Price and Store Image as Mitigating Factors in the Perception and Evaluation of Retailers' Customer-Based Brand Equity

Abstract

Retailers serve as critical differentiators for brands and can be an important part of a firm's competitive advantage. Since consumers often base their buying decisions on impressions of price and store image (Grewal, Krishnan, Baker, & Borin, 1998), this research was designed to determine if there are any significant differences in customer-based brand equity for each retailer, based on customer perceptions of price and store image. This research was a quantitative, non-experimental, exploratory-comparative study using a survey research. A survey was conducted at a regional Southeastern U.S. university with a student body of approximately 3,500. The target population was students who are ardent customers of retail coffee shops. A total of 621 students completed the survey, but only 539 questionnaires were used for data analysis, 250 questionnaires containing McDonald's McCafe survey data and 289 questionnaires containing Starbucks survey data. Descriptive and inferential statistics including t-tests and three-way ANOVA were used to analyze the data and answer the research questions and hypotheses. Overall, Starbucks, the brand, displayed higher brand equity than McDonald's, the brand, in contrast to Interbrand's ranking of global brands in which McDonald's is ranked 12 and Starbucks is ranked 60 among the top global brands (2018). The results of this study imply that store image can add to brand equity, thus creating a sustainable competitive advantage for products and firms, while allowing them to charge premiums. Price usually is positively related to perception of quality; the study found that price was not significantly related to customer-based-brand equity in every retail operation.

Headnote

Abstract

Retailers serve as critical differentiators for brands and can be an important part of a firm's competitive advantage. Since consumers often base their buying decisions on impressions of price and store image (Grewal, Krishnan, Baker, & Borin, 1998), this research was designed to determine if there are any significant differences in customer-based brand equity for each retailer, based on customer perceptions of price and store image.

This research was a quantitative, non-experimental, exploratory-comparative study using a survey research. A survey was conducted at a regional Southeastern U.S. university with a student body of approximately 3,500. The target population was students who are ardent customers of retail coffee shops. A total of 621 students completed the survey, but only 539 questionnaires were used for data analysis, 250 questionnaires containing McDonald's McCafe survey data and 289 questionnaires containing Starbucks survey data. Descriptive and inferential statistics including t-tests and three-way ANOVA were used to analyze the data and answer the research questions and hypotheses. Overall, Starbucks, the brand, displayed higher brand equity than McDonald's, the brand, in contrast to Interbrand's ranking of global brands in which McDonald's is ranked 12 and Starbucks is ranked 60 among the top global brands (2018).

The results of this study imply that store image can add to brand equity, thus creating a sustainable competitive advantage for products and firms, while allowing them to charge premiums. Price usually is positively related to perception of quality; the study found that price was not significantly related to customer-based-brand equity in every retail operation.

Keywords: Brand equity, retail, price, store image, branding, coffee, perception

Introduction

Russel L. Hanlin, CEO of Sunkist Growers, summed it up perfectly when he stated that "An orange.. .is an orange.. .is an orange. Unless, of course, that orange happens to be a Sunkist, a name eighty percent of consumers know and trust" (as cited in Aaker, 1996, p. 1).

In a world that is evolving at lightning speed toward a greater interaction among consumers, industries, and business entities, technology and infrastructure enable them to be more efficient, productive, and effective than ever before (Friedman, 2005). As a result, marketers face tough challenges to better satisfy needs and wants of various entities and people than their competition. Consumers today are overloaded with information, and rely on brands to minimize the decision making process and to simplify their lives (Holt, 2003). In essence, the marketing discipline is evaluated, formed, and defined relentlessly, and branding is more important than ever (Leone, Rao, Keller, & Luo, 2006). In fact, brands are so important that when British and American teens were asked recently for their preference for a T-shirt with or without a logo on it, 98% preferred a brand over plain style (Lindstrom & Seybold, 2003).

Success usually is achieved through differentiation, positioning, and successful branding strategies. Positioning is defined by Kotier and Armstrong (2016) as "arranging for a product to occupy a clear, distinctive, and desirable place relative to competing products in the minds of target consumers" (p. 51). According to Ries and Trout (1986), it all started in 1972 with their series of articles published in Advertising Age titled "the positioning era," asserting that positioning "is not what you do to a product. Positioning is what you do to the mind of the prospect. That is, you position the product in the mind of the prospect" (p. 2). Avis is a classic example of successful positioning. Prior to launching its "We try harder" campaign in 1962, Avis had been a money-losing operation during the previous 13 years. By relating itself to industry leader Hertz while proclaiming it tries harder because it was "number two" in the car rental business, Avis was able to make a profit and triple its market share (Grabiner Hall, 2009; Ries & Trout, 1986). Another classic example is Ivory Soap, one of the most successful consumer products in recent history. At a time when all soaps were either yellow or brown in color and irritated the skin, Ivory Soap, introduced in 1879, was white and positioned as "99 and 44/100% pure," mild, and "the soap that floats." The fact that it floated, helped people find it in the bath water. The Ivory Soap positioning was reinforced by its name and wrapper that associated with purity and mildness. Great positioning helped Ivory products generate estimated sales of more than 25 billion dollars in more than 110 years (Aaker, 1991; Graydon, 2008).

Positioning plays an important role in achieving sustainable competitive advantage. Today's highly competitive retail environment makes it very challenging to develop viable and successful brands. Master brands enjoy the combination of brand equity, retail muscle, financial strength, and a loyal customer base that makes it harder for brands to compete, survive, grow, and sustain their competitive advantage. It is also increasingly hard to create and maintain points of differentiation, which are among the main drivers of brand strength (Aaker, 2003).

Most companies sell their products and services in retail markets, which are defined as "a group of customers who are attracted to the same retail mix because they have similar needs" (Levy, Weitz & Grewal, 2014, p. 107). Retailers are the link between manufacturers, marketers, and consumers. A retailer is "a business that sells products and/or services to consumers for their personal or family use" (Levy, Weitz & Grewal, 2014, p. 7). Retailing, which is defined very similarly to a retailer, "is the set of business activities that adds value to products and services sold to consumers for their personal or family use" (Levy, Weitz & Grewal, 2014, p. 7).

Because retailers are the link between manufactures, marketers, and consumers, they are critical to consumer brands' success (Kotler & Armstrong, 2012; Levy & Weitz, 2011; Wang, 2008). Research assessing the impact of elements such as price and store image on consumers and brand equity will benefit scholars and practitioners alike. Price is considered one of the most powerful and effective tools in retail strategy (Gauri, Trivedi, & Grewal, 2008), while image is an important differentiation tool (Kotler & Armstrong, 2010). Since the 1990s, brand equity was extensively researched "primarily from a consumer perspective, but rarely from the point of view of a retailer" (Baldauf, Cravens, Diamantopoulos, & Zeugner-Roth, 2009, p. 347). Retailers have the ability to influence consumers' evaluations and selection of brands significantly, and thus, play a vital role in the success or failures of brands in the market place (Baldauf et al., 2009; Levy, Weitz & Grewal, 2014, 2009). According to Kotler & Armstrong (2012), about 40% of consumer decisions are made in the store.

Baldauf et al. (2009), in their empirical analysis, asserted that price level was correlated negatively to Retailer Perceived Brand Equity (RPBE) as they reduce the value proposition. This was in contrast to the Yoo et al. (2000) study showing that high price is correlated positively to brand equity.

