Final PDF

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY HOCHIMINH CITY
INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

MEASURING BRAND EQUITY BASE ON THE
FANPAGE USERS ON FACEBOOK.
THE CASE OF KFC VIETNAM COMPANY.

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of
BACHELOR OF ARTS in BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Students name: TO HAI DUONG (BAIU09171)
Advisor: PhD. HO THI BICH VAN

Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam
2013
ii

MEASURING BRAND EQUITY BASE ON THE
FANPAGE USERS ON FACEBOOK.
THE CASE OF KFC VIETNAM COMPANY.

APPROVED BY: Advisor APPROVED BY: Committee,

_____________________
PhD. Ho Thi Bich Van Ph.D. Nguyn Qunh Mai

Ph.D. H Th Bch Vn

MBA.Kiu Anh Ti

Ph.D. Nguyn c Tr

THESIS COMMITTEE
iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

During the time working on this thesis, I have learned a lot of valuable lessons. I
know myself cannot fulfill this work with just my limited experience alone. This is my
pleasure to represent my hearty gratitude to all those who always is beside me to
complete this thesis.

First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratefulness to my advisor, PhD.
Ho Thi Bich Van, whose encouragement, guidance and support from the initial to the
final stage enabled me to develop and understand this research. Additionally, thanks to
her valuable advises, feedback, patience, knowledge, this study would have been
completed. She also teaches me much new interesting knowledge during the time doing
my thesis. Once again, from the bottom of my heart, I sincerely want to say thank you.

Moreover, I also would like to express my sincere appreciation to my professors
and lecturers at School of Business Administration, International University for and
training me during these four years. The knowledge and skills that I have make a huge
contribution in completing this thesis.

Finally, I extend my thanks to my family for their love and supports. They are the
strongest motivation for me to have this research completed. Their encouragement,
beliefs and guidance are a reflection of my achievements. Last but not least, impossible-
to-forget thanks to all my friends, especially Tran Thanh Minh Tuyen, thank you for your
love and support in every moment of my life.

Once again, thank all of you for your kind assistance and your valuable time.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ xii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................1
1.1. Study Background ................................................................................................1
1.1.1. Facebook .......................................................................................................2
1.1.2. KFC................................................................................................................3
1.2. The problem statement .........................................................................................5
1.3. Research questions ................................................................................................6
1.4. Research objectives ...............................................................................................6
1.5. Scope of research...................................................................................................7
1.5.1. Scope of research ..........................................................................................7
1.5.2. Limitation ......................................................................................................7
1.6 Research structure .................................................................................................7
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................9
2.1. Definition ...............................................................................................................9
2.1.1. Brand Equity .................................................................................................9
v

2.1.1.1. Brand Awareness ...............................................................................11
2.1.1.2. Brand Association ..............................................................................12
2.1.1.3. Brand Loyalty .....................................................................................12
2.1.1.4. Perceived Quality ...............................................................................13
2.1.1.4. Perceived Quality ...............................................................................14
2.1.1.5. Other Proprietary Assets ....................................................................14
2.2. Hypotheses and Research model .......................................................................17
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................19
3.1. Research design ...................................................................................................19
3.2. Questionnaire design ..........................................................................................21
3.3. Sampling ..............................................................................................................25
3.4. Pilot.......................................................................................................................25
3.5. Data collection .....................................................................................................26
3.6. Data analysis method ..........................................................................................26
3.6.1. Descriptive Statistics ...................................................................................26
3.6.2. Reliability Statistics ....................................................................................26
3.6.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) ...........................................................27
3.6.4. Linear Regression Analysis ........................................................................27
vi

CHAP IV: DATA ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION ..........................................................29
4.1. Sample Demographics ........................................................................................29
4.2. Descriptive Statistics ...........................................................................................31
4.2.1. Brand Awareness ........................................................................................31
4.2.2. Brand Association .......................................................................................32
4.2.3. Perceived Quality ........................................................................................33
4.2.4. Brand Loyalty ..............................................................................................34
4.2.5. Store Location .............................................................................................35
4.2.6. Brand Equity ...............................................................................................36
4.3. Reliability Test (first time) ................................................................................37
4.3.1. Brand Awareness ........................................................................................38
4.3.4. Brand Loyalty ..............................................................................................42
4.3.5. Store Location .............................................................................................43
4.3.6. Brand Equity ...............................................................................................44
4.4. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) ..................................................................46
4.4.1. KMO and Bartlett's Test 1
st
.....................................................................47
vii

nd
...................................................................49
st
.....................................................................51
4.5. Reliability Statistics (second time) .....................................................................54
4.5.1. Brand Awareness ........................................................................................55
4.5.4. Brand Loyalty ..............................................................................................58
4.5.5. Store Location .............................................................................................59
4.5.6. Brand Equity ...............................................................................................44
4.6. Correlation Testing .............................................................................................61
4.7. Regression Analysis and Hypotheses Testing ...................................................63
CHAP V: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION............................................68
5.1. Conclusion ...........................................................................................................68
5.2. Recommendation.................................................................................................70
5.3. Limitations of the study ......................................................................................75
5.4. Recommendation for further study ...................................................................75
LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................76
APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................................80
viii

APPENDIX B ...................................................................................................................85

ix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: The main concepts of Brand Equity ......................................................................9
Table 2: The main concepts of Store Location ..................................................................15
Table 3: Explanation factors ..............................................................................................16
Table 4: Summary of measurement scale ..........................................................................21
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics of Brand Awareness ..........................................................32
Table 6: Descriptive Statistics of Brand Association ........................................................33
Table 7: Descriptive Statistics of Perceived Quality .........................................................34
Table 8: Descriptive Statistics of Brand Loyalty ...............................................................35
Table 9: Descriptive Statistics of Store Location ..............................................................36
Table 10: Descriptive Statistics of Brand Equity ...............................................................37
Table 11: Internal Consistency Level ................................................................................38
Table 12: Reliability Statistics for Brand Awareness (1
st
)................................................39
Table 13: Item-Total Statistics of Brand Awareness (1
st
) .................................................39
Table 14: Reliability Statistics for Brand Association (1
st
) ..............................................40
Table 15: Item-Total Statistics of Brand Association (1
st
) ...............................................40
Table 16: Reliability Statistics for Perceived Quality (1
st
) ...............................................41
Table 17: Item-Total Statistics of Perceived Quality (1
st
) ................................................41
Table 18: Reliability Statistics for Brand Loyalty (1
st
) .....................................................42
Table 19: Item-Total Statistics of Brand Loyalty (1
st
) ......................................................42
Table 20: Reliability Statistics for Store Location (1
st
) ....................................................43
Table 21: Item-Total Statistics of Store Location (1
st
) .....................................................44
Table 22: Reliability Statistics for Brand Equity (1
st
) ......................................................45
x

