Firstly, the first 02 questions of the thesis are answered, including: What are the
factors influencing pottery craft village brand equity? And how is the influence?
Results: Brand awareness has the strongest impact on the collective brand equity of pottery
craft village (with impact coefficient = 0.22), followed by brand association (0.21);
followed by perceived quality (0.17) and brand loyalty (0.16).
Besides, brand awareness affects brand loyalty (0.13), affects brand association
(0.14), and perceived quality (0.11). Perceived quality affects brand association (0.11),
affects brand loyalty (0.15). Brand association affects brand loyalty
13 trang |
Chia sẻ: honganh20 | Ngày: 11/03/2022 | Lượt xem: 400 | Lượt tải: 0
Bạn đang xem nội dung tài liệu Customer - Based brand equity: A case study on brand of traditional pottery village in the Northern provinces of Vietnam, để tải tài liệu về máy bạn click vào nút DOWNLOAD ở trên
ry.
“Perceived quality is an invisible, holistic sense of a brand. However, it is usually
based on basic dimensions including product characteristics to which the brand is attached
such as reliability and performance” Aaker (1991, 106). It is evaluated by performance,
features, conformance to specification, reliability, durability, serviceability - maintenance,
conformance, and perfection (With service, it is evaluated by tangible factors, reliability,
capacity, responsibility, empathy).
Aaker (1991, 55) defines that “brand loyalty is the measure of attachment that
a consumer has towards a brand. It reflects how likely a consumer will switch from that
brand to another brand, especially when that brand makes a change in price or product
features”. Five levels of brand loyalty are non-loyal buyers, the buyer with no reason to
change, the loyal buyer with switching cost, the buyer likes the brand, and committed buyer.
2.2.2. Empirical research model on CBBE
Table 2.3: List of empirical studies on the factors affecting CBBE
No. Factors Author/Year
1 Brand awareness Yoo et al (2000); Yoo and Donthu (2001); Washburn and
Plank (2002); Kim and Kim (2004); Pappu et al (2005);
Atilgan et al (2005); Villarejo-Ramos and SanchezFranco
(2005); Tregear và Gorton (2005); Duhan et al (2006); Buil et
al (2008); Kim et al (2008); Atilgan et al (2009); Chen and
Tseng (2010); Buil et al (2013); Saydan (2013) Welch (2014);
Spielmann (2014); Nguyen Viet Bang (2015); Nguyen Tien
Dung (2017); Le Thanh Tam et al (2017); Pham Thi Minh Ly
(2014) Tho and Trang (2011); Nguyen Truong Son and Tran
Trung Vinh (2011); Hoang Thi Phuong Thao et al (2010).
2 Brand associations Yoo et al (2000); Chen (2001); Yoo and Donthu (2001);
Washburn and Plank (2002); Pappu et al (2005); Atilgan et al
(2005); Villarejo-Ramos and SanchezFranco (2005); Tregear
và Gorton (2005); Buil et al (2008); Atilgan et al (2009); Tong
and Hawley (2009); Chen and Tseng (2010); Taglioni et al
(2011); Buil et al (2013); Saydan (2013); Welch (2014);
Spielmann (2014); Nguyen Viet Bang (2015); Nguyen Tien
Dung (2017); Le Thanh Tam et al (2017); Pham Thi Minh Ly
(2014); Nguyen Truong Son and Tran Trung Vinh (2011).
3 Perceived quality Kamakura and Russell (1993); Yoo et al (2000); Yoo and
8
Donthu (2001); Washburn and Plank (2002); Kim and Kim
(2004); Netemeyer et al (2004); Pappu et al (2005); Atilgan et
al (2005); Villarejo-Ramos and SanchezFranco (2005); Orth et
al (2005); Duhan et al (2006); Morrison and Eastburn (2006);
Buil et al (2008); Atilgan et al (2009); Dopico et al (2009);
Burmann et al (2009); Chen and Tseng (2010) Taglioni et al
(2011); Buil et al (2013); Saydan (2013); Spielmann (2014);
Nguyen Viet Bang (2015); Nguyen Tien Dung (2017); Le
Thanh Tam et al (2017); Pham Thi Minh Ly (2014); Thọ and
Trang (2011); Nguyen Truong Son and Tran Trung Vinh
(2011); Hoang Thi Phuong Thao et al (2010).
