2.

0 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction In this chapter a review of existing literature related to the study shall be undertaken. This is in an attempt enhance better understanding of the topic and to establish a proper foundation upon which further academic research can be built upon. From the main empirical research, conceptual models and controversies on the subject an awareness of the present state of knowledge in the field of brands and consumer behaviour shall be shown. This chapter shall begin by examining the concept of brands and then discuss the various models of brand equity, consumer behaviour, factors that affect consumer behaviour, decision making models, types of buyer behaviour, and the effect of brand loyalty on brand equity. 2.2 Understanding the Concept of Brands To gain a clear insight into what the term brand entails, it is important to consider various conceptual definitions on it. One of the most quoted definitions of a brand is the 1960 definition by the American Marketing Association (AMA), It defined a brand as; a name, term,

sign, symbol, or combination of them that is designed to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors (Keller, 1998:2).
Although this definition has been criticized by Arnold (1992), and Crainer (1995) for being too product-oriented, and for laying emphasis on visual features like signs and symbols as differentiating mechanisms, it has been adopted in most contemporary marketing literature Watkins (1986); Stanton et. al., (1991); Doyle (1994); Keller (1998); Bradmore (2000); Rowley (2006) and Kotler (2003, 2009) although with few modifications.

A similar definition is given by Dibb et. al., (1997), he defined a brand as a

name, term, design, symbol or any other feature that identifies one seller's goods or service as distinct from those of other sellers . With the addition of
the words any other feature'' this definition is broadened as it permits intangible features such as attributes to be a point of differentiation (Wood, 2000). Because this study aims to understand from a consumer perspective, the role brands play in influencing their buying behaviour, the study will adopt a consumer oriented approach to the definition of a brand. In attempting to define brands from the perspective of the consumer, various writers have laid emphasis on its functions and characteristics, while others on the benefits consumers derive from purchasing brands. For instance, definitions emphasizing brand personality - brands are symbolic devices with personalities that users value beyond their functional utility (Alt and Griggs, 1988; Blackston, 1992; Arnold, 1992; Goodyear, 1993; Aaker, 1996), brand image perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory (Boulding, 1956; Martineau, 1959; Newman, 1957; Dichter, 1985; Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Engel et. al., 1995), brands as added value brands add value to products (Levitt, 1962, de Chernatony and McDonald, 1992; Murphy, 1992; Wolfe, 1993; Doyle, 1994) and brands as value systems brands represent value systems to consumers (Clark, 1987; Sheth et. al., 1991). These various functions, benefits and characteristics can be captured under Amblers definition of a brand as the promise of the bundles of attributes that someone buys and provides satisfaction (Ambler and Styles, 1997). According to him, such attributes could be real or illusory, rational or emotional, tangible or invisible; all emanating from elements of the marketing mix and all the brands product lines (Ambler, 1992).

To further buttress this point, Murphy (1990:26) suggests that brand is a complex trend and symbol: not only is it the actual product, but it is also the

unique property of a specific owner that has been developed over time so as to embrace a set of values and attributes, both tangible and intangible....
What this means is that the concept of brands has evolved beyond just a set of tangible signs and symbols which companies use to identify and differentiate their products, to a more complex phenomenon, embracing a combination of attributes, benefits, values, cultures, personalities, etc. In this light Kotler (2000) adds that a brand is a complex symbol that can convey up to six levels of meaning to consumers - attributes, benefits, values, culture, personality and user. These are discussed below;
2.2.1 Attributes

To a consumer, a brand brings to mind certain attributes (Kettell, 2002). Attributes are the dimensions that define consumers perceptions relative to the product' (Santaniello et. al., 2002). They are the bits of information that are linked with the brand name in the consumers memory and make the brands image (Sharma et. al., 2009). They include elements or characteristics of a brand which can be either product related or non-product related (Beech and Chadwick, 2007). Product-related attributes are the overall features of a product, while non-product related attributes include, price information, packaging, user imagery as well as usage imagery (Beech and Chadwick, 2007). For instance, using the Mercedes automobile as an example, to consumers, a Mercedes suggests an expensive, well-built, well-engineered, durable, and high-prestige automobile (Kotler, 2000).
2.2.2 Benefits

A brand can provide both functional and emotional benefits to consumers (Wong, 2005). Benefits are the desirable attributes of goods or services, which a consumer perceives he/she will get from purchasing that brand (Larson, 2009). Still using the Mercedes example, the attribute durable could translate
3

into the functional benefit the consumer would not have to think of buying another car for several years (Kotler, 2000). The attribute expensive could translate into the emotional benefit - the car would make the consumer feel important and admired (Kotler, 2000). In a similar light, medieval clerics identified the three types of benefits brands provide to consumers - as raritas, virtuositas and complacibilitas (Blaug 1991); which translates to economic, functional and psychological benefits respectively (Ambler, 1997). Examples of each of these benefits include:

(a) Economic benefits:

Brands are the means by which firms compete (Ambler, 1997) as where a brand has no meaning (or value) to the consumer it is ultimately meaningless to investors, manufacturers or retailers (Cobb-Walgren et. al., 1995). Also consumers choose between brands on the basis of the value for money they provide (McDonald and Dunbar, 2007). A brand serves as risk insurance to consumers; this means that consumers are more likely to pay higher for a brand experience they are used to, than take the risk of paying less for an unknown brand experience, which they are unsure of (Zaichkowsky, 2006). Also brands reduce the complexity of the market environment and reduce the search costs for the consumer (Begemann, 2008). Finally, brands give consumers an option to make a choice; with the availability of numerous brands in the market, consumers have a variety of options to choose from (Hoyer et. al., 2009).