Table 23: Item-Total Statistics of Brand Equity (1
st
)........................................................45
Table 24: Level of Correlation ...........................................................................................46
Table 25: KMO and Bartlett's Test 1
st
for Independent variables .....................................47
Table 26: Rotated Component Matrix
a
(1
st
time) ...............................................................47
nd
for Independent variables.....................................49
a
(2
nd
time) ..............................................................50
rd
for Independent variables .....................................51
a
(3
rd
time) ..............................................................51
Table 31: Item-Total Statistics of Store Location ..............................................................53
Table 32: Component Matrix
a
............................................................................................54
Table 33: Reliability Statistics of Brand Awareness (2
nd
) .................................................55
Table 34: Item-Total Statistics of Brand Awareness (2
nd
) .................................................55
Table 35: Reliability Statistics of Brand Association (2
nd
) ................................................56
Table 36: Item-Total Statistics of Brand Association (2
nd
) ...............................................56
Table 37: Reliability Statistics of Perveived Quality (2
nd
) ................................................57
Table 38: Item-Total Statistics of Perveived Quality (2
nd
) ................................................57
Table 39: Reliability Statistics of Brand Loyalty (2
nd
) ......................................................58
Table 40: Item-Total Statistics of Brand Loyalty (2
nd
) ......................................................58
Table 41: Reliability Statistics of Store Location (2
nd
) ......................................................59
Table 42: Item-Total Statistics of Store Location (2
nd
) .....................................................59
Table 43: Reliability Statistics of Brand Equity (2
nd
) ........................................................60
Table 44: Item-Total Statistics of Brand Equity (2
nd
) ........................................................60
Table 45: Correlations Testing Results ..............................................................................61
xi

Table 46: Model Summary ................................................................................................63
Table 47: ANOVA
a
results ................................................................................................64
Table 48: Coefficients
a
results ..........................................................................................64
Table 49: Hypotheses Testing Results ...............................................................................66
Table 50: Components Results ..........................................................................................69

xii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Illustration of five assets model of Brand Equity ...............................................11
Figure 2: Research Model ..................................................................................................17
Figure 3: Research Design .................................................................................................20
Figure 4: Proportion of Gender ..........................................................................................29
Figure 5: Proportion of Age ...............................................................................................30
Figure 6: Last time customers eating at KFC ....................................................................31
Figure 7: Revised Research Model ....................................................................................67

xiii

ABSTRACT
In 2011, fast food achieved rapid growth of 26%. Being the leading player in fast
food industry, KFC Vietnam remained recording 15% value share (Euromonitor
International Fast food in Vietnam). Yet according to market research company AC
Nielsen, this number is still small in which only 8% of Vietnamese eat at foreign fast
food restaurants one to three times a month. However, said the company, because of a
large number of youngers who aged under 25, comprising of 65% in Vietnams
population, it still remains a profitable destination for foreign fast food chains so far.
Moreover, in recent years, taking advantages of popularity and accessibility of
social network, especially Facebook, KFC Vietnam has used Facebook fanpage as a
marketing tool. As a matter of fact, this tool is not being used effectively since marketers
have not noticed its potential benefits which can bring to their firms. Therefore, the
purpose of this study is to measure brand equity of KFC Vietnam via its fanpage. Then,
from the findings of research, we would give some considerable recommendations.
The very first step is to build a theoretical framework including independent
variables (factors) and one dependent variables (brand equity). Then, the questionnaire is
designed and delivered to respondents whom are users of KFC fanpage. Afterwards, data
would be collected and analyzed through several tests which are namely in order:
descriptive test, reliability test, factors analysis, correlation test and regression analysis.
Lastly, recommendations are given based on the outcomes of research.
To draw the conclusion, there are four main factors that have a strong impact on
brand equity that are perceived quality, brand awareness, brand loyalty and brand
association. However, these ones should be increased in some ways in order to augment
the brand equity which is the ultimate purpose of this study. With limitation of time and
ability, this research might be not entirely pertinent still it can be seen as consultation for
any further researches.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Study background
The massive introduction of social network all over the world as well as in
Vietnam recently has created a new wave of stimulating the development of social media.
Social media is a media channel that provide two-way interaction directly or multi-
dimensional. There is a variety of channels such as Facebook, Blog, Youtube, My Space,
Twitter etc. Compared to traditional media such as radio, TV, newspapers ...the
advantage of social media is that there is no limitations on the number of channels,
information and services. Services are continuously updated and users are also producers
of such information. As a matter of fact, social media have a great impact on a large
amount of users.
By spending a small fee or even no cost for brand promotion on social media,
enterprises can achieve positive results. Trends of marketing on social media, is being
more popular around the world than ever, especially in Vietnam. According to statistics,
to reach 500 million users, radio took 38 years, television took 13 years, the Internet took
4 years, the iPod takes 3 years, while Facebook the most salient point of social network
today has reached its adorable milestone of 1 billion active users in just 2 years and 3
months.
2

In Vietnam, companies use Facebook as a marketing tool capture a small number,
one of them is KFC Company. KFC has launched to Vietnam for the first time on
December 1997. Although KFC has certain success in fast food industry within 16 years,
since using social media, Facebook for instance, the company has enhanced its brand
name to an upper level. However, due to limited researches, the Facebook fanpage does
not work efficiently as it has been expected. Therefore, this study is reasonably
conducted to measure brand equity of the firm via its facebook fanpage in order to give
several suggestions to manage it better.
Here are the basic information about Facebook and KFC Vietnam:
1.1.1. Facebook
To the best of my knowledge, there are seven kinds of social media: social
networks, blogs, podcast, forums, wikis, content communities and microblogging.
Facebook is one kind of social network, which is a site that allows people to build their
own web pages and then connect with friends and share content and communication. To
be more specific, a person can join Facebook and begins to create his or her profile upon
which the person builds his/her own network of friends, family, etc. Friends are able to
send messages, chat, update their personal profiles to notify friends about themselves,
share links, like and comment on updates, upload pictures and videos, and create
events. Moreover, Facebook clarifies the relationship between people. A user can see
who is who, which friends you have in common and recommendations for possible
friendships. It is not unusual to have 300-500 friends and some have even more. In
order to keep up to date with the large number of friends, Facebook has a space that is
referred to as the users News Feed. This is where the user automatically starts out when
logging onto Facebook. The news feed page assembles updates from the users friends and
the user can choose who to follow the most or click hide on friends who not to follow.
Facebook pages
3