4 Brand loyalty Yoo et al (2000); Yoo and Donthu (2001); Washburn and Plank
(2002); Kim and Kim (2004); Netemeyer et al (2004); Pappu et
al (2005); Atilgan et al (2005); Villarejo-Ramos and
SanchezFranco (2005); Buil et al (2008); Kim et al (2008);
Atilgan et al (2009); Tong and Hawley (2009); Chen and Tseng
(2010); Taglioni et al (2011); Kim (2012); Buil et al (2013);
Saydan (2013); Welch (2014); Spielmann (2014); Nguyen Viet
Bang (2015); Nguyễn Tiến Dũng (2017); Le Thanh Tam et al
(2017); Pham Thi Minh Ly (2014); Nguyen Truong Son and
Tran Trung Vinh (2011); Hoang Thi Phuong Thao et al (2010).
5 Brand impression Kim and Kim (2004).
6 Product's functional
benefits
Vazquez et al (2002); Kocak et al (2007)
7 Product’s symbolic
benefits
Vazquez et al (2002); Kocak et al (2007)
8 Brand name's
functional benefits
Vazquez et al (2002); Kocak et al (2007); Burmann et al
(2009)
9 Brand's symbolic
benefits
Vazquez et al (2002); Kocak et al (2007)
10 Brand identity Netemeyer et al (2004); Burmann et al
(2009)
11 Product differences Spielmann (2014)
12 Price Orth et al (2005)
13 Social benefits Orth et al (2005)
14 Emation Orth et al (2005)
15 Environmental
benefits
Orth et al (2005)
16 Personal image Morrison and Eastburn (2006)
17 Attraction Morrison and Eastburn (2006)
18 Relevant brand Shankar et al (2008)
9
19 Trust Kim et al (2008); Burmann et al
(2009)
20 Satisfaction Kim et al (2008)
21 Brand trust Atilgan et al (2009)
22 Information Dopico et al (2009)
23 Perceived risk Dopico et al (2009); Kim (2012)
24 Committed
relationship
Kim et al (2008)
25 Brand empathy Burmann et al (2009)
26 Perceived value Kim (2012)
27 Origin Kim (2012)
28 Loyalty to product
origin
Spielmann (2014)
29 Perception of
authenticity
Spielmann (2014)
30 Perceived security Nguyen Viet Bang (2015)
31 Brand strength Le Thanh Tam et al (2017)
32 Brand passion Thọ and Trang (2011)
33 Brand image Hoang Thi Phuong Thao et al (2010)
Source: Data of the author
2.3. Building models, scales, and preliminary hypotheses
Models, scales, and preliminary hypotheses of the study are shown in the following figure:
10
H10
Perceived quality
(Aaker, 1991; Yoo et al, 2001;
Pappu et al, 2005; Lassar et al,
1995)
Brand awareness
(Aaker, 1991; Yoo et al, 2001;
Buil et al, 2008)
H1
H3
Brand equity of
pottery craft village
collective brand
(Yoo et al, 2001)
H8
H7
H5 H6
Brand associations
(Aaker,1991; Keller,2013;
Lassar et al,1995; Buil et al,
2008; Xiao Tong et al, 2009)
Lifestyle
H11c
H11d
H11a
H2
H9
Brand loyalty
(Aaker, 1991; Yoo et al, 2001;
Keller, 2013; Xiao Tong et al,
2009)
H11b
H4 Gender, age,
income
11
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGIES
3.1. Methodologies of the thesis
3.1.1. Data collection method
3.1.1.1. Methods of collecting secondary data
With secondary data, the author uses desk research to get an overall picture about the
research topic and the current situation as well as the research context of the thesis.