(b) Functional benefits:

Brands enable the consumers identify and differentiate product offerings; one of the major role of brands is to aid in the differentiation of products (Glynn, 2009). Also brands provide reassurance of quality to consumers; through knowledge of a brand, consumers are assured of its quality (Yeshin, 1998). Brands also assure the consumer that the product or service will be fit for the usage it purports to fulfill (Ambler, 1997).
4

(c) Psychological benefits:

A brand communicates certain characteristics to the consumer in a single manner, therefore enriching consumer knowledge without the stress of long investigation (Woodside, 2001). Consumers are emotional and brands make consumer decision making easier once they have become emotionally attached to the brand (Ambler, 1997). Brands also fulfill a personal and self-expressive function, by strengthening and vindicating the personality of the consumer and allowing for individual expression within the social environment (Cooke and Ryan, 2000). The symbols attached to brands enable us to reinforce our own self identity not necessarily because others see us, but because of who we think we are, or who we want to be (Ambler, 1997).
2.2.3 Values

A brand also portrays the producers values (Kapferer, 2008). Values are important and enduring beliefs or ideals that a particular state is preferable (Pisan, 2005). For instance a Mercedes stands for high performance, safety and prestige (Kotler, 2000).
2.2.4 Culture

A brand may also represent a certain culture (Kettell, 2002). Culture encompasses a shared sense of explicit or tacit assumptions, beliefs, knowledge, norms or values; it is what links a brand to the firm (Kapferer, 2008). The Mercedes for instance, represents German culture: organized, efficient and high quality (Kotler, 2000).
2.2.5 Personality

The brand can project a certain personality (Kotler, 2000). Personality consists of a unique combination of functional attributes and symbolic values (Hankinson and Cowking, 1995). It displays a brands core characteristics, embodied, described and experienced in human terms (Restall and Gorden, 1994). In this sense a Mercedes may suggest the personality of a no-nonsense person (Kotler, 2000).
5

2.2.6 User

A brand suggests the kind of consumer who buys or uses the product (Kettell, 2002). Brands carry with them a picture of their intended audience (Jarvis, 2005). For instance it would usually be expected to see a 55-year-old top executive behind the wheels of a Mercedes, and not a 20-year-old secretary (Kotler, 2000). Even though brands have the ability to convey the above meanings to consumers (Kotler, 2000); the challenge here, according to Kotler (2009) lies in developing deep sets of meanings for a brand. And once a target market segment can visualize all six meanings of the brand, it will have established a strong rapport within the consumers purchase decision-making process (Kotler et. al., 2009). Having understood what a brand entails and its various meanings, in order to answer the first research question of how brands create equity from the perspective of the consumer, the study shall now consider major conceptual models on brand equity. 2.3 Brand Equity In an attempt to define the relationship between consumers and brands, the term brand equity'' evolved in marketing literature (Wood, 2000). Viewing brand equity from the consumer-based perspective entails considering how the attitude strength of consumers is directly influenced by the brand name (Keller, 1993). Under this approach, a brand is seen as a node in the consumers memory which is linked with different associations of varying strengths, leading to the strength of attitude towards the brand (Keller, 1993; Krishnan, 1996; Lassar et. al., 1995). In other words, brand equity is a function of associations that are built and nurtured in the consumers mind (Glynn, 2009).

One of the pioneering definitions of brand equity, from a consumer perspective is that given by Farquhar (1989), according to him, brand equity is the added value which results from increasing the attitudinal strength for a product, using the brand (Farquhar, 1989). It is a brand impression which represents the whole of the consumers perception about that brand (Martin and Brown, 1990). And the difference between the consumers evaluation of a branded product and an unbranded product with the same attributes (Edell, 1993). It is also the positive outcome that consumers show toward a product or service (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). Or simply put, it is the consumers ideas about the brand (Blackston, 1992). Several models have been developed by various authors in attempting to explain how brands create equity, some of the popular ones include Aakers Four Dimensional model (Aaker, 1991); Kellers Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) model (Keller, 1993), the Brand Asset Valuator (BAV) model developed by advertising agency Young & Rubicam, and the BRANDZ model developed by marketing research consultants Millward Brown and WPP. Although these various models are similar in one way or another, this study shall only discuss Aaker and Kellers models because they are the two most widely accepted models among academics (Glynn, 2009) and also, because compared to the other models, they are of more relevance to the study. Aakers model is of valuable importance because it integrates both the perceptional (e.g. awareness) and behavioural (e.g. loyalty) dimensions of brand equity (Petburikul, 2009). As it can be used to explain consumers

perceptions of a brand and predict how these perceptions influence their

purchase behaviour (Rueviius and Rueviius, 2010). For this reason, it shall be utilized as the conceptual model for this study.

An understanding of Kellers model is also important because it explains how consumers perceive brand equity on the basis of emotional and rational factors (Rueviius and Rueviius, 2010). Although it can also be used as a model to explain how brand equity influences consumer behaviour, it was not adopted as the conceptual model for this study due to its complex nature. Generally, brand equity treated from consumer-based perspective, analyses consumer perception and behaviour models, which have an influence on a final purchase decision (Keller, 2003; Kotler and Keller, 2007).
2.3.1 The Aaker Model

According to Aaker (1991), the equity of a brand is formed through four components/dimensions, namely: brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations and brand loyalty (Aaker, 1991). These are discussed below: (a) Brand Awareness Brand awareness has been regarded as one of major determinants of brand equity (Aaker, 1991). Under this model, brand awareness refers to the strength of the brands presence in the minds of consumers (Begemann, 2008). It is the ability of a potential consumer to recall and recognize a brand, linking the brand with its corresponding product class (Aaker, 1991). Aaker holds that to succeed in a product class, the brand must dominate others in the minds of consumers. Here, the level of brand awareness lies in a continuum, with brand recognition being the lowest level and the first named brand with unaided recall being the highest level (Aaker, 1991). Brand awareness can be reflected in the consumers ability to identify the brand under different circumstances (Keller 1993). Blackwell et. al., (2001) argued that it is important that potential consumers are aware of a product before they can consider to purchase it; this is due to the fact that the product needs to enter the awareness set before it comes to the consideration set (Blackwell et. al., 2001).
8

Thus Rossiter et. al., argued that intention to buy cannot occur unless brand awareness has occurred (Rossiter and Percy 1987; Rossiter et. al., 1991). A brand that has some level of brand awareness is far more likely to be considered, and therefore chosen, than brands which the consumer is unaware of (Macdonald and Sharp, 2003). However several factors can influence the level of brand awareness. For instance, Keller (1998) argued that brand awareness can be enhanced through repeat exposure to the brand; this could be through increasing brand name identity (advertising) or associating it with a specific class (celebrity endorsement) (Keller, 1998). Advertisements and celebrity endorsements serve as very useful tools for raising brand awareness (Rossiter and Percy, 1987). For instance studies by Mackenzie et. al., (1986) and Tsai et. al., (2007) found that advertisements are attributable to the influence on brand attitudes which in turn affect consumers intention to purchase (Mackenzie et. al., 1986; Tsai et. al., 2007). Similarly, it has been found that celebrity endorsements can generate a source credibility and attractiveness (Bruce et. al., 2004). In terms of credibility, McGuire (1978) pointed out that celebrities can disseminate messages to particular consumers and hence increase brand awareness (McGuire, 1978). And in terms of attractiveness, a successful endorsement can associate the culture of the celebrity world with the endorsed product (McCracken, 1989), thereby raising public awareness towards the brand. Thus, brand awareness influences consumer decision making by affecting the strength of the brand associations in their minds (Keller, 1993, 1997). (b) Perceived Quality Perceived quality is another important attribute of brand equity (Aaker, 1991). It has been defined as the consumers perception of the overall quality or superiority of a product or service (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1998; Yasin, 2007).