Besides personal profiles, Facebook has Pages, which is the focus of this study
and the term that will be used primarily in the analyses from this point on when referring
to a companys Facebook Paage. Pages are created and maintained by brands,
communities, NGOs etc. In short, it allows a brand to create a platform that can create,
enhance and maintain relationships with consumers who are already using Facebook.
Consumers have to like a Page and are then defined as fans. As with personal profiles,
a company can use its Page to interact with users of Facebook by allowing them to post
updates, share links, like and comment on updates etc. The same counts for companies
since their posts etc. will automatically show on the users news feed and in this way
companies enter the level of the users friends by being side by side with them. Generally,
these features are easy to use and if they are used on purpose, it will bring out great
results on their marketing business and it will not take any other costs as other types of
traditional marketing channels.
1.1.2. KFC
Brief history of KFC
KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken) is a fast food restaurant chain headquartered in
Louisville, Kentucky, United States, which specializes in fried chicken. An "American
icon", it is the world's largest fried chicken chain and the second largest restaurant chain
after McDonald's as measured by sales, with over 17,000 outlets in 115 countries and
territories as of December 2011.
KFC was founded by Harland Sanders, who began selling fried chicken from his
roadside restaurant in Corbin, Kentucky during the Great Depression. Harland David
Sanders was born September 9, 1890 in Indiana, USA. The young Harland Sanders had
many jobs such as a farmhand, a bus conductor, a steam boat driver, a soldier, and a
salesman. Eventually he became a business man owning a petrol service station in
Kentucky, one of the 52 states of the USA.
4

Many travelers stopped at his service station wanting refreshments and food. The
Colonel saw this as a business opportunity and decided to offer food to these customers.
The Colonel enjoyed making his customers happy he was passionate about entertaining
them with excellent food and superb service.
His food and service was so good that he was mentioned in several newspapers
around the country. As a result he had to expand his dining room to keep up with the
increase in new customers. This 'Customer Mania' experience made people drive from far
away just to visit the Colonel's restaurant.
After careful testing for many years to find just the right combination of
ingredients, the Colonel knew that he was at last onto a winning recipe. When he added
the 11th and final ingredient, he was truly satisfied that he had created the best chicken he
had ever tasted he wanted to share it with the world!
To this day, the Original Recipe of 11 Herbs and Spices is one of the biggest
secrets in the world - the Finger Lickin' Taste of KFC! The Colonel also introduced the
idea of using a pressure cooker to cook the chicken. This ensured that the product cooked
faster and produced the best results ever.
The Colonel decided that his Original Recipe needed to be introduced to people
further from his home and from his state. At the age of 66, he started selling his idea of
Kentucky Fried Chicken by traveling from town to town, preparing his famous chicken
recipe for restaurants and their employees. Soon everybody wanted to try it families
stood in queues to try his great Original Recipe.
Colonel Sanders appeared on national Television promoting the idea of Kentucky
Fried Chicken. He always licked his fingers as he described the Original Recipe taste to
viewers this is how the slogan It's Finger Lickin' Good developed.
KFC in Vietnam
5

KFC is well known in Vietnam by another familiar name Kentucky fried
chicken a professional fast-food restaurants which serve many kind of dishes made
from chickens or hamburgers and specially Kentucky fried chicken which is invented
by Harland Sanders.
After being successful with more than 10,000 restaurants all over the world, KFC
has launched to Vietnam for the first time on December 1997 at Saigon Super Bowl.
Nowadays, KFC has been popular with Vietnamese people than ever.
These are milestones of the first restaurant in cities and provinces of Vietnam:
December 1997: Ho Chi Minh City
June 2006: Ha Noi
August 2006: Hai Phong Can Tho
July 2007: Dong Nai Bien Hoa
January 2008: Vung Tau
May 2008: Hue
December 2008: Buon Ma Thuot
November 2009: Da Nang
April 2010: Binh Duong
Novemeber 2010: Vinh - Nghe An
May 2011: Nha Trang
June 2011: Long Xuyen- An Giang
August 2011: Quy Nhon - Rach Gia
September 2011: Phan Thiet
December 2011: Hai Duong
February 2013: Ha Long

1.2. The problem statement
6

Today Fast food is trend around the world. Vietnam is a potential market because
of its large population that most of them are youngers. Thus, there are many foreign
brands entering to the market and KFC is one of them. KFC is a famous brand and it
launched to Vietnam for the first time in 1997. However in recent years, the fast food
market share has been divided into small pieces because of penetration of other fast food
brands. In order to survive and grow sustainably, KFC Company needs to find out the
factors that influence customer perception to enhance their brand equity. Aaker (1991)
suggested a model of brand equity which consists of five dimensions: brand awareness,
brand association, perceived quality, brand loyalty and other proprietary assets. Yet
previous researches which applied this model did not focus on fast food industry.
Therefore, taking a practical example of the industry KFC Company, the research is
conducted to determine those factors influencing brand equity and to give suggestions for
the company.
1.3. Research question
The purpose of this research is to understand the perception of customers on
brand equity of the firm and which determinants form their perception. Thus, the study
raise two main questions:
Which do dimensions have impact on brand equity of KFC based on users of its
fanpage?
How strong relationships between these factors and brand equity are?
1.4. Research objectives
To answer those questions the research identifies objectives following:
To identify the determinants of users perception towards brand equity of KFC
To determine the important level of each element on brand equity of KFC.
7

To give several recommendations based on findings of research and individual
experience and knowledge.
1.5. Scope and limitation of research

1.5.1. Scope of research
This research is mainly focused on users who aged under 40 and live in Ho Chi
Minh City. Because people who are 40 or more less likely to go to fast food restaurant so
their opinion are less reliable than youngers.
1.5.2. Limitation of research
The research is only based on users of KFC fanpage meanwhile there are other
consumers of KFC do not use Facebook. Moreover, because of limitation of time and
ability, the study is used to measure brand equity of KFC among a variety of other brands
on the Vietnamese market.
1.6. Research structure
The research includes five main parts:
Chapter I: Introduction Stating general background and rationale, problem
statement, objectives, scope of this research as well as the way of which data will be
collected.
Chapter II: Literature Review Reviewing related concepts, definitions, previous
researches related to this study and then drawing research model as well as hypothesizes.
Chapter III: Methodology Detailing the research design, research procedures
and data analysis.
8

Chapter IV: Data Analysis and Result Discussing about the results obtained
from collected data.
Chapter V: Recommendation and Conclusion Discussing the research findings
and proposing the implication.