3.1.1.2. Methods of collecting primary data
- Qualitative research
To collect primary data, the author uses two methods: in-depth interview (personal
interview) with customers of northern pottery craft village brands and group interviews
with experts. As a result of these methods, the author builds the model, hypothesis, and
scales measuring research concepts for the thesis.
- Quantitative research
With the quantitative data, the author uses the interview survey method. As a result of
this method, the author has data and scientific evidence analyzed from a large number of
customers. These data bring the author to the scientific conclusions and necessary
governance implications.
3.1.2. Methods of processing data
3.1.2.1. Methods of processing qualitative data
The data collected after qualitative research are reviews, opinions, statements, and
comments from research subjects. These data are recorded, stored, and encoded in the
computer, then converted into writings and analyzed to make the most general conclusions
from qualitative research subjects.
3.1.2.2. Methods of processing quantitative data
Quantitative data is processed by 02 steps:
Step 1: Collect and prepare data
- Interview with survey questionnaires.
- Data classification, encryption, data entry.
- Data cleaning.
Step 2: Data analysis
Based on data processing standards developed by the scientists for each test
(Cronbach's Alpha, EFA, CFA, SEM), the author conducts the data analysis and evaluation
for each specific case.
3.2. Current situation of trademark protection for rural products in Vietnam
12
Table 3.2: SWOT Matrix for the current situation of northern pottery craft villages
Strengths (S)
S1: Special clay material for unique
products
S2: Large rive system
S3: Pottery products with cultural
significance
S4: Artistic and limited products
S5: Brand associated with the places
which are familiar with the consumers
Weaknesses (W)
W1: Raw materials are gradually scarce
W2: Most of the kilns are of poor quality
W3: Unsafe products (contain lead, toxic
chemicals)
W4: Most of the product are counterfeited
W5: Distribution channels are narrow
W6: Few markets are selling high-quality
products
W7: Unstandardized prices
W8: The tools used to promote the craft villages
are mostly not updated
W9: There are few people who know the
collective brand of the craft villages
W10: Craft village association members are not
aware of collective brand
W11: There is no museum to display or keep the
products
W12: Lack of young and skilled human
resources
Opportunities (O)
O1: Increasingly high market demand
O2: More attention from the state
O3: Economic integration, open market
Threats (T)
T1: Competition becomes fierce both
domestically and internationally
T2: There are few supportive policies
T3: Infrastructure is still poor
Source: Data collected by the author
3.3. Qualitative research
Two methods including expert interview and personal interview are used with an available
discussion outline which is open enough to exploit effectively all aspects. The results of
13
expert interview are as below:
Firstly, the research concepts receive a high consensus of 08 experts. However, 01
among 08 experts finds no difference between the two variables which are brand awareness
and brand association. The author appreciates this opinion and shall conduct further
research.
Secondly, the relationship between the independent variables and dependent variables
is tested. All of 08 experts find a positive relationship between brand awareness, brand
association, perceived quality, brand loyalty, and customer-based brand equity. The
relationship among the factors including brand awareness, brand association, and brand
loyalty proposed by the author is also agreed by all of 08 experts.
Thirdly, the scales measuring research concepts are built with the combination
between the original scale of Aaker, 1991, and empirical studies in the world. The scales
receiving the consensus of most experts are brand awareness, brand loyalty, and customer-
based brand equity. However, the scales of some research variables are adjusted to suit the
research context. The combination of opinions from 08 experts and 09 individual customers
(presented in Section 3.2.3) brings the author to a unified opinion shown by the calibrated
scales in Table 3.2.
Fourthly, the group of experts also considers and gives comments on forward
translation and back translation of the scales measuring research concepts.
Fifthly, the combination between the theory (Orth et al. (2005)) and the analysis of
expert interviews brings the author to the conclusion that lifestyle definitely can moderate
the relationship between brand awareness, brand association, perceived quality, brand
loyalty, and collective brand equity of pottery craft village. The scale of Lifestyle is used by
Google consumer segmentation [99], the author also finds that these scales are reasonable
and covers the scales of Orth et al (2005).