The literature does not provide adequate coverage of the effects of price and store image on retailer's brand equity. An understanding of these aspects will result in more efficient and effective ways of creating, building, and sustaining brand equity, and marketers will be able to identify, better define, and influence target market for improved business competitive advantages.

Because the specialty coffee industry is a significant and growing part of retailing in the U.S., this research focused on Starbucks and McDonald's, which are the two leading coffee retailers in the world.

Branding and Brand Equity

Brands serve many valuable functions for firms and consumers alike. Brands serve firms as markers for the offerings, increase marketing efficiencies and competitive advantage. For consumers this helps simplify the decision-making process, reduce risk, and serve as a promise for certain quality and delivery (Keller & Lehmann, 2006). According to Keller (2013), the word brand "is derived from the Old Norse word brandr which means" to burn," as brands were, and still are, the means by which owners of livestock mark their animals to identify them" (p. 2).

Branding came a long way since the infamous "Marlboro Friday," where on April 2, 1993 Philip Morris announced 20% price reduction with their leading brand of cigarettes to compete more effectively with generic cigarette makers who were gaining market share (Aaker, 1997; Parry & Sato, 2008). The announcement was followed by a drastic fall in their share price of more than 22%, and frenzy among the business media announcing the death of branding. In the process, Philip Morris stock lost $14 billion of its value (Quelch & Harding, 1996). According to the media, if Marlboro, a master brand, had to compete on price, the concept of branding did not matter anymore (Bedbury & Fenichell, 2002; Parry & Sato, 2008). In the bargain-conscious market of the 1990s, price seemed much more important than branding.

The defining moment for branding arrived in 1988 when "Philip Morris purchased Kraft for 12.6 billion dollars; six times what the company was worth on paper. The price difference, apparently, was the cost of the word -Kraft" (Klein, 2001, p. 7-8). This sparked an increase in ad spending and created awareness of the importance of brand equity to success in business. In 2005, Procter & Gamble, the largest consumer products company in the U.S., acquired Gillette, a leading consumer product company known for its signature razors, Duracell batteries, Braun and Oral-B dental care products (www.marketwatch.com). Gillette was sold for 57 billion dollars- about 20 times its annual sales. At the time, it was the largest acquisition in the history of Procter & Gamble. Many believe the high purchase price was due to the value of the word -Gillette. Hence, the price differential represented the equity of the Gillette brand. This is the gist of brand equity. Brand equity represent what brands mean to consumers and is created in part based on consumers' perception and expectations of the brand. It is also the added sales and market share a particular brand will bring due to its equity. Hence, Procter & Gamble agreed to pay that much more for Gillette because of the future value of the brand's added sales.

Most experts agree that there is still no common viewpoint about how to conceptualize and measure brand equity, since the term emerged in the 1980s. (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Keller, 2013, 2003; Raggio 2006; Myers, 2003; Wood, 2000). In part, it is probably because brand equity is an intangible asset (Kotler, 2000). The most important company assets such as brand equity or people are intangibles. They do not depreciate, or appear on balance sheets, but they can provide value or lose their value to the company or consumers.

To realize how intangible and important brand equity is to corporations, Interbrand calculated that 96% of the market capitalization value of Coca Cola is intangible, as well as 97% for Kellog and 84% for American Express (as cited in Jimena, 2006, p. 11). Jones (2005) pointed out that in a survey of top 3,500 companies in the U.S.A, "intangible assets accounted for 72 per cent of market value compared with only 5 per cent in 1978" (p. 13).

Aaker (1996) asserted that brand equity generates value through those five major categories of brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations, and other proprietary assets such as trademarks and patents.

Raggio and Leone (2007) argued that we should distinguish between brand equity and brand value. They bring the distribution agreement of Lee Jeans with Walmart to validate their point. By increasing distribution via the giant retailer, Lee Jeans should be able to generate more revenues and increase their brand value, but "Lee's image of selling its jeans at a store like Walmart may result in decreased brand equity within one or more segments of Lee's consumers" (p. 385).

While Raggio and Leone (2007) might have a valid argument, most experts agree that the essence of brand equity is the value added to the brand and the firm (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Keller, 2013; Kotler & Keller, 2009).

Keller (2013) defined it as "The differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer response to the marketing of that brand" (p. 41). Ultimately, the power of the brand lies in the minds of consumers and in what they experienced and learned about the brand (Keller, 2000; Lury, 2006).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact price and store image might have had on perceptions and evaluation of brands. These factors may have critical effect on brands and contribution to customer-based brand equity and could lead to sustainable advantage in the market place. Because perception is an integral part of consumers' evaluation of brands, it might play a significant role in creating building and sustaining brand equity. A selected group of U.S. students and ardent coffee drinkers were surveyed to explore whether price and store image affected consumers' perception of brands; how people viewed characteristics of successful consumer brands and evaluate brands; and if there was any difference attributed to elements such as price and image. A better understanding will enable marketers to identify smaller, betterdefined target markets for improved business competitive advantages.

Research Questions

1. Do store image and perception of price predict customer-based-brand equity?

2. Do store image and perception of price predict customer-based-brand equity equally well for both Starbucks and McDonald's?

3. Do consumer demographic characteristics predict customer-based-brand equity?

4. Do customer demographic characteristics predict customer-based-brand equity equally well for both Starbucks and McDonald's?

Research Hypotheses

* H1: The store image and perception of price significantly predict the customer-based-brand equity.

* H2: The store image and perception of price predict the customer-based-brand equity equally well for Starbucks and McDonald's.

* H3: Consumer demographic characteristics predict the customer-based-brand equity.

* H4: Customer demographics predict the customer-based-brand equity equally well for Starbucks and McDonald's.

Delimitations and Scope

Every study has limitations due to time, financial, human, and other constraints. This study focused on coffee retailers and uses a group of students from one university. Another concern is that the group might also be small and possibly more diversified and not representative of the general U.S. population. Another concern is that the study focused on the effects of price and store image on brand equity. Other marketing elements were not accounted for in this study. This study might carry an "inherent Western bias" of how Western cultures examine, interpret, and evaluate brands. Additional studies should examine cultures others than USA. In addition, the study focused on two retailers and other specialty retailers were not accounted for in this study.

Measuring Brand Equity

One of the most popular issues of Business Week is the annual ranking of The 100 Top Global Brands, ranked by Interbrand, a leading brand consultancy based in New York. It has received much attention in recent years because of the growing importance firms and consumers place on brands. Interbrand's methodology was chosen by BusinessWeek because it is similar to how other corporate assets are valued. To qualify for the ranking, brands must have brand value in excess of $1 billion; have one third of their sales outside the home base; and publish their financial and marketing data. These constraints eliminate from possible ranking some famous brands such as BBC, Visa, and even Walmart, the largest retailer in the world with a brand value of over 41 billion dollars (Chu & Keh, 2006; Financial Times, 2009). According to Interbrand, their criteria "exclude brands such as Mars, which is privately held, or Walmart, which is not sufficiently global" because they operate in some international markets but not under the Walmart brand. Ranking is calculated according to the present value of projected profits specifically attributed to branded products, brand strength, and brand value (www.interbrand.com). Although Interbrand and BusinessWeek are giants in their respective industry, the ranking often has been critized due to the subjectivity of methods (Chu & Keh, 2006).