9

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Definition
2.1.1. Brand Equity
In order to better understand the tangible and intangible values of brands, there
has emerged many overall concepts of brand equity in marketing literature which then
has become one of the central issues in marketing management research in the 1990s.
Brand equity has been conceptualized in several different ways. (Tuominen 1995, 8 -11;
Tuominen 73-74)
Table 1. The main concepts of Brand Equity
Major Contributors Concepts of Brand Equity
Mahajan et al. (1994)
Customer-based brand equity can be evaluated by the level
of customers understanding.
Farquhar (1989)
Brand equity can be changed via customers thoughts when
10

they by a particular product.
Aaker (1991)
Brand equity can be evaluated based on five dimensions:
brand awareness, brand associations, brand loyalty,
perceived quality and other proprietary assets.
Keller (1993)
Basically, there are two methods to evaluate brand equity,
namely: brand image and brand awareness.
Generally, these concepts are strongly relevant. However within them, the
concept of Aaker is the most completed and clearest one which is agreed and applied by
other authors such as Motameni and Shahrokhi, 1998; Yoo and Donthu, 2001.
Returning to a basic definition of Aaker (1991, p.15), brand equity is defined as
A set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol that add to or
subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or to that firms
customers. This paper will adopt the idea of customer perspective of brand equity from
Aaker. He stated the intangible assets of brands create the basis of brand equity which
consists of five different asset dimensions, namely: brand awareness, brand associations,
brand loyalty, perceived quality and other proprietary assets such as patents, trademarks
and channel relationships.
11

Figure 1. Illustration of five assets model of Brand Equity
( Sources: Aaker 1991, 269-270)

2.1.1.1 Brand Awareness
Brand awareness is conceptualized as the ability to recognize the brand and recall
it under different conditions (Aaker,1996; Keller, 1993). Brand awareness is the first
stage in the buying process and is an important factor to measure the power of brands. It
could be characterized according to depth and breadth. The depth of brand awareness
involves the feasibility that a brand element will come to mind. A brand which can be
easily recalled has a deeper level of brand awareness than one that only can be
recognized. The breadth of brand awareness concerns the range of purchase and usage
Brand equity
Brand awareness
Brand association
Perceived quality
Brand loyalty
Other proprietary
assets
12

situations where the brand element comes to mind. It essentially depends on how large
extent on the organization of brand and product knowledge in consumers memories.
Obviously, the higher brand awareness is, the higher opportunity it has been
chosen. With reference to Keller (2008), brand awareness consists of recognition and
recall where recognition relates to the level of exposure and recall refers to the
consumers ability to link the brand to a right product category or purchase situation.
That is to say, brand awareness is evaluated based on brand recognition and brand recall.
Brand recognition is most successful when people can state a brand without being
explicitly exposed to the companys name, but rather through visual signifiers like logos,
slogans and colors. (Keller 2008)
Brand recall refers to the consumers ability to retrieve the brand when given the
product category. Brand recall requires that consumers can properly generate the brand
from memory which is, in other words, considered as top-of-mind awareness. (Aaker
1991)
2.1.1.2. Brand Association
A brand association is any intellectual connection to the brand. Brand associations
may include product attributes, uses, life-styles, customer benefits, product classes,
competitors and countries of origins. It has level of strength like other features. In a way,
the brand position is based upon associations and how they differ from the competition.
Associations can have an effect on the processing and recall of information, provide a
point of differentiation, create positive attitudes and feelings to make a reason to buy. A
well-established brand association can not only influence purchase behavior and increase
customer satisfaction but also reduce incentives to try other brands even when it is not
important to brand choices. (Aaker 1991, 272; Aaker 1992, 31)
13

Brand association comprises the attributes and benefits related to a brand that
makes it distinctive, thereby distinguishing the firms offer from competition. (Webster
and Keller, 2004). So the brand associations will be measured by attributes and benefits
which is associated by Salzer-Morling and Strannegard (2004).
According to Kellers concept of brand attributes, the more descriptive features
characterizing the product or service are, the more functional needs of consumers have.
Kellers concept of brand benefits mentions about the personal value that attached
to the product and service meeting the psychological and social needs of consumers.
2.1.1.3. Brand Loyalty
Brand loyalty represents a positive attitude toward a brand resulting in consistent
purchasing of the brand over time. In other words, it is the result of customers learning
that only the particular brand can satisfy their needs. There exists two approaches to the
study of brand loyalty. The first, a behavioral approach that views consistent purchasing
of one brand over time as an indication of brand loyalty. Behavioral measures defined
loyalty by succession of purchases and the proportion of purchases. Repeat purchasing is
assumed to reflect reinforcement and a strong stimulus-to-response link. However, some
kind of loyalty may be caused by lack of commitment to the brand and reflect repeat
purchasing based on inertia. The second is a cognitive approach. It emphasizes that only
behavior can not reflect brand loyalty. Loyalty connotes a commitment to a brand that
may not be reflected by just measuring continuous behavior. A consumer can buy a
particular brand because of its lowest price. So a slight increase in price may cause
consumer to shift to another brand. In this case, continuous purchasing does not reflect
loyalty. The links between stimulus and reward are not strong. To put it briefly, some of
obvious limitations of severely behavioral approach in measuring brand loyalty are
overcome when loyalty includes both attitudes and behavior. (Assael 1992, 87-89,
Samuelsen Sanvik 1997, 1123-1128)
14