According to Rothschild (2001), the brand must develop an association with quality in the mind of the consumer if it is to succeed. Since perceived quality is an intangible feeling towards a brand, it is a subjective notion that exists in the minds of consumers (Aaker, 1991); hence the knowledge of actual details of product specifications may have little correlation with the perceived quality (Heimbach, 1989). A brand with perceived quality would generate value by providing reasons to buy (Aaker and Biel, 1993), an avenue for charging a premium price (Zeithaml, 1988), and also for introducing extensions into new brand categories (Aaker, 1991). In addition, it is has been found that perceived quality is of utmost importance in determining brand loyalty as well as repeat purchase (Delong et. al., 2004). Just like brand awareness, perceived quality could be affected by a number of factors. Aaker (1991), identified seven (7) factors which can affect consumers perception of a products quality, namely - performance, features, conformance with specifications, reliability, durability, serviceability and fit and finish (Aaker, 1991). In addition to these factors, Khachaturian and Morganosky (1990) have also found that the country-of-origin can affect the perceived quality of a product. Srikatanyoo and Gnoth (2002) showed that consumers are inclined to develop stereotypical beliefs about the products from particular countries. Hence, consumers could have preferences for products made in one country over those made in other countries (Papadopoulos et. al., 1991). Price has also been identified as an additional factor used to evaluate perceived quality (Bruce et. al., 2004). This is most relevant where a consumer lacks the ability to evaluate the actual quality of a product (Aaker, 1991). Thus empirical studies by (Netmeyer et. al., 2004) confirm the positive relationship between perceived quality and purchase behaviour.

10

(c) Brand Association Brand association is defined as the specific linkage between the memory and the brand (Aaker, 1991). Keller (1998) and Yasin et. al., (2007) argued that equity of a brand is largely supported by consumers associations towards the brand, which contribute to a specific brand image. Keller (1998) divides brand associations into three categories, namely

attributes, benefits and attitudes. Attributes refer to the specific characteristics of a product; these could either
be product-related or non-product related (Beech and Chadwick, 2007).

Benefits can be classified into functional, experimental and symbolic (Park, et.
al., 1986). Functional benefits signify the physical or basic advantages a brand may have (Chakrapani, 1999). While experimental benefits are related to consumers emotional feelings (Chakrapani, 1999), symbolic benefits are the signal effect (determined by the image of consumers and the personality of the brand) that a brand may impose on consumers (Park, et. al, 1986). Finally, attitudes are regarded as the consumers overall assessments towards a brand (Chakrapani, 1999). They incorporate summary evaluations of information which represent how consumers feel in a long run, and lie in a continuum from positive to negative (Gabbott and Hogg, 1998). In this light, Aaker (1991) argued that different brands have different associations to prospective consumers. Such associations can provide a basis for them to make purchase decisions and even become loyal to the brand (Aaker, 1991). Brand associations also create value to companies and consumers in numerous ways (Keller, 1998). Firstly, they help consumers to process or retrieve information, as they can serve as triggers to consumers to recall their past experiences, making consumers remember the brand by heart (Keller, 1998).

11

Secondly, brand associations help to differentiate one brand from another, as a well positioned brand will be difficult to imitate by competitors (Beech and Chadwick, 2007). Thirdly, brand associations may include some product attributes or consumer benefits which encourage the consumers to purchase the brand (Wood, 2000). For instance, when a consumer buys a Nike, he may not buy it for its utility; he may buy it because of its association with youthfulness, fitness, independence and fashion. Van Riel and Fombru (2006) argue that consumers will purchase and repurchase products because they associate strong, favourable and unique characteristics with the brand. According to Keller (1998), once brand associations are constructed in a meaningful way, a vivid brand image is established. And while there may be products in the market with similar quality and design, the specific brand image attached to a product will always differentiate it from the others (Keller, 1998). (d) Brand loyalty Brand loyalty is the final dimension of a brand. It can be viewed as one of the core components of brand equity as it is directly and positively affected by brand equity (Aaker, 1991). Atilgan et. al., (2005) argued that brand loyalty is the most influential dimension of brand equity. Under the influence of brand loyalty, consumers continue to buy a brand, regardless of the superior features, prices and convenience competitors offer (Aaker, 1991). Based on the assumption that repeat buying is one of the indicators of brand loyalty; it is believed that the more loyal consumers are towards a brand, the less vulnerable the consumer-base would be (Rust et. al., 2004). However Keller (1998) contends that such a view may not be totally accurate. As many consumers make habitual purchases of a particular brand just because of its prominence in stock and effective promotions (Keller, 1998).
12

Having a loyal customer-base can be regarded as a valuable asset to companies for many reasons first, it helps to reduce the marketing costs of doing business (Aaker, 1991); as loyal customers have a higher possibility of making repeat purchases (Berkowitz, 2006) and also because it is less costly to keep existing customers than to get new ones - as research shows that it is five times less expensive to sell to existing customers than in recruiting or trying to attract new customers (Palumbo and Herbig, 2000). Secondly, brand loyalty can enhance trade leverage; this is because consumers with strong affiliations to one brand may switch to the shop in which the designated brand is sold (Glynn, 2009). Thirdly, loyal customers are likely to influence others to purchase a brand (Botten, 2006). Here, consumers are assured to buy the product if they have friends or relatives who recommend it to them (Schiffman and Kanuk, 1997). This suggests that word-of-mouth communication a powerful tool in the marketplace (Henricks, 1998; Marney, 1995; Silverman, 1997; Bansal and Voyer, 2000). Thus, indicating that consumers depend on informal, as well as personal communication sources in making purchase decisions rather than on more formal and organizational advertising campaigns (Bansal and Voyer, 2000).
2.3.2 Limitations of the Aaker Model