Brand equity, one of the most popular marketing concepts in the past 20 years (Keller, 2013), traditionally is measured for accounting or strategic reasons, hence, financial or consumer related (Na, Marshall, & Keller, 1999; Myers, 2003). Keller and Lehmann (2006) asserted that academics study brand equity from the customer point of view, company point of view, and the financial perspective. Despite the growing interest in brand equity, researchers still have not reached a consensus on how to measure brand equity or how equity changes over time (Aaker, 1991; Ailawadi, Lehmann & Neslin, 2002; Grannell, 2009; Keller, 1993, 2013; Lassar, Mittal, & Sharma, 1995; Myers, 2003; Raggio, & Leone, 2007). There are several different methods of brand evaluations (Keller, 1993), but the lack of consistent and generally accepted standards of brand equity measurements hinders research and progress in the field of brand equity.

According to Aaker (1991), there are five general approaches to measuring brand equity. One approach measures price premium of a brand. Aaker (1996) suggested that "price premium may be the best single measure of brand equity available" (p. 107). With respect to set of competing brands, consumers will be willing to pay a price premium for certain brands or withhold a negative price premium for lesser perceived quality brands. The PC (personal computer) market can be a good example of how consumers buy lower brand equity personal computers such as Dell at a discount, compared to similar but much higher priced Apple (Kotler & Keller, 2009).

Another approach would be to related brand name impact to customer preferences, in which consumers place more trust in one brand over another, and this translates into added sales. As noted earlier, Philip Morris International paid 600% more for Kraft than its book value at the time because of the added sales the word Kraft will be expected to bring.

The third approach looks at the replacement value of the brand. With the growing importance of brands, launching a new product could be very costly (Aaker, 1997). This explains the high multiples brands receive when acquired by firms.

The fourth approach is based on stock price movements, assuming that stocks are priced according to the market expectations of the firm's performance. The replacement costs of tangible assets of the firm are subtracted, and brand value is determined as a function of stock price, number of shares, industry factors, non-brand factors, and other brand factors such as industry status, advertising, and age of the brand.

The fifth general approach is what Aaker (1991) called "the best measure of brand equity" (p. 26), and it focuses on the earning power of the brand. Basically, it is the discounted present value of future earnings of the brand; however, as experts noted, there are many ways of defining and estimating it (Aaker, 1991; Ailawadi, Lehmann, & Neslin, 2002; Keller, 2013; Lassar, Mittal, & Sharma, 1995).

To create generally accepted standards of brand equity measurements, Aaker (1996) proposed "the brand equity ten, ten sets of measures grouped into five categories" (p. 105) that measure loyalty, perceived quality, brand associations, awareness, and market behavior. The first four categories represent customer perceptions and the four dimensions of brand equity, while the fifth category measures market share, price, and distribution indices. Aaker (1996) cautioned that using his model will require "dozens of measurements," and survey instruments should be identical over products, markets, and countries.

In 1999, leading researchers and reactionaries participating in a brand workshop at a Marketing Science Institute (MSI) conference developed 10 criteria for an ideal measure of brand equity listed below (as stated in Raggio, 2006, p. 5).

Until academics, practitioners, and business agree on a common viewpoint, measuring brand equity will be defined a number of different ways for a number of different purposes (Keller, 2013).

Price and Brand Equity

Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal (1991) and Lamb, Hair, and McDaniel (2011) define price as what is given up in exchange for a good or service. They suggested that price serves as a measure of sacrifice as well as an information cue for consumers for the level of quality of the product and the brand.

Lu (2005) suggested that a consumer's response to a brand is not only a function of its current price but also a function of how that price compares to a reference price. Similar to Lu (2005), Poundstone (2010), and Ariely (2009) argued that humans rarely know the true value of an item, and they usually rely on their own perception of value and product advantage over another, and usually estimate the value according to what Poundstone (2010) called "anchor pricing." He suggested that consumers "anchor" or "mental benchmark" their desired item to other substitutions in order to get a sense of value and price. Poundstone (2010) and Ariely (2009) also suggested that people are unable to estimate the correct price due to various influences and consumers' irrational behavior.

According to Aaker (1996), price may be the "best single measure of brand equity" (p. 321) because it denotes the level of consumers' satisfaction and loyalty to a brand. He suggested that loyal consumers will be willing to pay a price premium for certain brands, and if they are not, their loyalty level is superficial. Companies such as Apple and Starbucks enjoy loyal and dedicated customers who formed "brand communities" that enable them to charge premium prices, compared to similar competing products. Starbucks was born out of an idea to charge three dollars for a cup of coffee at the time when free refills were the norm in restaurants. Aaker (1996) and Keller (2013) sugested that consumers may infer quality of a product according to the price. Grewal, Monroe, and Krishnan (1998) suggested that retail buyers are influenced by the advertised price as well as the perception of the quality. In studies on the effects of marketing mix, price, brand, and store information on consumers' perceptions of product quality and value, and their willingness to buy, Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal (1991) and Yoo et al. (2000) concluded that price had a positive effect on perceived quality but negative effect on consumers' perceived value and their willingness to buy.

Godin (2005) asserted that in order to create the right image, marketers tell stories consumers like to believe. Products that deliver value to consumers become successful due to their "story" and substance, and part of the story is the price. As the old adage goes, consumers' perception is their reality.

Store Image and Brand Equity

Determined by location, merchandise, advertising, store personnel, prices, and other variables, store image is how the store is perceived by customers (Ostrow, 2009). Positive store image is vital for marketers. Good-image stores attract more potential customers, as well as provide greater customer satisfaction and stimulate positive word-of-mouth communications (Yoo et al., 2000). Store image also has positive effects on perceived quality, and the store name although positive, has minor influence on perceived quality (Dodds et al., 1991).

Positive store image enable better price premiums and has a significant part in building brand equity (Hoeffler & Keller, 2002). It also has a positive effect on store loyalty (Koo, 2003). A few years ago, Dunkin' Donuts paid a group of Starbucks' devotees to drink Dunkin' Donuts coffee for one week, while another group of Dunkin' Donuts loyal customers were paid to drink Starbucks coffee for a week. The surprising results made the researchers dub the groups as "tribes." Both groups "loathed" one another other, and while the Dunkin' Donuts customers viewed Starbucks as "pretentious and trendy," Starbucks customers viewed them as "plain and unoriginal" (Kotler & Armstrong, 2010). Considering the fact that Dunkin' Donuts customers consist of middle-income blue-collar people, they are a perfect fit to Dunkin' Donuts image of "America runs on Dunkin" and the coffee retailer for the average Joe. Starbucks customers who are usually upper-income professionals serve as a perfect fit to Starbucks image as the "third place" for Yuppies. Although Dunkin' Donuts is ranked number one in customer loyalty in the coffee category, it is revising its strategy in order to refresh its positioning, and get a bigger share of the growing coffee market, by becoming the "Starbucks" of the average Joe (Kotler & Armstrong, 2010).

Discussion of the Literature

Theoretical Literature

Since emerging in the 1980s, the term brand equity still does not have a common viewpoint on how to conceptualize and measure it (Aaker, 2003; Keller, 2013; Porter, 2008; Ritson, 2009; Vrontis & Papasolomou, 2007).

Most experts agree that there is still no common viewpoint about how to conceptualize and measure brand equity. The following table presents major theoretical literature.

Empirical Literature

Baldauf, Cravens, Diamantopoulos, and Zeugner-Roth's (2009) empirical analysis researched the impact of product-country image and marketing efforts on retailer-perceived brand equity (RPBE). The study results indicate that marketing activities and image of countryof-origin were correlated to RPBE. The study also indicated that strong brands create higher perceptions of quality, loyalty and awareness, and promotional activities create value and are an important element of brand building activities. Baldauf et al. (2009) asserted that price level was negatively correlated to RPBE as they reduce the value proposition. This was in contrast to Yoo et al. (2000) study showing that high price is positively correlated to brand equity.