From the other side of view, the brand loyalty of existing customers symbolizes a
strategic asset that has the potential to provide value in several ways if it is correctly
managed and exploited. A set of loyal customers can reduce marketing costs because it
costs much less to keep a customer than to gain and regain. These customers can create
brand awareness as well as reassurance to new ones. They also give a firm time to
respond to competitive threats. (Aaker 1991, 46-49; Dekimpe Steenkamp Mellens
Abeele 1997, 405 407)
2.1.1.4. Perceived Quality
Perceived quality can be defined as customers perception of the overall brilliance
and quality of a product or service compared to rivalry alternatives. (Aaker 1991, 85-86)
Perceived quality is valuable in several ways. In many situations, it provides a
significant reason to buy a product. It influences set of considerations between brands and
which brand is selected. One of advantages of perceived quality is to provide the option
of charging a premium price which can increase profits and provide resources to reinvest
in the brand. Perceived quality can also be meaningful to distributors, retailers and other
channel members thus assist in gaining distribution. Moreover, perceived quality can be
exploited by introducing brand extensions, using the brand name to enter new product
categories. With respect to perceived quality, a strong brand can properly find higher
success probability than a weak one.
2.1.1.5. Other Proprietary Assets
According to Aaker (1991), other proprietary assets are considered as competitive
advantages in terms of trademarks, patents, channel relationships, etc... The location of a
shop front is the single biggest determinant of the sales performance of a retail or food
outlet more than the marketing strategy, staff, even the product itself. If a store is not
easily accessible to the target market, or is drowned-out by the competition in the area,
15

then failure awaits (Lachlan James 2011). Therefore, in case of KFC Vietnam, Store
Location has been chosen as a competitive advantage which is a representative factor for
this dimension.
Store Location
Table 2. The main concepts of Store Location.
Authors Concepts
(Storper and Walker 1988; Scott
1993)
The concept mainly focuses on competitive
advantages for either innovation or economic
development resulting from particular places.
(Maryann P. Feldman, Aydan S.
Kutay, 1997)
A location advantage expresses the
cumulative investments in human and
technological capability in particular places.

While it is true to say that new technologies make physical distance less
important, in fact it is proved that innovative activity tends to focus on specific locations.
It can be explained that locations do not depend on distance and transportation costs any
longer but a suitable place whereby customers can easily get access (Maryann P.
Feldman, Aydan S. Kutay, 1997).

16

Table 3. Explanation factors

Dimensions
Explanation
factors
Question Sources
Brand
awareness
Brand recognition 1, 2 (Keller 2008)
Brand recall 3 (Keller 2008)
brand
association
Attributes 4 (Keller 2008)
Benefits 5, 6 (Keller 2008)
Perceived
quality
Quality 7,8,9 Aaker (1991)
Brilliance 10 Aaker (1991)
Brand
loyalty
Behavior 11, 12
Assael (1992); Samuelsen
Sanvik (1997)
Attitudes 13, 14
Assael (1992); Samuelsen
Sanvik (1997)
Store
Location
Accessable 15, 16 ,17
(Maryann P. Feldman, Aydan S.
Kutay, 1997)
17

2.2. Hypothesis and Research model

Figure 2. Research Model
(Adopted by Aaker 1991)
This model is adopted from model of Aaker (1991).
In this research model, we have five independent variables and one dependent
variable. The independent variables are Brand awareness, Brand association, Perceived
quality, Brand loyalty and Store Location while the dependent variable is Brand equity.
The following hypotheses showed the relationship between independent variables
and researched dependent variable..

H1: There is a positive relationship between Brand awareness and Brand equity.
H2: There is a positive relationship between Brand association and Brand equity.
Brand equity
Brand
awareness
Brand
association
Perceived
quality
Brand loyalty
Convenient
location
18

H3: There is a positive relationship between Perceived quality and Brand equity.
H4: There is a positive relationship between Brand loyalty and Brand equity.
H5: There is a positive relationship between Store Location and Brand equity.

CHAPTER III
19

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research design

20

Figure 3. Research Design

Recommendation
Conclusion
Analyze Data
Quantitative Research
Final Questionnaire
Pilot test
Draft Questionnaire
Research Model
Literature Review
Objective
- Reliability test
- EFA
- Correlation test
-Regression Analysis
User survey
21

3.2. Questionnaire design
First of all, the questionnaire is designed to collect the data from users. Closed-
ended questions are used where users could decide to rate the situation in along the scale
continuum.
The questionnaire is divided into two parts. The first one includes questions on
brand equity and its elements. The seconds one consists of several demographic questions
in order to collect users basic information . The Likert scale is applied to measure the
strength of each factor. The Likert scale, with reference to Cooper et al. (2006), is the
most frequently used tool for summated rating scale. Respondents are asked to rate the
agreement among 5 statements expressing either a favorable or an unfavorable attitude
toward the object of interest, which are:
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Disagree

Table 4. Summary of measurement scale

22

CODE Variables Sources
Brand
awareness
BAW1 1. I easily recognize some characteristics
of KFC dishes as mentioned.
(Keller 2008)
BAW2 2. I easily remember the logo, images of
KFC.
(Keller 2008)
BAW3 3. I think of KFC when I think about fast
food.
(Keller 2008)
Brand
association
BAS1 4. KFCs image is very unique compared
to other fast food brands on the market.
(Keller 2008)
BAS2 5. KFC is a premium brand in the
market.
(Keller 2008)
BAS3 6. I love people seeing me when I have
meals in KFC stores as a premium
brand.
(Keller 2008)
Perceived
quality
PQ1 7. KFC's products suits my taste. Aaker (1991)
PQ2
8. KFC products are diversified.
Aaker (1991)
23

PQ3 9. Service quality at KFC stores are
well-satisfied.
Aaker (1991)
PQ4 10. I strongly believe in the quality of
KFC products
Aaker (1991)
Brand
loyalty
BL1 11. I go to KFC store when I want to use
fast food.
Assael (1992);
Samuelsen Sanvik
(1997)
BL2 12. I frequently eat at KFC stores. Assael (1992);
Samuelsen Sanvik
(1997)
BL3 13. I do not care about the other brands
but KFC.
Assael (1992);
Samuelsen Sanvik
(1997)
BL4 14. I am willing to buy KFC despite of
its higher price, as long as in the
acceptable range.
Assael (1992);
Samuelsen Sanvik
(1997)
24

Store
Location
SL1 15. The KFC stores are conveniently
located to customers.
(Maryann P.
Feldman, Aydan S.
Kutay, 1997)
SL2 16. I easily found a KFC store
everywhere.
(Maryann P.
Feldman, Aydan S.
Kutay, 1997)
SL3 17. I choose KFC because of its Store
Location.
(Maryann P.
Feldman, Aydan S.
Kutay, 1997)
Brand
equity
BE1 18. I still prefer KFC if other stores are
selling the same quality food as KFC
Aaker (1991)
BE2 19. I still choose KFC if other stores are
selling these dishes taste like KFC.
Aaker (1991)
BE3 20. If other stores are not differentiated
to KFC, KFC is a better choice.
Aaker (1991)
25