Most of the experts agree that Age can moderate the relationship between independent
variables and dependent variable in the author's research model. In fact, many studies have
pointed out such role of Age - Raziq et al. (2017), Nguyen Quang Dung (2019), etc. The
author shall put this relationship in the model for testing.
Sixthly, the demographic variables have different impacts on the relationships of
factors affecting CBBE. The author notices this and shall use quantitative data to evaluate
the quality of the scale and test the relationship. To check the clarity of texts (easy to read,
easy to understand, easy to evaluate) to ensure the customers understand correctly the
meaning of the question, the author conducts a personal interview. The results of all
methods above lead the author to the official model, hypotheses, and scales for the thesis.
14
Perceived quality
(Aaker, 1991; Yoo et al, 2001;
Pappu et al, 2005; Lassar et al,
1995)
Brand awareness
(Aaker, 1991; Yoo et al, 2001;
Buil et al, 2008)
H3
H1
Brand equity of
pottery craft village
collective brand
(Yoo et al, 2001)
H8
H7
H5 H6
Brand associations
(Aaker,1991; Keller,2013;
Lassar et al,1995; Buil et al,
2008; Xiao Tong et al, 2009)
Lifestyle,
age
H11c
H12c H11d
H12d
H11a
H12a
H2
H11b
H12d
H9
Brand loyalty
(Aaker, 1991; Yoo et al, 2001;
Keller, 2013; Xiao Tong et al,
2009)
H4
Gender,
income
inco
me
15
CHAPTER 4: STUDY RESULTS
4.1. Preliminary quantitative research results
With the collected samples accounting for 25% (250) of total official samples, the
author has 210 useful answer sheets. Cronbach's Alpha test results show that the variable
PQ6 is dissatisfied and should be removed. In EFA test, BAS6 has factor loading <0.5, thus
BAS6 is excluded from the group of observed variables explaining the research concepts.
After removing dissatisfied observed variables, 05 factors are extracted. These five factors
explain 64,171% of the total variance of the observed variables. The remaining observed
variables which explain perfectly the research concepts will be moved to the next step.
4.2. Official quantitative research results
4.2.1. Sample statistical result
The number of customers in each craft village is approximately the same. 64% of the
interviewees are female, it indicates that the majority of people buying pottery products are
women. This result is understandable as pottery products meet the great needs of women,
such as decorating, containing, belief, etc. In terms of age, the largest number of customers
is the group of 26-35 years old (276 persons, accounting for 32.1%). Another group of age
having a quite large number of customers is 36 - 60 years old, accounting for 26.2% of the
interviewees. The group of customers over 60 years old, accounting for 22.3% of the
interviewee is also interested in buying pottery products. The reason for this interest is that
pottery products meet the needs of this age group such as beliefs, rituals, decoration, or
containing. They are also popular purposes the pottery products serve. The age group of 18 -
25 years has the least number of customers (167 persons, accounting for 19.4%). Young
people have more interest and access to modern products instead of pottery due to the
traditional characteristics of pottery products. In terms of average income, most of the
customers have income from 5 to less than 10 million VND which is the basic living
standard of Vietnamese people. The percentages of the customer groups with income above
20 million VND and less than 5 million are low (13% and 16% respectively). This indicates
that the income of Vietnamese people is distributed quite evenly, and the most popular
income level is from 5 million to 20 million VND. Having an interest in new technology is
the lifestyle that most interviewees choose to answer (275 persons, accounting for 32.0%).
The remaining lifestyle groups with a relatively equal number of interviewees are music and
art (accounting for 24.5%), sports (22%), watching television, listening to the news on the
radio (21.5%).
4.2.2. Results of testing scales
Cronbach's Alpha test results show that the observed variables are satisfied. EFA
results remove BL3 which has factor loading less than 0.5. Five groups of factors explain
16
61.193% of the data variation. Thus, there is a total of 29 observed variables creating 5
factors, which are eligible for CFA analysis.
CFA analysis (to test the conformity of model, assess scale reliability, test
convergent validity, uniqueness, discriminant validity) is conducted and all factors meet the
requirements.