Pappu and Quester (2008) examined whether retailer brand equity varies between a department store and a specialty clothing store. Their findings also indicated that advertising and marketing budgets had great influence on brand equity. Pappu and Quester (2008) acknowledged the limitation of examining two different store categories instead of including more types of retail categories and stores.

Yoo et al. (2000) studied the effects of elements of the marketing mix on brand equity. They used data obtained from 569 students enrolled at a major state university. Their findings supported positive correlation between marketing mix elements and brand equity. They asserted that brand equity is developed through perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand awareness, and associations, which takes time to build or destroy. Grewal, Krishnan, Baker, and Borin (1998) studied the effect of store name, brands, and price discounts on consumers' evaluations and purchase intentions. The study concluded that store image had a direct and positive correlation with purchase intention. While the store image is influenced by the store's brand name and quality of merchandise it carries; price discounts, internal reference price, and brand's perceptions of quality had significant influence on perceived value.

Kim and Hong-Bumm (2004) investigated the relationship between customer-based restaurant brand equity and firms performance. They tested four elements of brand equity: brand awareness, brand image, brand loyalty, and perceived quality. Their study concluded that strong brand equity is significantly correlated with revenues. While brand awareness had the strongest effect on revenues, it had the smallest effect on brand equity. They also concluded that brand loyalty had the least effect on firms' performance. The authors asserted that the store's image is much more important than its characteristics.

Following is a list of empirical studies.

Methodology

Consumers' brand beliefs usually are based on memory and association with the brand. Variables such as word of mouth, personal experience, employee attitude, and product packaging can generate different brand image and perception. For example, due to McDonald's image as "fast and cheap," consumers may believe coffee served at McDonald's is not premium coffee, even if they never have had a cup of coffee at McDonald's. Due to the recent introduction of McDonald's McCafe in the U.S. and its positioning as a premium coffee, a considerable amount of money has been committed to McDonald's careful market positioning of its new premium coffee in the highly lucrative and competitive retail coffee segment. Historically, McDonald's restaurant interiors were "bright red and yellow color palette....served to stimulate the 'fast' portion of the fast-food equation" because research has shown these colors encourage movement and action (Rath, Bay, Petrizzi, & Gill, 2008, p. 334). Adapting to consumers changing eating habits, McDonald's began redecorating its restaurants with more earth-tone shades to encourage customers to spend more time and money at their restaurants. According to the Wall Street Journal, Starbucks is less sensitive to prices because of its high-end consumer base (Gasparro, 2012).

The present study investigated the effects of price and store image on customer-basedbrand-equity, and the differences between perceptions of two major retailers that may be attributed to price and store image. The independent variables were price, store image, and respondent demographic characteristics. The dependent variables were consumers' perception of brands and the customer-based brand equity (CBBE). The study was designed to provide a better understanding of how brand equity is affected.

Research Design

This research was a quantitative, non-experimental, exploratory study using survey research of subjects to examine the effects of price and store image on customer-based-brandequity for retail customers in South Florida. Data for this study came from a survey conducted among U.S. university students who were consumers and ardent customers of retail coffee shops. This design called for subjects to be surveyed in classrooms on a university campus.

Subjects were requested to respond to three survey instruments. The first part measured consumer demographic characteristics such as coffee drinking habits, age, race, gender, income, education, and academic GPA using the researcher's own Consumer Characteristics Questionnaire. Part two, using the brand equity measurement approach adopted from measures developed by Yoo et al. (2000), examined the effect of price on customer-based brand equity. Part three, the Brand Image Scale developed by Kim and Hong-Bumm (2004), examined brand image, and consisted of three constructs: brand loyalty, perceived quality, and brand association and awareness. The questionnaire was pretested using customers of Starbucks and McDonald's McCafe, and was revised and improved accordingly.

The study explored four research questions. The first research question explored the differences if any, in customer-based-brand-equity, based on customer perceptions of price and store image. Research question two explored the differences if any, in customer-based brand equity for McDonald's McCafe and Starbucks, based on customer perceptions of price and store image. Research question three explored differences in CBBE based on the characteristics of the retailer's customers. Research question four examined the characteristics of consumers of the leading coffee retailers in the U.S. (Starbucks and McDonald's), and differences if any in CBBE.

The study also tested four research hypotheses. The first hypothesis examined potential differences among store image, price, and retailer's customer-based-brand equity (brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, and brand association); hence, the researcher assumed the CBBE was correlated positively to store image and price. The second hypothesis examined differences among leading coffee retailers McDonald's and Starbucks based on customer's perception of price, store image, and customer-based-brand-equity (brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, and brand association); hence, the two major retailers' customer perceptions of price and store image will have differential influence on customer-based-brandequity. The third hypothesis explored differences among consumer characteristics, price, store image, and customer-based-brand-equity (brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, and brand association); hence, consumer characteristics can have an influence on CBBE. The fourth hypothesis explored differences among consumer characteristics, price, store image, and customer-based-brand-equity (brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, and brand association); hence, consumer characteristics of both retailers will have equal influence on CBBE.

Demographic and CBBE measurement instruments were used. The study had three parts. Part one, Personal Characteristics Profile questionnaire developed by the researcher, had 12 items that measured consumer characteristics of coffee drinking habits, brand preferences, money spent on coffee, and shopping frequency. Additional questions covered age, race, education, student status, academic GPA, gender, and employment status. Part two evaluated price and brand awareness according to the Marketing Mix scale developed by Yoo et al. (2000) using 5-point Likert-type scales, with anchors of 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. The 9-item scale with two constructs: 4 each for price, and 5 for brand awareness-associations. Yoo et al. (2000) studied the effects of elements of the marketing mix on brand equity. They used data obtained from 569 students enrolled at a major state university. Their findings indicated a positive correlation between marketing mix elements and brand equity. They asserted that brand equity is developed through perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand awareness, and associations, which takes time to build or to destroy. They also asserted that high advertising spending, high price, good store image, and high distribution intensity is positively correlated to brand equity. However, they cautioned that frequent use of price promotions will have a negative effect on brand equity. Yoo et al. (2000) recognized the challenge of using students only in the study, but argued that students also were primary consumers (p. 202).

Part three evaluated customer-based-brand-equity evaluating brand loyalty, brand image, and perceived quality based on the Brand Equity Scale (Kim & Hong-Bumm, 2004), using 5point Likert-type scales, with anchors of 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. The Brand Equity Scale is a 25-item scale with three constructs: 6 for brand loyalty, 9 for perceived quality, and 8 for brand image. Kim et al. (2004) investigated the relationship between customer-based restaurant brand equity and firms' performance. They tested four elements of brand equity: brand awareness, brand image, brand loyalty, and perceived quality. Their study concluded that strong brand equity is significantly correlated with revenues. While brand awareness had the strongest effect on revenues, it had the smallest effect on brand equity.

To address major sources of internal validity, the researcher looked at four possible threats to internal validity such as measurement, history, maturation, and statistical regression (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). Internal validity of the study was insured by adopting existing measurements of brand equity in retail environment by Yoo et al. (2000), and Kim and Hong- Bumm (2004). All the above instruments had a reliability Cronbach's coefficients of .80 or higher.