Even though the Aaker model has provided valuable insights into the various dimensions/components of brand equity, the model is not without its criticisms. Under the Aaker model, brand equity consists of four components: brand awareness, perceived quality, brand image, and brand loyalty. The first three components are perceptual, while the last component is behavioural (CobbWalgren et. al., 1995). Under the model, a causal relationship is believed to occur when perceptual brand equity has positive effects on behavioral brand equity (Yoo and Donthu, 2001). However, it has been argued that the interrelationships among the components of perceptual brand equity and what influences perceptual brand equity in terms of components on behavioural
13

equity are issues requiring more research (Cobb-Walgren et. al., 1995; Yoo and Donthu, 2001). Also, it has been argued that under the model, brand awareness is a first and necessary, but not sufficient, step leading to trial and repeat purchases; this is because the effect of awareness results at best in product curiosity (Konecnik and Gartner 2007). Also, two dimensions of Aakers four dimensional model - perceived quality and brand loyalty have been criticized. According to Rid and Sigurdsson, (2004) perceived quality is redundant in dimension as it is already integrated within the dimension of brand association (Rid and Sigurdsson, 2004). And brand loyalty is primarily a result of a high level of positive brand associations and brand awareness (Rid and Sigurdsson, 2004). Therefore it is only the two dimensions brand awareness and brand associations that are crucial in determining a brands equity (Keller, 2003). Notwithstanding these criticisms however, the model still remains one of the most widely adopted models of brand equity.
2.3.3 The Keller Model

In attempting to understand how a brands value is created and sustained in the minds of consumers and how that in turn translates into purchase and consumption behaviour, Keller developed the Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) model (Keller, 1993). Under this approach, brand equity is viewed as the differential effect that brand knowledge has on the consumers response to the marketing of that brand, with the effect occurring when the brand is known and when the consumer possesses favourable, strong and unique brand associations (Keller, 1998). A figure of Kellers Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) model is shown below;

14

Figure 1: Kellers Customer-Based Brand Equity Pyramid

(Source: Keller, K. L. (1993) Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity Journal of Marketing 57(1).

Brand Building Blocks

Resonance relates to the relationship and the level of identification of the customer with a brand. Judgments relates to the customers opinions based on performance and imagery. Feelings- relates to the customers emotional responses and reactions to the brand. Performance relates to the satisfaction of the customers functional needs. Imagery relates to the satisfaction of the customers psychological needs. Salience relates to the awareness of the brand.

Kellers Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) model identifies four steps denoting questions asked by consumers, representing a branding ladder, with each step dependent on achieving the previous one (Keller, 2001). These steps consist of six brand building blocks, with a number of subdimensions (Keller, 1993). To build a strong brand, the aim is to reach the pinnacle of the pyramid (resonance) where a harmonious relationship exists with consumers (Tellis and Ambler, 2007). The first step in the CBBE model is to ensure the correct brand identity (Keller, 1993). It answers the first question customers ask about brands - Who

are you? - its purpose is to identify the brand, and create an association with a

15

specific product class or need (Keller, 2003). This comprises the initial step in brand building block, known as salience (Tellis and Ambler, 2007). The second step answers the customers question - What are you? - by establishing brand meaning in the minds of consumers and linking brand associations with certain properties (Keller, 2003). Here two brand building blocks make up this step - performance and imagery (Keller, 1993). Brand performance is the way the product or service attempts to meet the consumers functional needs (Tellis and Ambler, 2007). It has a major influence on how consumers experience a brand, as well as what the brand owner and others say about the brand (Keller et. al., 2008). While brand imagery deals with the extrinsic properties of the product or service, including the ways in which the brand attempts to meet customers' more psychological or social needs (Holt, 2004; Zaltman, 2003). The third step is known as brand response, it answers the question - What

about you? It is achieved with the judgments and feelings building blocks,
whereby the consumers responses to the brand identification and meaning are elicited (Keller, 2003). Here, judgments about a brand emerge from a consumer fitting together different performance and imagery associations (Tellis and Ambler, 2007). These judgments combine into a consumers opinion of a brand which could be multiple such as perceived quality of the brand; brand credibility (that is the extent to which the brand is perceived as having expertise, being trustworthy and likable); brand consideration (the brand must be relevant to the consumer so that they are likely to purchase or use it); and brand superiority (the extent to which consumers view the brand as being unique and better than other brands) (Keller, 2001).

16

While brand judgments can be logical, brand feelings are consumers emotional responses to the brand (Kumar, 2007). Keller identifies six brand-building feelings that he regards as important emotions that a consumer can have towards a brand, namely warmth, fun, excitement, security, social approval and self-respect (Keller, 2001). The first three are experiential and immediate and increase in the level of intensity whilst the latter three are private and enduring and increase in the level of gravity (Kumar, 2007). These responses are likely to come together in different combinations for individual consumers and the distinct brands they are relating to (Keller, 2001). Brand relationships constitutes the fourth and final step in the CBBE pyramid it addresses the customers question of - What about you and me? It is the final brand building block and at the pinnacle of the pyramid known as resonance (Keller et. al., 2008). Here, brand response is converted to an intense, active loyalty relationship between customers and the brand (Keller, 2001). Resonance is characterized by the intensity of the psychological bond that consumers have with the brand and their level of engagement with the brand (Tellis and Ambler, 2007). Here as a result of the brand being able to satisfy their needs and their experience with the product through numerous interactions they begin to repeat purchases of that product (Keller, 1993).
2.3.4 Limitations of the Keller Model

Just like the Aaker model, the Keller model has also been criticized. The major criticism of the model is its complexity. According to Anselmsson et. al. (2007) the model is complex in nature; it discusses brand equity in a broad sense, seeing brand building as a series of four steps, and achieving those four involves establishing six core brand values brand salience, brand

17

performance, brand imagery, brand judgments, brand feelings and resonance (Anselmsson et. al., 2007). Also it has been argued that the primary focus of the model is on consumer markets and it fails to address general issues in a B2B context that can impact brand equity as well (Kuhn, 2008). However, in response to such criticisms, Keller argued that specific applications of the model should be refined, edited and embellished accordingly to suit the needs of its users (Keller, 2001).
2.3.5 The Aaker Model versus the Keller Model (Similarities and Differences)

The Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) models represent the most known and referred to models in terms of consumer based brand equity (ffing and Stasing, 2009). However, both models have their similarities and differences. Similarities between both models include: Both models rely on cognitive psychology principles (Farquhar, 1989); as both focus on how consumers perceive and evaluate brands through the investigation of knowledge structures like awareness, image and personality of a brand (Aaker, 1991; Keller 1993; in Esch et. al., 2006). Also, both models acknowledge that brand equity represents the added value endowed on products (Weitz, and Wensley, 2002). And similarly, it has been argued that both models help simplify the complexity of brands into a small number of parts (Kapefrer, 1997). However, differences that exist between both models include; Under the Aaker model, the definition of brand equity stems largely from a managerial and corporate strategy perspective though with a consumer underpinning; while Kellers definition approaches brand equity from somewhat a consumer behaviour perspective (Weitz, and Wensley, 2002). Also, under both models, brand equity dimensions are defined slightly differently (Anselmsson, 2007). Under Aakers model brand equity is considered
18

more practical and easy to measure (Anselmsson et. al., 2007) as it comprises of four dimensions: awareness, perceived quality, associations and loyalty (Aaker, 1991). Kellers model however, discusses brand equity in a broader sense (Anselmsson et. al., 2007). It views brand building as a series of logical steps; establishing the proper brand identity, creating the appropriate brand meaning, eliciting the right brand responses, and forging appropriate brand responses with consumers (Keller, 1993). Achieving these four steps according to this model involves establishing six core brand values brand salience, brand performance, brand imagery, brand judgments, brand feelings and resonance (Weitz, and Wensley, 2002). Also, while aspects such as quality, image and associations are of relevance in both models, Kellers definition is considerably wider. Under the Aaker model, brand image is a subset of brand association, and therefore given less prominence in the creation of brand equity, whereas under Kellers model, brand image as a major antecedent of brand equity (Woodside, 2009). Similarly, in terms of brand loyalty, Aaker and Keller disunite in their perspectives (Anselmsson et. al., 2007). Whereas Aaker considers loyalty as part of brand equity (one of the four dimensions of brand equity), Keller sees it as a consequence of a strong brand and its assets (Anselmsson et. al., 2007). Finally, while Aaker views brand equity as based on four dimensions (Aaker, 1991), Keller sees it as an outcome - the result or effect of consumers response to the marketing of the brand (Keller, 1993). 2.4 Consumer Buying Behaviour In order to be able to answer the second research question of how brand equity impacts consumer buying behaviour, an understanding of consumer buying behaviour and its various models are important. Consumer behaviour has been defined as those actions directly involved in

obtaining, consuming, and disposing of products and services, including the

19

decision processes that precede and follow these actions (Engel et. al.,
1995:3). According to Karp (1974) uncovering why people buy is an extremely difficult task as the answer would tend to vary depending on the investigators frame of reference. Thus the numerous models trying to explain consumer behaviour treat it from different perspectives e.g., influential factors (Kumar, 2001; Kotler and Armstrong, 2010), the decision making process (Engel. et. al., 1995), types of buyer behaviour (Assael, 1990), or a combination of all the variables (Kotler, 1965). The study shall discuss these various models in order to give a broad understanding of consumer behaviour, however, the model to be adopted as the conceptual model is Kotlers Black Box model because the model explains how all the various factors interact to influence consumer buying behaviour.
2.4.1 Factors Affecting Consumer Buying Behaviour

Consumers do not make just make purchase decisions in a vacuum (Talloo, 2007), there are many factors underlying consumer behaviour (Pagoso et. al, 1994). These factors are mainly cultural, social, personal, and psychological in nature (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). (1) Cultural Factors Cultural factors exert the broadest and deepest influence on consumer behaviour (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). Here, the roles played by the buyers culture, sub-culture and social class are particularly important (Kumar, 2001). (a) Culture:- culture has been defined as the complex set of values, ideas, attitudes and other meaningful symbols that serve human beings to communicate, interpret and evaluate as members of society (Engel. et al., 1987). It encompasses standard patterns of behaviour and plays an important role in shaping consumer purchasing patterns (Dransfield, 2004). Three major aspects of culture that have important effects on consumer behaviour are regional, ethnic, and religious differences (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2004).
20

(b) Sub-culture:- A sub-culture is a segment within a culture that shares a set of meanings, values or activities that differ in certain respects from those of the overall culture (Arens, 1999; Brassington and Pettitt, 1997). Examples of subcultures include nationalities, religions, social groups and geographical regions (Arens, 1999). (c) Social Class: - Social classes are relatively homogenous and enduring divisions of societies which are hierarchically ordered and whose members share similar values, interests, and behaviour (Kotler et. al., 2001). MacInnis, 2004). (2) Social Factors A consumers behaviour is also influenced by social factors like; reference groups, family, roles and status (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). (a) Reference Groups: - Reference groups have been defined as groups whose presumed perspectives or values are being used by an individual as the basis for his or her current behaviour, beliefs and feeling (Hawkins et. al., 2001; Levy and Weitz, 1998). A consumers reference groups consist of all the groups that have a direct or indirect influence on the consumers attitudes or behaviour (Kumar, 2001). Primary reference groups include family, friends and neighbours, while secondary groups include religious groups or organizations, professional associations and trade unions (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). (b) Family: - Family members can strongly influence buyer behaviour (Kumar, 2001). The family's importance in this regard is due to the frequency of contact a consumer has with other family members and the fact that the family has a greater extent of influence on the establishment of a wide range of values, attitudes, and behaviour (Schiffman and Kanuk, 1994). (c) Roles and Status: - Status refers to the relative position that any individual has in a group, whether the group be formal or informal (Dransfield, 2004). And roles are what other members of each group expect from people with certain status (Kurtz et. al., 2009). Each role carries with it a status reflecting the
21