4.2.3. Testing model and hypotheses of the thesis
Results of testing model and hypotheses of the thesis
The results indicates that the model conforms with the research data as Chi-square/df=
1.583 (0.9; RMSEA= 0.026 (<0.08).
SEM analysis results:
Correlation relationship
between the factors
Estimate S.E. C.R. P Standardized
PQ <--- BAW 0.111 0.043 2.583 0.010 0.104
BAS <--- BAW 0.139 0.040 3.484 0.000 0.138
BAS <--- PQ 0.112 0.036 3.060 0.002 0.118
BL <--- BAW 0.126 0.045 2.831 0.005 0.112
BL <--- BAS 0.146 0.043 3.403 0.000 0.131
BL <--- PQ 0.135 0.041 3.316 0.000 0.129
CBBE <--- BAW 0.221 0.039 5.724 0.000 0.221
CBBE <--- BAS 0.210 0.037 5.654 0.000 0.212
17
CBBE <--- PQ 0.174 0.035 4.939 0.000 0.186
CBBE <--- BL 0.156 0.033 4.699 0.000 0.175
Then the author test again the reliability of the model with Bootstrap by repeated
sampling with the size N = 3000. The estimated results show the appearance of bias and
standard error of bias (SE-Bias) between bootstrap estimates and the optimal estimates of
the study, but it is insignificant. This indicates that the estimates in this study are reliable.
Specifically, the absolute value CR <= 2, so the bias is very small. Thus, it is concluded that
the estimates in the model are reliable.
4.2.3. Testing the influence of control variables (gender, income) on pottery craft village
collective brand equity
Result of testing the influence of control variables
Mean Std Deviation p
CBBE <--- Gender
Female 3.58 1.02
0.003
Male 3.77 0.95
CBBE <--- Income
Below 5 million VND 3.71 0.99
0.428
From 5 to 10 million VND 3.64 0.99
From 10 to 15 million VND 3.69 0.94
From 15 to 20 million VND 3.62 1.05
Over 20 million VND 3.57 1.05
Thus, the analysis results show that there are differences in the mean of CBBE
between males and females (p<0.05). Mean of CBBE in the male group (3.77) is higher
than the female group (3.58). In addition, there is no difference in mean of CBBE among
groups of income (p>0.05).
4.2.4. Testing the influence of moderating variables (lifestyle, age)
The author conducts a multi-group structure analysis to test the research model with
moderating groups by 02 models: invariant model and (partial) variant model. The result is
that hypotheses H11c and H11d are disproved, H11a, H11b, H12a, H12b, H12c, H12d are
accepted. Specifically:
Lifestyle moderates the relationship between BAW and CBBE. In which, BAW
factor positively influences CBBE factor the most strongly in group Like watching
television, listening to news on the radio (0.518); the second strongest influence is from
group Like sports (0.330); followed by the group Like music and art (0.299); the weakest
influence is from the group Like new technology (0.173)
Lifestyle moderates the relationship between BAS and CBBE. In which, BAS factor
18
positively influences CBBE factor the most strongly in group Like new technology (0.452);
the second strongest influence is from group Like music and art (0.321); followed by the
group Like watching television, listen to news on the radio (0.202); the weakest influence is
from the group Like sports (0.109)
Age moderates the relationship between BAW and CBBE. In which, BAW factor
positively influences CBBE factor the most strongly in group Over 60 years old (0.549); the
second strongest influence is from group 36-60 years old (0.284); followed by the group 26-
35 years-old (0.263); the weakest influence is from the group 18-25 years old (0.110)
Age regulates the relationship between BAS and CBBE. In which, BAS factor
positively influences CBBE factor the most strongly in group Over 60 years old (0.452); the
second strongest influence is from group 26-35 years old (0.314); followed by the group 36-
60 years old (0.232); the weakest influence is from the group 18-25 years old (0.154)
Age regulates the relationship between PQ and CBBE. In which, factor PQ positively
influences CBBE factor the most strongly in group 18-25 years old (0.472); the second
strongest influence is from group 26-35 years old (0.266); followed by the group 36-60
years old (0.207); the weakest influence is from the group Over 60 years old (0.135)
Age regulates the relationship between BL and CBBE. In which, BL factor positively
influences CBBE factor the most strongly in group 18-25 years old (0.522); the second
strongest influence is from group 26-35 years old (0.305); followed by the group 36-60
years old (0.201); the weakest influence is from the group Over 60 years old (0.111).