3.3. Sampling
Sampling is concerned as the selection of a group of individuals from a statistical
population to draw the characteristics of that entire population (Parasuranaman et al.,
2004, p.356). A conclusion resulting from the sample about the population could be able
to achieve the research objective (Saunders et al., 2007)
According to Hair (2006), to ensure the researchs reliability, the sample size
required is n>=100 and n >=5k with k: number of variables. Since we have the sample
size of 203 (users from the fanpage), the research can be reasonably conducted.
Gorsuch (1983, p.332) and Hatcher (1994, p. 73) suggested a minimum ratio of
subject: variable is at least 5:1 in EFA, the higher ratios would be more appropriated. For
the study, the number of variables is supposed to be 20, so the sample size of 203 gives
the approximate ratio of 10:1.
Moreover, Comfrey and Lee (1992) recommended that the adequacy of sample
size might be evaluated very roughly on the following scale: 50- very poor; 100-poor;
200-fair; 300-good (p.217). Therefore, the size of 203 samples is assumed to be suitable
for this study.
3.4. Pilot study
In order to provide clarity for the questionnaire as well as to ensure better
understanding for participants, a test is conducted before the final questionnaire
administered. There were 18 users being approach to answer the questions and give
comments about the quality of the questionnaire. Most of respondents reported that they
had no difficulties in answering the questions, the others pointed out some lack
information. Accordingly, the questionnaire has been altered a little bit and the next stage
was conducted.
26

3.5. Data collection
The target group of respondents for this survey is users of KFC Vietnam fanpage.
They have been approach via message box on their Facebook. The researcher will send
the questionnaire to each selected users on the fanpage.
There were totally 246 questionnaires sent to users. The returned questionnaires
were 217, yielding a response rate of 88.21%. In the analysis process, there were 14
questionnaires not usable for data analysis because of either missing answers, users aged
more than 40 or who never eat fast food, so they had been deleted. Afterwards, all
acceptable 203 questionnaires were entered and analyzed with the SPSS software version
20.
3.6. Data analysis method
Data that put into the SPSS would used through 4 kind of tests.
3.6.1. Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics was initially conducted to describe main features of the
sample. It would transform the process of raw data to a completed form which provides
information for describing a set of factors under the same condition. It also provides
frequencies as well as measures central tendency and dispersion.
3.6.2. Reliability Test
The reliability test is evaluated by using Cronbachs alpha. With reference to
Canvana et al. (2001), Cronbachs alpha is a coefficient of internal consistency. It is
commonly used to estimate the reliability of a sample. The theoretical alpha value varies
from 0 to 1. According to Nunnually and Bernstein (1994), if the reliability of scale
varies from 0.70 to 0.8, it was good. The Cronbachs alpha >= 0.60, scale is acceptable in
terms of reliability. An observed variable is accepted if its item-total correlation is greater
27

than 0.30. If the variables are lower than 0.3, they would be removed (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994). Datas were firstly tested with reliability test and the retained variables,
afterwards, were put into EFA.
3.6.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Exploratory Factor analysis explains and compares the way each respondent think
of the suggestion that definite items are involved in specific factors (Cavana et al, 2001).
For the study, this technique is applied to identify critical factors determining brand
equity.
Moreover, in analysis process, two other factors must be taken into considerations
which are Barletts test of Sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Factor
loading. Firstly, KMO measurement was adopted to determine the appropriateness of
data. If the value of KMO ranges between 0.6 and 1.0, it is assumed to be appropriated.
Otherwise, KMO below 0.6 might not be appropriated.

Secondly, factor loading means the correlation of each item and the factor. The
loadings are considered practically significant if it is from +/-0.50 or greater. Otherwise,
all loadings (<0.5) are deleted (Hair et al., 1998). After conducting EFA, the Cronbachs
alpha was recalculated for the factor whose items were eliminated.

3.6.4. Linear Regression Analysis

Multiple linear regressions are a statistic method used to describe relationship
between a dependent variable and independent variables by fitting a linear equation to
observed data. Consequently, regression analysis could simply involve one dependent
variable and one independent variable or multiple involving one dependent variable and
28

two or more independent variables. Thus, it was applied to indicate how much of the
variance in brand equity is explained by the set of its dimensions.

29

CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION

4.1. Sample demographics
There were totally 246 questionnaires sent to users. The returned questionnaires
were 217, yielding a response rate of 88.21%. In the analysis process, there were 14
questionnaires not usable for data analysis because of missing answers, so they had been
deleted. Afterwards, all acceptable 203 questionnaires were entered and analyzed with
the SPSS software version 20.
Figure 4 to Figure 6 give information about the proportion of sample
demographics.

Figure 4: Proportion of Gender
53%
47%
Gender
Male Female
30

In 203 respondents, there were 107 males and 96 females which occupied 53%
and 47% respectively, this proportion is relatively equal, in other words, the sample is
reliable because of not having any bias.

Figure 5: Proportion of Age

Most of users are younger who aged under 25 holding a percentage of 93%
(189/203). This indicated almost people who both eat KFC fast food and use Facebook
are teenagers, students or officers.

19%
45%
29%
7%
Age
under 15
from 15 to 18
from 18 to 25
from 25 to 40
31

Figure 6. Last time customers eating at KFC
As showed in the table, there is just a small number of users who ate at KFC since
the last two months (8%). So these respondents have enough updated information to be
able to give their perception on brand equity of KFC. This makes the research more
reliable.
4.2. Descriptive statistics
The descriptive statistics were computed to show the value of data. Basically,
there are two mostly considered figures namely mean and standard deviation .
Mean expresses the central distribution of a value mean while standard deviation
illustrates the dispersion level of data in which dispersive and valuable are inversely
proportional.
4.2.1. Brand Awareness