Threats to instrumentation was minimized by ensuring the researcher was the sole observer and handler of surveys, done in a timely manner. Selection threat was minimized because surveys were conducted in classrooms with a group of undergraduate student body that shared similar characteristic. Due to the short time period of the administration of the survey, the researcher did not expect a problem with maturation, attrition, or history. Also, instrumentation did not present a threat to internal validity because data were collected using the same instruments and by the same researcher.

With regard to external validity and as it related to the "representativeness or generalization" of the research (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000, p. 26), the researcher recognized that the student sample from a regional university might have limited the ability to generalize the findings. The subjects (coffee drinkers), and the fact that precautions were taken to ensure a large enough sample of participants, minimized effects on the external validity.

To minimize controls for extraneous variables, Kerlinger and Lee (2000) suggested one should use participants as homogenous as possible. The study sample was derived from students at a regional U.S. university, which represented a fairly homogenous group of young adults, students, who are consumers and coffee drinkers. The researcher understood that a cohort of students probably will share many similar demographic characteristics, such as age, income, marital status, student status, employment, and race. This group also represented coffee drinkers. Kerlinger and Lee (2000) also suggest we can control extraneous variables through randomization. To achieve it, the "accidental sample" of students was surveyed through inclassroom interceptions during the day, choosing classrooms at random.

Some perceived weaknesses were the use of the group of students from one university, and certain and limited geographical location such as southeastern United States and MiamiDade County, Florida. The group also might have been small and not representative of the general U.S. population. To minimize effects, the same procedures such as questionnaires, survey conditions, and time of surveys were used for all students and by same interviewer. Sampling Method

This study analyzed the individual retail coffee consumer in the U.S. The sampling frame for this study was college students who were customers of retail coffee shops. Subjects were selected from students on the campus of St. Thomas University during weekdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The "accidental sample" was selected from coffee drinking students. Because surveyed subjects were not returned to the population, this was sampling without replacement. Subjects were intercepted in classrooms throughout the university campus and were asked to participate as part of a university study. To ensure sampling without replacement, subjects were asked if they had completed this survey earlier and the sample was a convenience sample.

Data collection took place during the day, and the researcher performed the survey process and collection of forms. The researcher ensured the same procedures such as questionnaires, survey conditions, and times of surveys were used for all students and by the same interviewer.

Kerlinger and Lee (2000) argued that too large a sample will result in wasted resources and too small of a sample will not be large enough to detect any significance. They added that "the larger the sample the smaller the error" (p. 175). When determining sample size, as a rule, the larger the sample, the smaller the error of deviation from population values and vice versa. It is critical to have a sufficient sample size because larger samples are more accurate and "give the principle of randomization, or simply randomness, a chance to work" (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000, p. 177). It is critical to have sufficient sample size to have power in the test, which is the ability of a test of statistical significance to detect differences in means. Power is a fractional value between 0 and 1.00 that is defined as "1-b, where b is the probability of committing Type II error. The Type II error is failing to reject a false null hypothesis" (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000, p. 453).

In this study, the accessible population consisted of a student body of approximately 3,500 at St. Thomas University, and the sample size was 539, constituted by 289 students who frequent Starbucks and 250 students who frequent McDonalds' McCafe. Because the researcher was well aware that most coffee drinkers might frequent both retailers, respondents were asked to answer questionnaires regarding the retailer they frequent more. In essence, the researcher preferred to follow the money.

Data Collection and Data Analysis Procedures

Hypothesis tests were evaluated using multiple linear regression. Regression is the most appropriate techniques because it examines the strength of the association between the criterion variable, customer-based-brand-equity, and a set of independent variables that are predictors of the criterion. Multiple linear regression is more appropriate than correlation because it allows the researcher to examine the collective association between the criterion variable and more than one independent variable. The significance of the regression is evaluated by an F-test. If this test is statistically significant, it means the set of predictors are significantly associated with the criterion variable. The strength of the association between individual predictors and the criterion variable is evaluated by a t-test. A statistically significant t-test for a particular independent variable indicates there is a significant association between that variable and the criterion, after controlling for the influence of the other independent variables in the model. This reduces the risk of an erroneous correlation between a single independent variable and the criterion.

Data Analysis and Results

Overview

This research was a quantitative, non-experimental, exploratory-comparative study using survey research of subjects. Data were collected from U.S. university students who are customers of retail coffee shops, and then the data were analyzed using the IBM SPSS 19.0 statistical software. Descriptive and inferential statistics including t-tests and three-way ANOVA were used to analyze the data and answer the research questions and hypotheses.

Sample and Data Analysis

The convenience and accidental sample was selected from coffee drinking students on the campus of St. Thomas University, located in the southeastern United States. Subjects were contacted in classrooms throughout the university's campus during weekdays and were asked to participate voluntarily in a university study. To ensure sampling without replacement, subjects were asked if they had completed the survey earlier. A total of 621 students completed the survey, but 82 questionnaires were deemed incomplete responses and were not used in the study. A total of 539 questionnaires was used for the data analysis, with 250 questionnaires containing McDonald's McCafe survey data, and 289 questionnaires containing Starbucks survey data. Because the researcher was aware that most coffee drinkers might frequent both retailers, respondents were asked to answer questionnaires regarding the retailer they frequent most. In essence, the researcher preferred to follow the money.

In this study, 329 respondents answered the Starbucks survey, while 292 respondents answered the McDonald's McCafe survey. Forty Starbucks survey responses were deemed invalid, while McDonald's McCafe had 42 invalid responses. The researcher deemed a particular survey as invalid for various reasons, especially respondents who did not complete important questions such as "Do you drink/purchase Coffee at Starbucks and/or McDonald's McCafe?" In addition, those respondents who had conflicting answers such as answering "yes" to question number two "Do you drink/purchase Coffee at Starbucks and/or McDonald's McCafe?" while answering "no" to question number nine: "I don't drink coffee at Starbucks (McDonald's McCafe)" were deemed invalid. This resulted in a total of 250 valid McDonald's McCafe questionnaires, and 289 valid Starbucks questionnaires. Table 4-1 presents the frequency of valid, invalid, and total responses.

The survey instrument included three parts. The first part measured consumer demographic characteristics using the researcher's own Consumer Characteristics questionnaire. Part two, using the brand equity measurement approach adopted from Yoo, Donthu, and Lee (2000) examined the effect of price on customer-based brand equity. Part three, the Brand Image Scale developed by Kim and Hong-Bumm (2004) examined brand equity, and consisted of three constructs: brand loyalty, perceived quality, and brand association and awareness.

Reliability Analysis

The reliability of the scales was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. The standard for reliability in peer reviewed publications is a minimum of 0.80. All the scales were reliable.

The first statistical test is a descriptive analysis of consumer characteristics of specialty coffee retailers.

Descriptive Analysis

Characteristics of consumers of specialty coffee retailers. Consumer characteristics of Starbucks and McDonald's McCafe, two of the world's leading coffee retailers, were analyzed, and subjects answered questions regarding gender, employment status, age, race, education level, academic GPA, coffee drinking habits at Starbucks and McDonald's McCafe, and prices paid. Among this student population, males were the majority in the sample with 53.1%, and females were 46.9%. A total of 71.3% of respondents were between 18 and 24 years old while 13.5% were between the ages of 25 and 27 years old. Since this was a student sample, it was not surprising that most did not work or worked part time. A total of 42.3% were not working, while 32.2% worked part time. Only 25.5% worked full time. The majority of student consumers in the sample describe themselves as "Hispanic/Latino" at 42.5%, followed by "White" at 19.4%, and "Black or African American" at 19.4%.