Social classes in

societies can be classified into three: high, middle, and lower class (Hoyer and

general esteem accorded to it by society (Kumar, 2001). In support of their roles, consumers will make product choices that may vary depending on which roles they are assuming (Sharma, 2009). (3) Personal Factors A buyers decisions are also influenced by personal characteristics such as; the buyers age and stage in the life cycle, occupation, economic circumstances, lifestyle, personality and self concept (Kotler et. al., 2001). (a) Age and Life Cycle Stage: - A consumers age and lifecycle are important factors determining needs for products (Pezzullo, 1998). This is because as a consumer ages and advances in lifecycle stage, tastes in food, clothes, furniture, etc., often change as well (Lamb et. al., 2001). (b) Occupation:-. Occupation also shapes the pattern of consumer behaviour (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2009). Consumers belonging to different occupations would usually behave in a different manner (Pezzullo, 1998). (c) Economic situation: - A persons economic situation will affect product choice (Kumar, 2001). Economic stability consist of their spendable income (its level, stability and time pattern), saving and assets (including the percentage that is liquid), debts, borrowing power, attitude toward spending versus saving (Kotler, 2000). (d) Lifestyle: - Lifestyle refers to a persons pattern of living as expressed in the persons activities, interests and opinions (Medina, 1990). Lifestyle in the broad sense is concerned with understanding consumers major AIO dimensions (Kumar, 2001). That is, their Activities (e.g. work, hobbies, shopping,) Interests (e.g. food, fashion) and Opinions (about themselves, business, products) (Kumar, 2001). (e) Personality and Self Concept: - Each persons distinct personality influences his or her buying behaviour (Talloo, 2007). Personality refers a persons distinguishing psychological characteristics that lead to relatively consistent and enduring responses to his or her environment (Kotler, 2007). Personality can be a useful variable in analyzing consumer behaviour, provided that the
22

personality type can be classified accurately and that strong correlations exist between certain personality types and product or brand choices (Kotler et. al., 2001). (4) Psychological Factors A persons buying choices are influenced by four major psychological factorsmotivations, perception, learning, beliefs and attitudes (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). (a) Motivation:- Motivation is generally referred to as a creation representing an unobservable internal force that stimulates and compels a behavioural response and provides precise direction to that response (Hawkins et. al., 2001, Kotler, 2000, Engel et. al., 1995). A person is said to be motivated when his or her system is aroused and driven towards behaviour in satisfying a desired goal (Brassington and Pettitt, 1997). (b) Perception:- Different people perceive the same thing in different ways (Pride and Ferrell, 2007). Perception has been defined as the process by which an individual selects, organizes, and interprets information inputs to create a meaningful picture of the world (Hawkins et. al., 2001; Kotler, 2000 and Shimp, 1997). A buyers behaviour is affected by his or her perceptions of goods or services (Kurtz et. al., 2009). (c) Learning:- Learning refers to changes in a persons thought processes and behaviour caused by information and experience (Pride and Ferrell, 2007). Here, learning means changing ones behaviour on the basis of past experiences with products (Pezzullo, 1998). Consequences of behaviour strongly influence the learning process as behaviours that result in satisfying consequences tend to be repeated (Pride and Ferrell, 2007). (d) Beliefs and Attitudes:- A belief is a specific deeply held conviction (Pezzullo, 1998), it is a descriptive thought that a person holds about something (Talloo, 2007). An attitude is unlike a belief, a positive or negative evaluation, feeling, or tendency toward something (Pezzullo, 1998). Through doing and learning, people acquire beliefs and attitudes which in turn influence their buying
23

behaviour (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). Thus attitudes and beliefs put consumers into a frame of mind of liking or disliking an object, thus moving toward or away from it (Kotler, 2001). All or some of these factors may cause consumers to develop product and brand preferences (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). Although many of these factors cannot be directly controlled by marketers, understanding of their impact on consumer behaviour is essential (Kotler, 2001). 2.5 Consumer Decision Making Models Since the 1960s, marketing science has produced a huge volume of literature attempting to explain consumer decision making (Zhang and Zhang, 2007). Some of these include Howard and Sheth (1969); Nicosia (1966); Du Plessis et. al., (1991); Engel et. al., (1995); Gabbott and Hogg (1998); Schiffman and Kanuk (2000); Hoyer and Maclnnis, (2001); Rayport and Jaworski (2003) and Blackwell et. al., (2006). The three most popular models which attempt to explain consumer decision making are - the Howard-Sheth model of buying behaviour, the Nicosia model, and the Engel-Blackwell-Miniard model (Dransfield, 2004). The Nicosia model focuses on the relationship between the firm and its potential consumers (Schiffman and Kanuk, 1994). It concentrates on a firm's attempts to communicate with the consumer, and the consumers' predisposition to act in a certain way (Schiffman and Kanuk, 1994). However, this model has been criticized by other authors on the grounds that it was not empirically tested (Zaltman, Pinson and Angelman, 1973), and that many of the variables were not properly defined as it fails to explain in detail firms and consumer attributes (Lunn, 1974). On the other hand, the Howard-Sheth model of buying behaviour

attempts to explain the complexity of the consumer decision making process (Markin, 1974). The model holds that brand choice is not random but
24

systematic and caused by some event - a stimulus either in the buyer, or in the buyers environment (Kassarjian and Robertson, 1968). This event or stimulus is the input into the system and purchase behaviour is the output (Howard and Sheth, 1991). The model highlights the importance of inputs to the consumer buying process and suggests ways in which the consumer orders these inputs before making a final decision (Swarbrooke and Horner, 2007). While it is a comprehensive theory of buyer behaviour that has been developed as a result of empirical research (Horton, 1984), it has been argued that the model is not perfect as it does not explain all aspects of buyer behaviour (Swarbrooke and Horner, 2007). The Engel et. al., (1995) model of consumer decision making is an idealized model of consumer decision making rooted in cognitive psychology (Woodside, 2000). It follows the processes a rational purchaser goes through to make purchase choices, from the time a consumer recognizes a problem or a need for a product through to the post-purchase evaluation of the products consumption or use (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2009). The model is explained below;
2.5.1 The Engel et. al. Decision Making Model

The Engel et. al., (1995) model is one of the most recognized models of consumer purchase decision-making. It suggests that consumers go through a five-stage decision-making process in any purchase which are: (1) need

recognition/problem awareness, (2) information search, (3) evaluation of alternatives, (4) purchase decision, and (5) post-purchase evaluation (Engel et.
al., 1995). These steps are summarized in the figure below:

25

Figure 2: The Engel et al Five-Stage Decision Making Model

(Source: Engel et. al., (1995) Consumer Behaviour 4th ed, New York: McGraw-Hill).