16%
20%
36%
20%
8%
Last time
1 week
2 weeks
4 weeks
8 weeks
over 8 weeks
32

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of Brand Awareness
Descriptive Statistics of Brand Awareness
Mean Std. Deviation Analysis N
BAW1 3.58 0.921 203
BAW2 3.50 0.914 203
BAW3 3.66 0.906 203
Average 3.58 0.914
Among three elements of Brand Awareness dimension, the average mean value of
3.58 with the range from 3.58 to 3.66 point out that a positively perception of users on
brand awareness. I easily recognize some characteristics of KFC dishes as mentioned
gets the lowest value at 3.58. The highest mean belongs to BAW3 (3.66), meaning that
most of users think of KFC when they think about fast food. The result also shows the
difference between feedbacks of respondents which are quite low and presented by
fluctuation of standard deviation (from 0.906 to 0.921). Regarding to its importance to
Brand Equity, the approach of increasing this dimension should be considered.
4.2.2. Brand Association

33

Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of Brand Association
Descriptive Statistics of Brand Association
BAS1 3.77 0.964 203
BAS2 3.76 0.968 203
BAS3 3.75 0.923 203
Average 3.76 0.952
Descriptive Statistics result of Brand Association has the average mean value at
3.76 ranging from 3.75 to 3.76. As the table presented, the element BAS1 gets the highest
score (3.77) which stands for the most agreed statement KFCs image is very unique
compared to other fast food brands on the market. A small number of users think that
they love people seeing me when I have meals in KFC stores as a premium brand
which is illustrated by the lowest mean value of 3.75. Additionally, the standard deviation
is ranging from 0.923 to 0.964 indicating that the users perception does not deviate
much, meaning that, this dimension needs to be supported better.
4.2.3. Perceived Quality

34

Table 7. Descriptive Statistics of Perceived Quality
Descriptive Statistics of Perceived Quality
PQ1 3.32 0.996 203
PQ2 3.45 1.001 203
PQ3 3.70 0.857 203
PQ4 3.47 1.064 203
Average 3.49 0.980
As the table displayed, all mean values are greater than 3.0. Particularly, the
highest one is 3.70 with belongs to PQ3 which also means most of users do agree that
Service quality at KFC stores is well-satisfied. Meanwhile, there is just a minority of
respondents concurred with KFC's products suits my taste that is proved by the lowest
score (3.32). Moreover, the dispersion between respondents perception is highest
(among fluctuations of other factors) with the standard deviation ranging from 0.857 to
1.064. Still, a deeper approach in order to increase Perceived Quality is necessary.
4.2.4. Brand Loyalty

35

Table 8. Descriptive Statistics of Brand Loyalty
Descriptive Statistics of Brand Loyalty
BL1 3.43 0.901 203
BL2 3.57 0.867 203
BL3 3.44 0.918 203
BL4 3.35 0.980 203
Average 3.45 0.917
According to the result of collected data, the average mean value of Brand
Loyalty is 3.45. The highest score of four elements is 3.57 (BL2) which indicates the
frequency of users eating at KFC store. Eventhough, not any user willing to buy fast food
at KFC despite of its higher price. This is proved by BL4s lowest mean value of 3.35.
Furthermore, the standard deviations range from 0.867 to 0.980, which presents a very
similar perception of users about these factors. In other words, this dimension is
suggested to increase more.
4.2.5. Store Location

36

Table 9. Descriptive Statistics of Store Location
Descriptive Statistics of Store Location
SL1 3.33 0.966 203
SL2 3.51 0.997 203
SL3 3.82 0.831 203
Average 3.55 0.931
The respondent perception towards Store Location is presented via the mean and
standard deviation in the table above. The lowest mean value is 3.33 of SL1, that is The
KFC stores are conveniently located to customers ; the highest score is 3.82 of SL3 I
choose KFC because of its Store Location. The average mean of these elements is 3.55.
Also showed in the table, the differences between those items are quite low which ranges
from 0.831 to 0.997. Therefore, approaches to increase users perception about Store
Location are considerable.
4.2.6. Brand Equity

37

Table 10. Descriptive Statistics of Brand Equity
Descriptive Statistics of Brand Equity
BE1 3.62 0.943 203
BE2 3.59 0.887 203
BE3 3.59 0.936 203
Average 3.60 0.922
As showed in the table, the mean value of Brand Equity has the average score of
3.60. The highest value mean is 3.62 of BL1 that stated for I still prefer KFC if other
stores are selling the same quality food as KFC. Regarding the rest two elements, the
result of 3.59 of both ones shows the least agreement of respondents that I still choose
KFC if other stores are selling these dishes taste like KFC and If other stores are not
differentiated to KFC, KFC is a better choice. What is more, the standard deviations
range from 0.887 to 0.943 indicating that the overall satisfaction of respondents is
favorable, though it is not really high. Therefore, the practice of increasing Brand Equity
is significant so far.
4.3. Reliability test (first time)
The reliability test is used so as to calculate the degree of consistency between
those variables. The analyzing process is based on Cronbachs alpha coefficient which
38

was presented to test reliability of each factor or, in other words, to study whether all
items are measuring the same thing. (Devellis, 1991).
With reference to George and Mallery (2003), we have rule of thumbs are
presented below:
Table 11. Internal consistency level
Cronbachs Alpha () Internal Consistency
0.9 Excellent
0.8 < 0.9 Good
0.7 < 0.8 Acceptable
0.6 < 0.7 Questionable
0.5 < 0.6 Poor
< 0.5 Unacceptable
As below tables show, the Cronbachs alpha of all dimensions are greater than 0.7
so these measurements are accepted.

39

Table 12. Reliability Statistics for Brand Awareness (1
st
)
Reliability Statistics for Brand Awareness
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.779 3

Table 13. Item-Total Statistics of Brand Awareness (1
st
)
Item-Total Statistics of Brand Awareness

Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item Deleted
BAW1 7.16 2.500 .640 .675
BAW2 7.24 2.488 .655 .658
BAW3 7.08 2.731 .555 .767
The Cronbachs Alpha for this dimension has good value (0.779). Obviously, the
Item-Total Correlation of BAW3 is smaller than 0.6. However, it still remains becauses
the elimination of this item will cause a decrease in Cronbachs Alpha.
40

Table 14. Reliability Statistics for Brand Association (1
st
)
Reliability Statistics for Brand Association
.810 3

Table 15. Item-Total Statistics of Brand Association (1
st
)
Item-Total Statistics of Brand Association

Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item Deleted
BAS1 7.51 2.934 .619 .781
BAS2 7.52 2.607 .756 .634
BAS3 7.53 3.082 .608 .790
41