The educational level for student consumers sample of Starbucks and McDonald's McCafe was distributed evenly with postgraduate at 18%, four-year college at 17.8%, senior status at 12.4%, and the junior status at the largest percentage of 19.3%. The sophomore category was at 17.2%, and the first year category represented 15.4%. The majority of sample students self-reported an academic GPA between 3.3 and 3.79 (38%) followed by a GPA between 2.8 and 3.29 (30.1%).

The majority of consumers reported they visited their retail establishment two to three times a week (39.5%), while 32.2% visited less than once a week. On average, customers spent $5.57 per visit. Starbucks customers spent on average $6.57 per visit, and more than McDonald's McCafe customers who spent $4.57 per visit.

To create a numerical index for each of the constructs used in the analysis (customerbased-brand equity, brand loyalty, brand association, brand awareness, perceived quality, store image, and perception of price), the constructs were made operational as the principal component of the relevant items on the instrument. For the Perception of Price index, a high value indicates the perception of a high price. For the Store Image index, a high value indicates a positive image. Similar to the other indices, a high value indicates a high level of brand equity, brand loyalty, brand association, brand awareness, and perceived quality.

Customer Perceptions of Price and Store Image

Consumers often base their buying decisions on impressions of price and store image. For this study, we examined price and store image based on studies by Yoo, Donthu, and Lee (2000) and Kim and Hong-Bumm (2004), using 5-point Likert-type scales, with anchors of 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. Descriptive analysis of the means and standard deviations of customer perceptions of price and store image is shown in Table 4-5. Price was perceived as significantly higher at Starbucks, t(516) = 17.138, p < .001. Also, store image was significantly more positive at Starbucks, t(524) = 10.711, p < .001.

The response indicates that specialty coffee consumers usually view prices charged for their coffee indulgence as mid-range. However, Starbucks customers might view price as more accurately representing value for their coffee.

Customer perception of store image range indicates that specialty coffee consumers usually have a good image of their coffee purveyor, while Starbucks had a much higher quality and well-known image among its customers than McDonald's McCafe. This might be the reason Starbucks customers pay higher prices than their competitor, but still view their prices more adequate than McDonald's McCafe prices.

Results indicate that both store image and price might positively influence specialty coffee consumers buying behavior. These results present definite value to the retailer.

Customer-Based Brand Equity

For the purpose of the study, customer-based brand equity (CBBE) was measured by four dimensions: brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand awareness, and brand association. In essence, strong brand equity means customers perceive the brand to be of high quality; and have strong, positive, and favorable brand associations and awareness. In addition, customers are loyal to the brand when there is strong brand equity.

An analysis of customer perceptions of brand equity revealed that, in general, specialty coffee customers were loyal to their coffee retailer. The means of brand loyalty ranged from 3.58 to 4.24. Also, customers exhibited a high level of brand awareness and brand association that ranged from 3.91 to 4.53, and this was not surprising since Starbucks and McDonald's McCafe are leading global retailers. When it comes to perceived quality, results also were strong, ranging from 3.5 to 4.25. Overall, Starbucks, the brand, displayed a higher brand equity than McDonald's, the brand, in contrast to Interbrand's ranking of global brands where McDonald's is ranked 12 and Starbucks is ranked 60 among the top global brands (2018).

The descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations for customer perceptions are shown in Table 4-6. All the differences in means are highly statistically significant, p < .001, and all the differences favor Starbucks over McDonald's.

In summary, all Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) displayed strong and favorable constructs.

Research Question 1

Do store image and perception of price predict customer-based-brand equity?

Consumers' perceptions of the brand are the "snapshot impression of the brand and its association" (Berry, 2000, p. 129). The Yoo, Donthu, and Lee (2000) study showed that high price is positively correlated to brand equity, and research question number 1 looked at the differences, if any, in customer-based brand equity for McDonald's McCafe and Starbucks, based on customer perceptions of price.

Research Hypothesis 1: The store image and perception of price significantly predict the customer-based-brand equity.

Hence, the researcher expects the store image and perception of price are positively correlated with customer-based-brand equity.

A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate how well store image and perception of price predicted customer-based-brand equity. The predictors were store image and perception of price. The criterion variable was the customer-based-brand equity. The linear combination of predictors was significantly related to customer-based-brand equity, F (2,480) = 808.048, p < .001. The sample multiple correlation coefficient was .88, indicating that approximately 77% of the variance of customer-based-brand equity in the sample can be accounted for by the linear combination of predictors; see Table 4-7. The research hypothesis was accepted. As expected, store image and perception of price are positively correlated with customer-based-brand equity.

Research Question 2

Do store image and perception of price predict customer-based-brand equity equally well for both Starbucks and McDonald's?

Research Hypothesis 2: The store image and perception of price predict the customerbased-brand equity equally well for Starbucks and McDonald's.

A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the extent to which store image and perception of price predicted customer-based-brand equity equally for Starbucks and McDonald's. The predictors were store image, perception of price, a dummy variable indicating which store the respondent visits, and variables indicating the interaction of store with store image and perception of price. If the interaction variables are statistically significant, it indicates there are significant differences between Starbucks and McDonald's. The criterion variable was the customer-based-brand equity.

The linear combination of predictors was significantly related to customer-based-brand equity, F (5,477) = 338.676, p < .001. The sample multiple correlation coefficient was .88, indicating that approximately 77% of the variance of customer-based-brand equity in the sample can be accounted for by the linear combination of predictors; see Table 4-8. The research hypothesis was accepted because the interaction terms were not statistically significant. As expected, store image was positively correlated with customer-based-brand equity; however, the perception of price was not significantly related to customer-based-brand equity.

Research Question 3

Do consumer demographic characteristics predict customer-based-brand equity?

Research Hypothesis 3: Consumer demographic characteristics predict the customerbased-brand equity.

A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the extent to which consumer demographic characteristics predicted customer-based-brand equity. The predictors were gender, employment status, age, race, education, and academic GPA. The criterion variable was the customer-based-brand equity. The linear combination of predictors was significantly related to customer-based-brand equity, F (6,465) = 4.562, p < .001. The sample multiple correlation coefficient was .24, indicating that approximately 6% of the variance of customerbased-brand equity in the sample can be accounted for by the linear combination of predictors; see Table 4-9. The research hypothesis was accepted. Higher levels of education are associated with higher customer-based-brand equity. Female gender also was associated with higher customer-based-brand equity.

Research Question 4

Do customer demographic characteristics predict customer-based-brand equity equally well for both Starbucks and McDonald's?

Research Hypothesis 4: Customer demographics predict the customer-based-brand equity equally well for Starbucks and McDonald's.

A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the extent to which consumer demographic characteristics predicted customer-based-brand equity equally well for Starbucks and McDonald's. The predictors were gender, employment status, age, race, education, academic GPA, store, and variables indicating the interaction of store with customer demographics. If the interaction variables are statistically significant, it indicates there are significant differences between Starbucks and McDonald's. The criterion variable was the customer-based-brand equity.

The linear combination of predictors was significantly related to customer-based-brand equity, F (13,458) = 13.571, p < .001. The sample multiple correlation coefficient was .53, indicating that approximately 28% of the variance of customer-based-brand equity in the sample can be accounted for by the linear combination of predictors; see Table 4-10. The research hypothesis was rejected because the interaction term for academic GPA was statistically significant. Higher academic GPA was associated with greater customer-based-brand equity for Starbucks, but not for McDonald's.