The model shows that the buying process starts long before the actual purchase and has consequences long after the purchase (Kumar, 2004). Although the model implies that consumers pass through all five stages in every purchase (Kotler et. al., 2008). However, this is not the case in low involvement purchases as consumers may skip or reverse some of the stages (Engel et. al., 2005). For instance, a woman buying her regular brand of lipstick would go right from the need for a lipstick to the purchase decision, skipping information search and evaluation (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). In any case, the model is very useful because it shows a full range of considerations that come up when a consumer is involved in purchase process (Kumar, 2004). (1) Need Recognition or Problem Awareness This occurs when a consumer is aware of a difference between their perception and their actual satisfaction level (Solomon et. al., 2006). A need could be triggered either by an internal or external stimulus. An internal stimulus could be an urge to satisfy a personal need such as hunger, thirst or
26

sex, while an external stimulus could be in form of a television commercial, after which a consumer may perceive a product/brand is needed (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). This initiates the buying process as consumers recognize an unsatisfied need a gap between their current state and their ideal or desired state. (Levy and Weitz, 1992). (2) Information Search Having recognized that a product will satisfy a need or an opportunity gap, the consumer will then begin to search for information with which to make a decision (Lake, 2009). The length and depth of search vary for different consumers and depend on variables like personality, social class, income, size of purchase, past experiences and prior brand perceptions (Moorthy et. al., 1997). As more information is obtained, consumers awareness and knowledge of available brands increase (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). Searching for information may involve an internal search of memory and/or an external search of the environment for information (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2009). Some of the sources a consumer can obtain information from include: Personal sources: family, friends, neighbours etc., Commercial sources: advertising; sales people; retailers; dealers; packaging; point-of-sale displays, Public sources: newspapers, radio, television, consumer organizations and specialist magazines, Experiential sources: handling, examining, using the product, etc., (Armstrong et. al., 2009). For most consumers, an internal search of memory usually substitutes for external search, sometimes, awareness alone may be sufficient to effect choice (Elliot and Percy, 2007). Studies by Beatty and Smith (1987) on external information search and actual shopping behaviour for consumer durables found
27

wide differences between individual search behaviour in terms of sources consulted for a search and the use of independent information (Beatty and Smith, 1987). They concluded that even for expensive goods most consumers only visit one shop, do not gather additional information from advertising and generally process very little information (Beatty and Smith, 1987). Thus the usefulness and influence of the sources of information will vary by product and by consumer (Kotler, 2008). The challenge for the marketers here is to identify which sources of information are most influential to their target markets (Kotler, 1999). (3) Evaluation of Alternatives At this stage, consumers compare between different products and brands to make a purchase decision (Kurtz et. al., 2009). Here, consumers pay particular attention to the attributes which are most relevant to their needs (Kolter et. al., 2005). Attributes could be quantity, size, quality and price which consumers use to judge a brand (Blackwell et. al., 2006). Any changes in these attributes can affect consumer decisions on brand or product choices (Blackwell et. al., 2006). (4) Purchase This has to deal with the purchase decisions made by consumers after evaluating offers from different retailers (Kotler, 2005). Blackwell et. al. (2006) stated that there are two phases contributing to the decision making processes, these include retailer and in-store selection. Retailer selection is made by judging which retailers to buy after investigating the attributes from the previous stage whereas in-store selection is affected by the selling skills of salesperson, visual displays inside the shops, as well as point-of-purchase advertising (Kotler et. al, 2005).

28

(5) Post-Purchase Evaluation At this stage customers begin consuming the products and also evaluate the consumption process (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). Here the consumer assesses his level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction by comparing his expectations with his perceptions of what he has received from the purchase (Solomon and Stuart, 2003). This may give rise to satisfaction when consumers expectations are higher than the perceived performance and vice versa (Blackwell et. al., 2006). However, in some cases, consumers may experience concerns after making a purchase decision, this arises from the concept of cognitive dissonance (Kalat, 2007). Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling or stress caused by two contrasting ideas simultaneously (Lake, 2009). If the consumer experiences cognitive dissonance, he may begin to search for information to reinforce his purchase decision (Lake, 2009). Where he does not find the relevant information, he is likely to express regret for the purchase. Under these circumstances the consumer will not repurchase immediately, and is likely to switch brands the next time (Lake, 2009). 2.6 Consumer Buying Behaviours The buying behaviour of consumers may differ considerably depending on the kind of product the consumer intends to purchase (Assael, 1987). For instance a consumer would be more likely to be involved when buying an expensive item such as a car compared to when buying when buying a basic item like toothpaste (Lantos, 2010). Therefore, while some consumer purchases may be simple and routine, others are more complex and may involve extensive information gathering and evaluation, and may sometimes be subject to subtle influences (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010).

29

Assael, (1987) developed a buying behaviour model showing four types of buyer behaviour based on the varying degrees of involvement and the degree of differentiation amongst the brands in question. This is shown in the figure below:
Figure 3: Assaels model of Consumer Buying Behaviour

(Source: Assael, H, (1987) Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Action, 6th ed., p. 67.)

2.6.1 Complex Buying Behaviour:

Consumers undertake complex buying behaviour when they are highly involved in a purchase and perceive significant differences among brands (Assael, 1987). Here consumers may be highly involved when the product is expensive, risky, purchased infrequently, and highly self expressive (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). Usually, the consumer has much to learn about the product category (Lamb et. al., 2008). For instance a consumer going to buy a PC may not know which attributes to consider; as a result, the consumer will pass through a learning process, first developing beliefs about the product, then attitudes and then making a thoughtful purchase choice (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010).
2.6.2 Dissonance-Reducing Buying Behaviour:

This behaviour occurs when consumers are highly involved with an expensive, infrequent or risky purchase, but see little differences among brands (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010).