CHAPTER 5: COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Summary of study results and discussion
Firstly, the first 02 questions of the thesis are answered, including: What are the
factors influencing pottery craft village brand equity? And how is the influence?
Results: Brand awareness has the strongest impact on the collective brand equity of pottery
craft village (with impact coefficient = 0.22), followed by brand association (0.21);
followed by perceived quality (0.17) and brand loyalty (0.16).
Besides, brand awareness affects brand loyalty (0.13), affects brand association
(0.14), and perceived quality (0.11). Perceived quality affects brand association (0.11),
affects brand loyalty (0.15). Brand association affects brand loyalty (0.14).
Similarities with the author's research:
Most researches in the world and Vietnam confirm the relationship between BAW,
BAS, PQ, BL and CBBE: Yoo et al (2000); Yoo and Donthu (2001); Pappu et al (2005);
Buil et al (2013); Nguyen Viet Bang (2015); Nguyen Tien Dung (2017); Kim and Kim
(2004); Tho and Trang (2011), etc.
19
Differences from the author's research:
The results of the study once again confirm that there are differences between the
two concepts of brand awareness and brand association (two variables have been measured
by independent scales) which is similar to the results of Washburn et al (2002 ) or Pappu et
al (2005) or Buil et al (2008) and different from that of Yoo et al (2000, 2001). Meanwhile,
Yoo et al (2000, 2001) combined two variables of brand awareness and brand association
into one and measured by a common scale. In addition, the impact level of these factors on
CBBE is very different in different studies. This can be explained by the different research
contexts of each study.
Secondly, the third question of the thesis is answered: Is there a moderating of the
variables age and lifestyle to the relationship between brand awareness, brand
association, perceived quality, brand loyalty and CBBE?
The multi-group analysis leads the author to the result that the hypotheses H11c,
H11d are disproved, the remaining hypotheses H11a, H11b, H12a, H12b, H12c, H12d are
accepted.
The study of Orth et al. (2005) confirms that lifestyle moderates the relationship
between perceived quality and brand equity. However, the author's study results indicate
that lifestyle only moderate the relationships between brand awareness and brand equity,
between brand association and brand equity. The levels of moderating vary by each group
of lifestyle. Another new point the thesis has found is that age moderates all 04
relationships: between brand awareness and brand equity, brand associations and brand
equity, perceived quality and brand equity, brand loyalty and brand equity. The levels of
moderating vary by different groups of age.
5.2. Some proposals and recommendations
5.2.1. Some proposals for manufacturers and collective brand managers of pottery craft
villages
5.2.1.1. Group of solution based on secondary data
Based on the current status of secondary data of the thesis (Table 1.1: SWOT Matrix
for current situation of northern pottery craft villages - Section 1.1), the author proposes
some recommendations on products, prices, distribution channels, promotion-mix
5.2.1.2. Group of solution based on primary data
Analysis results show that there is a difference in mean of CBBE between males and
females. In which, the mean of CBBE in the male group (3.77) is higher than that of the
female group (3.58). Thus, male customers will need to be paid more attention in
communication programs on pottery craft village collective brand.
20
Group of solutions to improve brand awareness of pottery craft villages.
According to the survey results, brand awareness is the factor that has the strongest
impact on brand equity of pottery craft villages (with an impact coefficient of 0.22).
Therefore, we need to take strong measures to improve collective brand awareness of
pottery craft villages. The results show that the weakest scale is BAW4 which is the
collective brand of X pottery village is mentioned by many people when they need pottery
products. However, the surveyed objects have many very di
Các file đính kèm theo tài liệu này:
- customer_based_brand_equity_a_case_study_on_brand_of_traditi.pdf