In summary, the customer-based brand equity (CBBE) constructs were favorable for both groups of respondents. However, Starbucks was consistently rated higher in all categories. Store image and perception of price were statistically significant predictors of customer-based-brand equity while gender and education were associated with customer-based-brand equity. Store image had the strongest association with brand equity followed by perception of price. Gender and education had a weaker association. Academic GPA was significantly associated with customer-based-brand equity only for Starbucks. The other demographic characteristics were not associated with customer-based-brand equity for either Starbucks or McDonald's.

Findings, Discussion, Conclusions, Limitations, and Recommendations

Findings and Discussions

This study aimed to provide a better understanding of the effects of price and store image on customer-based brand equity and possible differences between perceptions of two major retailers that may be attributed to price and store image. The study concentrated on Starbucks and McDonalds' McCafe, the two leading coffee retailers in the U.S. In addition, this study explored differences in customer-based brand equity based on the characteristics of the retailer's customers. The independent variables were price, store image, and respondent demographic characteristics such as coffee drinking habits, age, race, gender, income, education, and academic GPA. The dependent variable was consumers' perception of brands and the customer-based brand equity.

Research Question One established the relationship between store image, perception of price, and customer-based-brand equity. A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate how well store image and perception of price predicted customer-based-brand equity. The combination of store image and perception of price was significantly related to customerbased-brand equity. The sample multiple correlation coefficient was .88, indicating that approximately 77% of the variance of customer-based-brand equity in the sample can be accounted for by the linear combination of predictors. This supported the research hypothesis that store image and perception of price are positively correlated with customer-based-brand equity. The results supported the Yoo, Donthu, and Lee (2000) assertion that high price is positively correlated to brand equity and the conclusion of the study by Grewal et al. (1998) that store image had a direct and positive correlation with purchase intention. Results contradicted the assertion by Baldauf et al. (2009) that price level was negatively correlated to brand equity as it reduces the value proposition.

Research Question Two established the relationship among store image, perception of price, Starbucks and McDonald's, and customer-based-brand equity. A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the extent to which store image and perception of price predicted customer-based-brand equity equally for Starbucks and McDonald's. The linear combination of store image, perception of price, and the interaction of store with store image and perception of price were significantly related to customer-based-brand equity. The research hypothesis was accepted, and store image was positively correlated with customer-based-brand equity; however, the perception of price was not significantly related to customer-based-brand equity. This did not align with the assertion of Pappu et al. (2008) that retailer brand equity varies significantly between different categories of retailers (department store and specialty clothing store).

Research Question Three addressed the relationship between consumer demographic characteristics and customer-based-brand equity. A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted and resulted in acceptance of the research hypothesis. It indicated that higher levels of education are associated with higher customer-based-brand equity and that the female gender was associated with higher customer-based-brand equity.

Research Question Four dealt with customer demographic characteristics and how well they can predict customer-based-brand equity equally for both Starbucks and McDonald's. A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted and indicated the interaction term for academic GPA was statistically significant. While higher academic GPA was associated with greater customer-based-brand equity for Starbucks, it was not for McDonald's, and the research hypothesis was rejected.

Conclusions

This research explored the effects of price and store image on customer-based brand equity, and differences among customer perceptions of two major retailers, attributed to price and store image. Specific conclusions to the research questions and hypotheses follow:

1. Store image and perception of price positively correlate with customer-based-brand equity.

2. Store image positively correlate with customer-based-brand equity equally well for Starbucks and McDonald's, but the perception of price was not significantly related to customer-based-brand equity. This supports the popular notion that Starbucks customers are YUPPIEs (young urban professionals), while McDonald's customers tend to be working class people.

3. Consumer demographic characteristics predict the customer-based-brand equity. This study showed that higher levels of education were associated with higher customerbased-brand equity. Higher customer-based-brand equity did vary based on gender.

4. The hypothesis that customer demographics predict the customer-based-brand equity equally well for Starbucks and McDonald's was rejected. Higher academic GPA was associated with greater customer-based-brand equity for Starbucks, but not for McDonald's.

Grewal et al. (1998) asserted that consumers often based their buying decisions on impressions of price and store image. The results of this study imply that store image can add to brand equity, thus creating a sustainable competitive advantage for products and firms, while allowing them to charge premiums. Price usually is positively related to perception of quality; the study found that price was not significantly related to customer-based-brand equity in every retail operation. This was contradictory to Baldauf et al. (2009), but was supported by Yoo et al. (2000).

This study showed the importance of store image and other marketing variables in building strong brands. Strong brand equity has many positive implications for organizations- from more favorable response from consumers to larger margins, greater trade support, distribution channel leverage, brand loyalty, and increased marketing communication effectiveness (Keller, 2001). This study might carry an "inherent Western bias" of how Western cultures examine, interpret, and evaluate brands. Additional studies should examine cultures others than USA.

Sidebar

About the Author

Hagai Gringarten, M.B.A., Ph.D. ([email protected]), teaches branding and marketing at St. Thomas University's Gus Machado School of Business, and he is a Visiting Professor at Harbin Finance University in China. He has served as president of the American Marketing Association South Florida chapter and co-authored a bestselling book about coffee. He also pursued postgraduate studies at Harvard Graduate School of Business and the Kellogg School of Management. Dr. Gringarten serves as a faculty advisor to the American Marketing Association chapter at STU and is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, a peer-reviewed academic journal. He is also co-founder and faculty advisor of the Journal of Student Research and serves on the editorial board of the Journal of International & Interdisciplinary Business Research, a California State University system publication.

Discussion Questions

1. Give your own personal definition of brand equity.

2. Of all experts' definitions of brand equity, which one you like most and why?

3. In 1993, the business media "announced the death of branding." Do you think it was justified? Why or why not?

4. Which brand equity measurement would you use if you had to measure brand equity?

To Cite this Article

Gringarten, H. (2018, Spring-Summer). Price and store image as mitigating factors in the perception and evaluation of retailers' customer-based brand equity. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 10(1-2), 51-84.

References

References

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. (1st ed). New York: The Free Press.

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. (1st ed). New York: The Free Press.

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Review, 38(3), 102. Retrieved March 23, 2007, from ProQuest database.

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356. Retrieved March 23, 2008, from ProQuest database.

Ailawadi, K. L., Lehmann, D. R., & Neslin, S. A. (2002). A product-market-base measure of brand equity. Marketing Science Institute. Retrieved September 12, 2009, from http://marketingscienceinstitute.com/publications/publication.cfm?pub=56

Ariely, D. (2009). Predictably irrational (Rev. and exp. ed.). The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: Harper Publishing.

Baldauf, A., Cravens, K., Diamantopoulos, A., & Zeugner-Roth, K. (2009). The impact of product-country image and marketing efforts on retailer-perceived brand equity: An empirical analysis. Journal of Retailing, 85(4), 437-452. Retrieved February 27, 2010, from ProQuest database.

Bedbury, S., & Fenichell, S. (2002). A new brand world. New York: Penguin Books.

Berry, L. L. (2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Academy of Marketing Science. Journal, 28(1), 128-137. Retrieved December 3, 2007, from ProQuest database.

Chu, S., & Keh, H. T. (2006). Brand value creation: Analysis of the Interbrand-BusinessWeek brand value rankings. Marketing Letters, 17(4), 323. Retrieved September 6, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers' product evaluations. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global.

Gasparro, A. (2012, January 4). Wall Street Journal, p. B2.

Gauri, D., Trivedi, M., & Grewal, D. (2008). Understanding the determinants of retail strategy: An empirical analysis. Journal of Retailing, 84(3), 256-267. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global.

