (M=1.007,SD=0.85820)explain that 38% difference of
the dependent variable brand loyalty ( R2=0.380,F=90.565 & P value <0.05)

Page | 22
 11.8. Hypothesis 8:

The hypothesis 8 predict that utilitarian benefits has effect on brand equity. Linear regression
analysis was used to calculate the effect. The abstract results are shown in the following table.

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of
Square the Estimate
1 .645a .416 .412 .64963
a. Predictors: (Constant), utilitarian total

ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Regression 44.524 1 44.524 105.503 .000b
1 Residual 62.458 148 .422
Total 106.981 149
a. Dependent Variable: brand equity total
b. Predictors: (Constant), utilitarian total

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.452 .221 6.568 .000

Page | 23
 utilitarian
.637 .062 .645 10.271 .000
total
a. Dependent Variable: brand equity total

The result of the utilitarian benefit is that (M=1.452,SD=0.85820)explain that 14.6% difference
of the dependent variable brand equity ( R2=0.146,F=105.503 & P value <0.05)

12. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

This research is conducted to find out the positive impact of hedonic and utilitarian benefits of
sales promotion depended on four variables that are brand awareness, brand loyalty, perceived
quality and brand equity. This research is conducted to enhance the acknowledgement related to
sales promotion towards brand equity by hedonic and utilitarian benefits. The benefits of sales
promotion and brand equity were discussed before, which results in positive impact of sales
promotion on brand equity (Buil et al., 2013; Huang & Sarigollu, 2012; Villarejo-Ramos &
Sanchez-Franco, 2005) through their benefits. This study revealed that both the hedonic and
utilitarian benefits have a positive impact on sales promotion, but utilitarian benefits have more
impact on brand equity as compared to hedonic benefits (Cal & Adams, 2014). Utilitarian
benefits are having more impact on brand loyalty, perceived quality and brand awareness than
hedonic benefit.

The main reason of higher impact of utilitarian benefits on brand equity is because utilitarian
benefits include price saving, purchase of higher quality, usefulness etc, that attract customers
and persuade them for the same purchases again and again. Utilitarian benefits provoke
customers to make purchases of the same brand for many times and this persuasion of customers
increase the firm profitability and brand loyalty. Other sales promotions like discount, gift,
bonuses etc, enhance the utility. While, enhancement in utility is evaluated as an enhancement in
perceived quality by the customer which directs them towards the brand loyalty.

Research findings evaluate the hedonic benefits of sales promotion have maximum impact on
brand equity. Brand equity is the commercial value that derives from consumer perception of the
brand name of a particular product or service, rather than from the product or service itself
(Keller, 2013).

Page | 24
The benefits provided by sale promotions positively add values in product's attribute and
benefits. While attitude is related to consumer's emotional and intrinsic feeling, these benefits
support the development of brand equity. The research findings of Srivastava and Sharma
(2016) support that emotional characteristics that can make positive impact on brand. But the
important point is that hedonic benefits which are enjoyment, fun, pleasant feelings etc, build
positive memories in the mind of consumer with enhance brand equity.

Hence, utilitarian benefits can be utilized to make a loyal consumer. This research is conducted
on positive impacts of sales promotion on brand equity while on the other side another research
could be conducted to know the negative impacts of sales promotion on consumer buying
behaviour.

Page | 25
REFERENCES:

Alvarez, B. A., & Casielles, R. V. (2005). Consumer evaluations of sales promotion: The effect
on brand choice. European Journal of Marketing, 39(1–2), 54–70. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing,
D. W. (1988).

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. Bollen, K. A. (1989).

Çal, B., & Adams, R. (2014). The effect of hedonistic and utilitarian consumer behavior on
brand equity: Turkey– UK comparison on Coca Cola. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences,
150(September), 475–484.

Chandon, P., Brian, W., & Gilles, L. (2000). A benefit congruency framework of sales
promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 65–81.

Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by design: The role of hedonic
versus utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 48–63.

Clayton, M., & Heo, J. (2011). Effects of promotional-based advertising on brand associations.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20(4), 309–315.

Cobb-Walgren, C. J., Ruble C. A., & Donthu, N. (1995). Brand equity, brand preference, and
purchase intent. Journal of Advertising, 24(3), 25–40.
Davis, S. J., Inman, J. J., & McAlister, L. (1992). Promotion has a negative effect on brand
evaluations – or does it? Additional disconfirming evidence. Journal of Marketing Research,
29(1), 143–148.
De Chernatony, L., & Dall’Olmo, R. F. (1998). Modelling the components of the brand.
European Journal of Marketing, 32(11–12), 1074–1090.

Del Rio, A. B., Vazquez, R., & Iglesias, V. (2001). The effects of brand associations on
consumer response. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(5), 410–425.

Page | 26
DelVecchio, D., & Puligadda, S. (2012). The effects of lower prices on perceptions of brand
quality: A choice task perspective. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 21(6), 465–474.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL: A guide for the uninitiated.
London: SAGE Publications.

Examining the role of advertising and sales promotions in brand equity creation. Journal of
Business Research, 66(1), 115–122.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

Huang, R., & Sarigöllü, E. (2012). How brand awareness relates to market outcome, brand
equity, and the marketing mix. Journal of Business Research, 65(1), 92–99.

Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.

Kirmani, A., & Zeithaml, V. (1993). Advertising, perceived quality, and brand image. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Liao, S. L., Shen, Y. C., & Chu, C. H. (2009). The effects of sales promotion strategy, product
appeal and consumer traits on reminder impulse buying behavior. International Journal of
Consumer Studies Journal, 33(3), 274–284.

Sánchez-Fernández, R., & Iniesta-Bonillo, M. Á. (2006). Consumer perception of value:

Literature review and a new conceptual framework. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,
Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 19(1), 40–58.

Singh, P. K., & Pattanayak, J. K. (2016). Study of the relationship among the factors of brand
equity: A study on fast-food brands. Global Business Review, 17(5), 1227–1239.

Page | 27
Srivastava, K., & Sharma, N. K. (2016). Consumer perception of brand personality: An empirical
evidence from India. Global Business Review, 17(2), 1–14.
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.
Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. Buil, I., De Chernatony, L., &
Martínez, E. (2013).

van Riel, A. C., De Mortanges, C. P., & Streukens, S. (2005). Marketing antecedents of
industrial brand equity: An empirical investigation in specialty chemicals. Industrial Marketing
Management, 34(8), 841–847.

Villarejo-Ramos, A. F., & Sánchez-Franco, M. J. (2005). The impact of marketing

communication and price promotion on brand equity. The Journal of Brand Management, 12(6),
431–444

Page | 28