1. Paulo Matos Graça Ramos
Tânia Marisa Dias
Elsa Simões Lucas de Freitas
Porto, 2013
8th Global Brand Conference,
UCP, Porto
Measuring brandMeasuring brand
equity:equity:
a comparison betweena comparison between
a globala global
and a national brand.and a national brand.

2. Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global and a national
brand.
Introduction:
The present study undertakes a comparative analysis of
the brand equity between a Portuguese brand (Salsa) and
a global brand of jeans (Levi’s) by means of the
application and testing the brand equity scale developed
by Yoo et al., (2000), which explores the relationships
between the composite of marketing-mix and the
creation of brand equity.
Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
2
Structure:
1.literature review
2.Hypothesis and conceptual model
3.Methodology
4.Data analysis
5.Discussion and conclusions

3. Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global and a national
brand.
Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
3
Research aim
To investigate the relationships between the
dimensions of brand equity (perceived quality, brand
loyalty and brand awareness/brand associations) in
the formation of brand value and the relationships of
the marketing mix (price, shop image, intensity of
distribution, advertising and promotions) in the
formation of brand value as well as the relationships
between the three dimensions of brand equity.
The scale by Yoo et al., (2000) will be tested against
the undertaking of a comparative study of the Salsa
and Levi’s brands.

4. Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global and a
national brand.
Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
4
Literature review
The main contributions comes from Aaker (1991) and Keller
(1993), who define brand equity from the consumer
perspective: it has to provide the same value for the
company and for the consumer.
For Aaker (1991), brand equity Brand equity is a set of assets
(and liabilities) linked to a brand's name and symbol that adds
to (or subtracts from) the value provided by a product or
service to a firm and/or that firm's customers. The major asset
categories / dimensions are:
1.Brand name awareness.
2.Brand loyalty.
3.Perceived quality.
4.Brand associations.

5. Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global and a
national brand.
Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
5
Aaker (1991) was the first to propose an evaluation model
based on the consumer used as the basis of subsequent
research (i.e. Yoo et al., 2000; Kim & Kim, 2004; Atilgan, et al.
2005).
Although Aaker’s model is not the most recent one in the
literature, some authors sustain that it is still the most
comprehensive, covering all the criterion variables that
directly and indirectly measure brand equity and that it also
integrates the behavioural component of Brand equity (Trinta,
2008; Ruževičiūtė and Ruževičius (2010).
This conceptualization allowed the development of the scale
by Yoo et al. (2000) and by Yoo & Donthu (2001), which will be
applied in the present analysis.

6. Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global and a national
brand.
Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
6
The study by Yoo et al. (2000) had the purpose of verifying
the existence of relationships between the elements of the
marketing mix and the creation of brand equity, by means
of a conceptual model of the brand value, which seeks to
represent an extension of the conceptual model by Aaker
(1991).
Yoo & Donthu (2001) perfected their earlier study (Yoo &
Donthu, 1996) equally based on the dimensions of Aaker
(1991, 1996) and Keller (1993), where the scale appears in its
more consolidated version.

7. Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global and a
national brand.
Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
7
However this scale is not consensual. Grinberg & Luce
(2000), Schultz (2001), and Washburn & Plant (2002)
pointed out that that it could not be considered an
universal Brand Equity scale.
The Aaker’s Model (1992, 1996, 1998, 2001), and in Aaker
and Joachims (2000) and in Keller (1993 and 1998) state a
clear differentiation between brand awareness
(awareness) of brand associations (associations/ image).
Therefore, it is still necessary to undertake further studies in
different sectorial and cultural contexts on this subject that
apply the scale developed by Yoo et al. (2000)
and Yoo & Donthu (2001).

8. Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global and a national
brand.
Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
8
Yoo and Donthu (2001) only identified three
dimensions: brand loyalty, perceived quality, and
associations/brand awareness confirmed by other
researches (i.e. Washburn and Plant, 2002; Neto,
2002; Neto and Luce, 2006) where brand awareness
and brand associations were found to be a single
dimension.
The study by Yoo et al., (2000) proposed relationships
between the three dimensions of brand equity
(perceived quality, brand loyalty and awareness /
brand associations) in the formation of brand value
and relationship marketing mix (price, store image,
distribution intensity, advertising and promotions) on
the formation of brand value.

9. Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global brand and a
national brand.
Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
9
Hypotheses investigated in the present study:
Related with the relationship between the Brand Equity
dimensions and the OBE
H1: The level of brand equity (OBE) is positively influenced by
the quality of the brand displayed in the product.
H2: The level of brand equity (OBE) is positively influenced by
the brand loyalty displayed in the product.
H3: The level of brand equity (OBE) is positively influenced by
the brand associations and awareness displayed in the
product.

10. Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global brand and a
national brand.
Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
10
Hypotheses (cont.)
Related with the relationship between the Marketing mix and
Brand Equity dimensions.
H4: The perceived quality of the brand is positively related with
the perception of high price.
H5: The perceived quality of the brand is positively related with
the distribution in stores with an upscale image.
H6: The brand associations are positively related with the
distribution in stores with an upscale image.
H7: The perceived quality of the brand is positively related with
the intensity of distribution in stores.
H8: The brand loyalty is positively related with the intensity of the
distribution in stores.
H9: The brand associations are positively related with the
intensity of distribution in stores.

11. Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global brand and a
national brand.
Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
11
Hypotheses (cont.)
Related with the relationship between the Marketing
mix and Brand Equity dimensions.
H10: The perceived quality of the brand is positively
related to the brand advertising investments.
H11: Brand loyalty is positively related to brand
advertising investments.
H12: The brand associations are positively related to the
advertising investments in the brand.
H13: The perceived quality of the brand is positively
related to the brand price promotions
H14: The brand associations are positively related to the ​​
brand price promotions.

12. Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global brand and a
national brand.
Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
12
Hypotheses (cont.)
Related with the relationship between the Brand Equity
dimensions.
H15: There is a significant and positive relationship
between perceived quality and brand loyalty.
H16: There is a significant and positive relationship
between perceived quality and brand associations.
H17: There is a significant and positive relationship
between brand loyalty and brand associations.

13. Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global brand and a
national brand.
Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
13
Perc. Qual.
Brand Loy.
B.awa/ass
B. Value
Price
Promotions
St. image
Dist. Intens.
Adv. Inves.
Conceptual model of the research:

14. Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global and a national
brand.
Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
14
Table 1. Summary of the methodology employed
Geographical coverage Portugal
Data gathering method Quantitative on-line questionnaire Survey
Date of data gathering May 2010 – January 2011
Sample type and size Convenience sample 464 validated questionnaires
Scale Used Yoo et al., (2000) and Yoo & Donthu (2001) 1-7 likert type scale.
Constructs and
dimensions measured
Dimensions of brand equity: perceived quality, brand loyalty
and brand associations/awareness.
Composite of marketing mix: price, store image intensity of
distribution, advertising and promotions. OBE (overall brand
equity).
Method and data
analysis software
Descriptive and Paired Comparisons T test: IBM SPSS©
v.20.
Due to the data constraints: inexistence of normal distribution
of most variables, non homogeneous variances and missing
values, the use of partial least squares (PLS) structural equations
(SmartPLS 2.0©
, Ringle et al., 2005) presented itself as the most
adequate data analysis method (Albers, 2010).
methodology

15. Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global brand and a
national brand.
Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
15
Sample:
Gender
•Women :70.3%
•Males 29.7%
Age
•Range: 14 to 71 years
•Average of 26 years.
Marital Status:
•Singles: 82.3%
•Married 13.6%
Education:
•Higher education: 66.80%
•Secondary education 32.3%
•Basic education 0.9%.
Occupation:
•Students: 47,2%,
•Workers 45,5%.

16. Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global and a
national brand.
Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
16
SALSA LEVI’S
AVE
Composite
Reliability
R2
AVE
Composite
Reliability
R2
Perceived Quality 0,59 0,85 0,32 0,60 0,86 0,45
Brand Loyalty 0,73 0,89 0,27 0,79 0,92 0,23
Brand awareness/
associations
0,45 0,71 0,36 0,56 0,82 0,47
Price 0,63 0,51
0,67 0,44
Store Image 0,43 0,64 0,55 0,79
Distribution intensity 0,61 0,81 0,68 0,86
Advertising 0,47 0,62 0,60 0,82
Promotions 0,35 0,52 0,32 0,57
Brand value (OBE) 0,77 0,93 0,57 0,83 0,95 0,68
Table 2. AVE, Composite Reliability and R2
Some dimensions are below the reliability (price; promotion)
and AVE critical values (promotion)
The all R2
values are higher in Levi’s with the exception of Brand Loyalty.
Data Analysis

17. Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global and a
national brand.
Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
17
SALSA LEVI’S
Perceived
Quality
Brand
Loyalty
Brand
awareness/
associations
Brand
value
Perceived
Quality
Brand
Loyalty
Brand
awareness
/ associations
Brand
value
Bootstrap
Perceived Quality 13,76 7,34 3,94 10,10 7,96 2,63
Brand Loyalty 6,99 20,55 4,81 33,12
Brand awareness/
associations
0,37 1,86
Price 1,24 0,51
Store Image 15,35 0,76 19,76 0,65
Distribution intensity 0,63 2,21 0,42 0,16 7,17 2,63
Advertising 0,82 0,03 2,46 0,40 2,16 1,16
Promotions 0,63 1,03 0,32 0,91
Path
Perceived Quality 0,52 0,40 0,17 0,49 0,44 0,07
Brand Loyalty 0,26 0,64 0,16 0,77
Brand awareness/
associations
0,01 0,05
Price -0,10 0,02
Store Image 0,55 -0,03 0,63 0,03
Distribution intensity -0,03 0,09 0,02 0,01 0,32 0,11
Advertising 0,04 -0,001 0,17 0,04 -0,09 0,10
Promotions 0,03 -0,05 0,04 0,08
Table 3. PLS bootstrap and Path coefficients.
Data
Analysis

18. Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
18
Results
•The Levi’s brand presents, in all its dimensions, higher
averages than Salsa. T test: all averages are not significantly
different (with the exception of Advertising investments).
•The bootstrap analysis shows that the dimension brand
awareness/associations, in both scales, does not present a
significant relationship with brand equity.
•The Confirmatory Principal Component Analysis showed
some discriminant validity problems: only “brand loyalty” and
“OBE” have, in all variables, values above the critical value of
0,70. It also gives indications that the Brand Association and
Brand Awareness should be divided into 2 different
dimensions.
Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global and a
national brand.

19. Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
19

20. Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global and a national
brand.
Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
20
Discussion / Conclusions:
the present study has only confirmed positive and significant
relationships between:
All the Brand Equity dimensions (H1 and H2 and H15 to 17)
and with the exception of brand awareness/associations with
OBE H3 (in both brands).
1.Store image and perceived quality H5 (both brands),
2.intensity of distribution and loyalty to the brand H8 (both
brands),
3.intensity of distribution and brand awareness/associations H9
(only in Levi’s)
4.and between advertising and brand loyalty H11(only in
Levi’s).
5.advertising and brand awareness/associations H12 (only in
Salsa)

21. Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global and a national
brand.
Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
21
Conclusions:
•Has this study confirmed only five positive associations
out of the 17 proposed hypotheses it challenges some of
the model premises regarding the expected relationships
between the dimensions.
•These results contradict those from Yoo et al., (2000) who
have obtained positive relationships in all dimensions in
their research.
•The Yoo et al. (2000) scale used seems to be more
adequate for brands with higher notoriety (Levi’s) and
may present problems with small and local brands.

22. Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global and a national
brand.
Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
22
Conclusions:
•Unlike Yoo et al., (2000) the results do not allow us to
conclude that the dimension brand awareness/associations is
constitutive of brand equity.
•The analysis of the results allows us to conclude that the OBE
dimension is a valid measure of brand equity, whereas brand
loyalty is the one that contributes the most the construction of
the brand value.
•Nevertheless the Yoo et al., (2000) Scale still needs to be
perfected and adapted to specific sectors and cultural
environments.
•The Salsa brand held up very well against the global brand
Levi’s. The major task is to reinforce its Advertising Investments.

23. Measuring brand equity: a comparison between a global and a national
brand.
Ramos, Dias e Freitas (2013)
23
Limitations and future research:
•The results may suffer from the sample constraints and
should be analysed under this conditions.
•The responses had a great number of missing values that
can be imputed to the scale used. When questions were
perceived as similar respondents tended to skip one of the
questions (considering them as redundant).
•Future researches should try to use a more representative
sample and try to adjust or develop a new scale. That could
be applied to smaller / local brands.