Graydon, B. (2008). Marketing fictions: Product branding in American literature and culture, 1890-1915. Ph.D. dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. Retrieved May 19, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT 3365648).

Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J., & Borin, N. (1998). The effect of store name, brand name, and price discounts on consumers' evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 331-352. Retrieved April 30, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global.

Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects of price-comparison advertising on buyers' perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 46-59. Retrieved April 30, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global.

Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2002). Building brand equity through corporate societal marketing. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 21(1), 78-89. Retrieved March 22, 2008, from ProQuest database.

Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2003). The marketing advantages of strong brands. Journal of Brand Management, 10(6), 421-445. Retrieved March 22, 2008, from ProQuest database.

Jimena, J. (2006). Corporate Responsibility. Canadian Mining Journal, 127(7), 11. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from ProQuest database.

Jones, R. (2005). Finding sources of brand value: Developing a stakeholder model of brand equity. Journal of Brand Management, 13(1), 10-32. Retrieved December 17, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1. Retrieved September 12, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Keller, K. L. (2000, January-February). The brand report card. Harvard Business Review, 3-10.

Keller, K. L. (2002). Branding and brand equity. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

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

Keller, K. L. (2013). Strategic brand management (4th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2006). Brands and branding: Research findings and future priorities. Marketing Science, 25(6), 740-759. Retrieved March 23, 2008, from ProQuest database.

Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, B. H. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

Kim, W. G., & Hong-Bumm, K. (2004). Measuring customer-based restaurant brand equity: Investigating the relationship between brand equity and firms performance. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 45(2), 115-131. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from ABI/INFORM, http://search.proquest.com/docview/209717401/abstract/1366EAEFB0336861FA3/1?acc ountid=14129

Klein, N. (2001). No logo (2nd ed.). London: Flamingo.

Kotler, P. (2000). Marketing management (10th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2016). Principles of marketing (16th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2009). Marketing management (4th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

Lamb, W. C., Hair, F. J., & McDaniel, C. (2011). Marketing (11th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western Publishing.

Lassar, W., Mittal, B., & Sharma, A. (1995). Measuring customer-based brand equity. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 11. Retrieved September 13, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Levy, M., Weitz, A. B., &Grewal, D. (2014). Retailing management (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Levy, M., & Weitz, A. B. (2009). Retailing management (7th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Levy, M., & Weitz, A. B. (2011). Retailing management (8th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Lu, Q. (2005). Structural models of reference price effects and brand equity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada. Retrieved April 24, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global.

Marketwatch.com. (2009). P&G in $57 billion deal to buy Gillette. Retrieved November 8, 2009, from ProQuest database, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pg-to-buy-gillette-in-stockswap-deal?pagenumber=2

Na, W., B., Marshall, R., & Keller, K. L. (1999). Measuring brand power: Validating a model for optimizing brand equity. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 8(3), 170184. Retrieved September 12, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Ostrow, R. (2009). Dictionary of retailing. New York: Fairchild Books.

Poundstone, W. (2010). Priceless. New York: Hill and Wang.

Raggio, R. D. (2006). Three essays exploring consumers' relationships with brands and the implications for brand equity. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Retrieved August 11, 2009 from ProQuest database.

Raggio, R. D., & Leone, R. P. (2007). The theoretical separation of brand equity and brand value: Managerial implications for strategic planning. Journal of Brand Management, 14(5), 380-395. Retrieved November 8, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Rath, P. M., Bay, S., Petrizzi, R., & Gill, P. (2008). The why of the buy: Consumer behavior and fashion marketing. New York: Fairchild Books.

Ries, A., & Trout, J. (1986). Positioning: The battle for your mind (2nd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Vrontis, D., & Papasolomou, I. (2007). Brand and product building: The case of the Cyprus wine industry. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16(3), 159-167. Retrieved December 15, 2008, from ProQuest database.

Wang, L. K. (2008). Empirical models of consumer behavior in retailing. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global.

Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000, Spring). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 28(2), 195-211. Retrieved November 8, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Bibliography

Aaker, D. A. (1997, September-October). Should you take your brand to where the action is? Harvard Business Review, 135-143. Retrieved October 3, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Aaker, D. A. (2003, Fall). The power of the branded differentiator. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(1). Retrieved May 1, 2008, from ProQuest database.

Financial Times. (2009, November 2). Top global brands for 2009. Retrieved November 3, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the 21st century. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Godin, S. (2005). All marketers are liars. New York: Portfolio.

Grabiner Hall PR, Inc. (2012). Avis "We try harder" campaign. http://www.grabinerhall.com/press-detail.php?a=17. Retrieved December 11, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Grannell, C. (2009, November 3). Untangling brand equity, value, assets, and health. Brand Channel White Papers. Retrieved November 3, 2009, from brandchannel.com, http://www.brandchannel .com/papers_review.asp? sp_id= 1460

Holt, D. B. (2003, March 11). Brands and branding. Harvard Business Review, 1-12.

Interbrand. (2009). Best global brands methodology. Retrieved November 3, 2009, from Interbrand.com, http://interbrand.com/en/best-global-brands/best-global-brands2009.aspx

Interbrand. (2018). Best global brands 2017. Retrieved April 26, 2018, from Interbrand.com, http://interbrand.com/best-brands/best-global-brands/2017/ranking/

Keller, K. L. (2001). Building customer-based brand equity. Marketing Management, 10(2), 1419. Retrieved March, 23 2008, from ProQuest database.

Koo, D.-M. (2003). Inter-relationships among store images, store satisfaction, and store loyalty among Korea discount retail patrons. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 15(4), 42-71. Retrieved December 15, 2010, from http://search.proquest.com/docview/227356807?accountid=14129

Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2010). Principles of marketing (13th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2012). Principles of marketing (14th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Leone, R. P., Rao, V. R., Keller, K. L., & Luo, A. M. (2006). Linking brand equity to customer equity. Journal of Service Research, 9(2), 125-138. Retrieved November 7, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Lindstrom, M., & Seybold, P. (2003). Brand child (1st ed). London: Kogan Page.

Lury, G. (2006). The king is dead, long live the king. Journal of Brand Management, 13(3), 193200. Retrieved November 7, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Myers, C. A. (2003). Managing brand equity: A look at the impact of attributes. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12(1), 39-49. Retrieved November 20, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Pappu, R., & Quester, P. G. (2008). Does brand equity vary between department stores and clothing stores? Results of an empirical investigation. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 17(7), 425-435. doi:10.1108/10610420810916335.

Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2005). Consumer-based brand equity: improving the measurement - empirical evidence. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(2/3), 143-154. Retrieved July 1, 2009, from http://search.proquest.com/docview/220603094?accountid=14129

Parry, M. E., & Sato, Y. (2008). Philip Morris U.S.A. and Marlboro Friday (A). Darden Case No.: UVA-M-0468. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from ssrn.com, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/UVA-M-0468.pdfabstractid=910064&mirid=2

Porter, M. E. (2008, November). Why America needs an economic strategy. Business Week (4107), 38-42. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Quelch, J. A., & Harding, D. (1996, January). Brands versus private labels: Fighting to win. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 99. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Ritson, M. (2009). Should you launch a fighter brand? Harvard Business Review, 87, 87-94.

Wood, L. (2000). Brands and brand equity: Definition and management. Management Decision, 38(9), 662-669. Retrieved November 20, 2009, from ProQuest database.

Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1-14. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/196325386?accountid=14129