30

For this reason, the consumer will seek information on the differentiation of product offerings and will not be particularly price sensitive when seeking functionality (Kumar, 2009). In the event that this consumer finds him or herself in a market that displays low levels of differentiation, the consumer might result to purchasing influenced by convenience (Assael, 1987). Just like consumers who display complex buying behaviour, consumers with dissonance-reducing behaviour will seek to establish personal beliefs regarding the product (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). If fostered adequately, these beliefs will eventually transform into attitudes regarding the product offerings; and these attitudes, if favourable will lead to a thoughtful purchase (Assael, 1987).
2.6.3 Habitual Buying Behaviour:

This occurs under conditions of low consumer involvement, and little significant brand differences (Assael, 1987). For instance when purchasing a product like salt, consumers have little involvement in the purchase process, as they simply go into a store and reach for a brand of salt, and when they keep reaching for that same brand, it becomes a habit rather than a strong brand loyalty (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). This is the case with most low involvement, low-cost and frequently purchased products (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). In such cases, the consumer does not pass through the usual belief-attitude-behaviour sequence (Talloo, 2007). Instead, they passively receive information from television or the media which creates a form of brand familiarity (Talloo, 2007). In this case, consumers do not select the brand because of strong attitudes towards the brand, but rather, because the brand is familiar to them (Assael, 1987). And also, because they are not highly involved with the product, consumers may not evaluate the choice, even after purchase (Talloo, 2007). Thus the buying process involves brand beliefs formed by passive learning,

31

followed by purchase behaviour, which may or may not be followed by evaluation (Assael, 1987).
2.6.4 Variety-Seeking Buying Behaviour:

Consumers undertake this kind of buying behaviour in situations characterized by low-level involvement in markets that display high levels of product differentiation (Assael, 1987). Variety seeking entails searching for something different from the previous purchase within the product category, such as new flavours of food or a new brand of cologne, even though the consumer has been satisfied with the past varieties and brands bought (Lantos, 2010). This type of behaviour is most likely to occur for frequently purchased hedonic products and occasional products and common to this type of consumer is brand switching, in which consumers switch brands in order to satisfy their need for diversification (Assael, 1987). 2.7 Kotlers Black Box Model of Consumer Behaviour While the numerous models trying to explain consumer behaviour generally deal with influential factors or the decision making process, Kotlers Black Box model integrates all the variables (Lye, 2005). The model was developed by Kotler (1965) to explain the hidden nature of consumer decision making; he used the analogy of the black box to represent the buyers mind. A figure of the model is shown below:
Figure 4: Kotlers Black Box Model

32

(Source: Kotler et. al., (1965) Behavioural Models for Analyzing Buyer Behaviour, Journal of Marketing, 29, 37-45.)

According to the model, marketing and other stimuli enter the consumers black box (buyers mind) and produce certain responses (Armstrong et. al., 2009). Here, the task of marketers is to figure out what is in the consumers black box, by trying to understand why, how, when and from whom, consumers buy (Mitchell, 2007). Under the model the marketing stimuli consists of the four Ps; product, price, place and promotion and other stimuli include major forces and events in the buyers environment; demographic, economic, situational, social and lifestyle (Armstrong et. al., 2009). All these inputs enter the buyers black box, where they are turned into a set of observable buyer responses; the buyers brand, and company relationship behaviour and what he or she buys, when, where and how often (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). The buyers characteristics such as beliefs, attitudes and values affect how he/she perceives and reacts to the stimuli, and also the buyers decision making process itself affects the buyers behaviour (Kotler et. al., 2008). Although consumers behaviour vary tremendously, Kotler argues that, yet the marketers task is to understand what happens in the buyers black box, between the outside stimuli and the purchase decisions, with the marketers ideal end result seeing a consumer making a purchase (Kotler, 2008). 2.8 The Effect of Brand Loyalty on the Equity of a Brand In trying to identify the link between brand loyalty and brand equity, we refer to Aaker (1991) who identified brand components/dimensions of brand equity. According to Aaker, the brand loyalty of the consumer-base is the core of the loyalty as one of the four

brands equity (Aaker, 1991).

33

Brand loyal consumers create equity/value for a brand in many ways. For instance, they reduce marketing costs (Palumbo and Herbig, 2000), they are also willing to pay higher prices and are less price-sensitive (Aaker, 1991), they also serve as trade leverage for a firm (Glynn, 2009). In sum, loyalty to a brand represents a strategic asset and a major source of the brands' equity. This means that brand loyalty is a key determinant of brand choice and brand equity, as it reveals the level of brand strength or value that consumers attach to a brand, reflected in their purchase patterns (Kotler and Pfoertsch, 2010). Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) defined brand loyalty as a biased (non-random), behavioural response (purchase), expressed over time, by some decisionmaking unit, with respect to one or more brands out of a set of such brands, and is a function of psychological (decision-making and evaluative) processes. Similarly, Oliver (1999) sees brand loyalty as a deeply held commitment to re-

buy or re-patronize a perceived product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive buying of the same brand or same brand set purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behaviour (Oliver,1999).
Also, brand loyalty has been viewed as "the attachment that a customer has to

a brand" (Aaker, 1991).

Thus in his conceptualization of brand equity, Aaker (1991) added that brand loyalty implies both a consistent pattern of purchase of a specific brand over time and a favourable attitude towards a brand. This means that brand loyalty is comprised of both behaviour factors and attitude factors (Rundle-Thiele, 2007); behavioural, in the sense that it is a consistent purchase of a specific brand over time and attitudinal, in the sense that it is a favourable attitude towards a brand.

34

Therefore, the extent to which customers are loyal to a brand can be determined by a number of different attitudinal and behavioural measures, all of which provide either an indicator of how attached consumers are to a brand or their likelihood of wanting the brand in the future (Bennett and Rundle-Thiele, 2002). However, the role that brand loyalty plays in measuring the equity of a brand is considered to vary considerably. Farquhar (1989) referred only to favourable brand attitudes, whereas other authors (like Aaker, 1991; Kapferer, 1992; Uncles and Laurent, 1997) have attached a much more important role to behaviour. Baldinger and Rubinson, (1996) argued that true brand loyalty is when consumers are both inclined to these two factors, otherwise where only behaviour factors or only attitude factors are found it will be spurious brand loyalty. However, Yasin (1995) argued, brand loyalty is only ever a partial measure; as a brand can have equity for many reasons other than its ability to achieve high repeat purchase rates, for example a brands ability to achieve a price premium over competing products (Yasin, 1995). Therefore Hasanali et. al., (2005) asserted that brand loyalty must be viewed with a combination of other brand equity dimensions as brand loyalty alone cannot be used to determine the equity of a brand (Hasanali et. al., 2005). 2.9 Summary This chapter examined existing literature on brands, its various meanings to consumers - attributes, benefits, values, culture, personality and user. Brand equity the various models, such as the Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) models, their limitations, and comparisons between them. Various theories on consumer behaviour were also discussed such as those focusing on factors influencing consumer behaviour, decision making models, and types of
35

consumer behaviour. The effect of brand loyalty on the equity of a brand was also treated. The next chapter shall discuss the methodology adopted for this research.

36