The next dimension has higher Cronbachs Alpha value (0.810). The item-total
correlation of each one is greater than 0.6. Furthermore, not any items would be removed
since a decrease in Cronbachs Alpha caused by the elimination.
4.3.3. Perceived quality
Table 16. Reliability Statistics for Perceived Quality (1
st
)
Reliability Statistics for Perceived Quality
.818 4

Table 17. Item-Total Statistics of Perceived Quality (1
st
)
Item-Total Statistics of Perceived Quality

Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item Deleted
PQ1 10.63 6.265 .545 .814
PQ2 10.49 5.568 .720 .730
42

PQ3 10.24 6.333 .674 .760
PQ4 10.48 5.637 .634 .774
The Cronbachs Alpha revealed after using the Reliability Test for Perceived
Quality is quite high (0.818). The item-total correlation of PQ1 is observed as 0.545
which is questionable based on the rule of thumbs suggested by George and Mallery
(2003). Still, regarding to its inversely effect on Cronbachs Alpha that caused a decrease
to 0.814, the item is still retained.
4.3.4. Brand loyalty
Table 18. Reliability Statistics for Brand Loyalty (1
st
)
Reliability Statistics for Brand Loyalty
.882 4

Table 19. Item-Total Statistics of Brand Loyalty (1
st
)
Item-Total Statistics of Brand Loyalty
43

Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item Deleted
BL1 10.36 6.281 .630 .890
BL2 10.23 5.820 .805 .826
BL3 10.35 5.565 .815 .820
BL4 10.44 5.575 .735 .853
The observation on Cronbachs Alpha on Brand Loyalty has been considered as
the highest value (0.882). This proved that the consistency between items is well-
designed. Although an elimination of BL1 would cause a minimal increase in the
Cronbachs Alpha value (from 0.882 to 0.890), the item should not be removed in this
component regarding its important
Table 20. Reliability Statistics for Store Location (1
st
)
Reliability Statistics for Store Location
44

.783 3

Table 21. Item-Total Statistics of Store Location (1
st
)
Item-Total Statistics of Store Location

Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item Deleted
SL1 7.33 2.549 .646 .678
SL2 7.15 2.354 .695 .620
SL3 6.83 3.190 .537 .792
This dimension also has a good Cronbachs alpha value (0.783). Among the first
two items, SL3 has its item-total correlation lower than 0.6. In case this item is
eliminated, the Cronbachs Alpha will just experience an minimal increase (from 0.783 to
0.792). Thus, regarding to its importance to Store Location dimension, we have it
retained for further analysis.
4.3.6. Brand Equity

45

Table 22. Reliability Statistics for Brand Equity (1
st
)
Reliability Statistics for Brand Equity
.875 3

Table 23. Item-Total Statistics of Brand Equity (1
st
)
Item-Total Statistics of Brand Equity

Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
BE1 7.18 2.833 .758 .825
BE2 7.21 2.950 .785 .802
BE3 7.21 2.900 .738 .843
The very high value of the Cronbachs Alpha of Brand Equity (0.875) proved for
its good internal consistency. Since there not any item deleted could increase Cronbachs
alpha value, all items are acceptable to be kept for next tests.
46

4.4. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
For the process, KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) and Bartletts Tests of Sphericity
would be applied to assess the adequacy of data for factor analysis. The Factor analysis
has been conducted in order to test the validity of the scale.
Table 24: Level of Correlation
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkins value Correlations
0.90 Very good
0.80 Good
0.70 Acceptable
0.60 So-so
0.50 Bad
< 0.50 Unacceptable
Source: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (1974)
The data is considered as appropriate for factor analysis if Bartletts Test of
Sphericity (sig.) < 0.05.

Moreover, Total Variance Explained needs to be greater than 50 percent and
Eigen value of each factor over 1 is acceptable.
47

The loadings of those factors are less than 0.50 and items that distribute in two
or more dimensions with disparity less than 0.30 will be removed (Kaiser, 1979, 1974).

For the research, the results of the factor analysis of independent variables
process are reveal after three times which are presented as follow:

st

Table 25. KMO and Bartlett's Test 1
st
for Independent variables
KMO and Bartlett's Test 1
st
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.

0.854
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 1749.841
df 136
Sig. .000

Table 26. Rotated Component Matrix
a
(1
st
time)
Component
48

1 2 3 4 5
BL3 .867
BL4 .825
BL2 .800
BL1 .638 .348
PQ2 .812
PQ1 .788
PQ3 .691
PQ4 .372 .650
BAS2 .864
BAS3 .753
BAS1 .751
SL2 .879
SL1 .784
SL3 .321 .635
BAW2 .821
BAW1 .817
49

BAW3 .710
As the table shown, the outcome of factor analysis presents that KMO is 0.854
and the significant of Bartletts test of Sphericity is 0.000 (<0.05). This implied that the
degree of inter-correlation among items was suitable for EFA.
What is more, the Rotated Component Matrix Table shows that BL1 and PQ4 are
removed because the difference between their components is less than 0.3. We still
remain factor SL3 because its difference which is greater than 0.3.
nd

nd

nd

.826

df 105
Sig. .000

50

a
(2
nd
time)

Component
1 2 3 4 5
BL3 .879
BL4 .853
BL2 .787
BAS2 .872
BAS1 .761
BAS3 .758
BAW2 .831
BAW1 .821
BAW3 .701
SL2 .896
SL1 .796
SL3 .331 .608
PQ1 .848
PQ2 .819
51

PQ3 .619
After recalculating those variables for the second time, we could see the disparity
between SL3s dimensions is less than 0.3, so SL3 was eliminated.
rd

rd
rd

.827

df 91
Sig. .000

a
(3
rd
time)

Component
1 2 3 4 5
BL3 .884
52

For this time, as the table shown, no more variables were removed.
To sum up, after being calculated with factor analysis process, the items has been
deducted from 17 to 14 which are grouped into 5 components.
BL4 .855
BL2 .795
BAS2 .876
BAS1 .777
BAS3 .761
BAW2 .830
BAW1 .825
BAW3 .701
PQ1 .848
PQ2 .821
PQ3 .631 .329
SL2 .888
SL1 .814
53

Firstly, the component 1 consists of 3 items, that are Brand Loyalty (BL2), Brand
Loyalty (BL3), Brand Loyalty (BL4).
Secondly, the component 2 named Brand Association includes 3 items: Brand
Association (BAS1), Brand Association (BAS2), Brand Association (BAS3).
The component 3 is represented for Brand Awareness and its items are listed as:
Brand Awareness (BAW1), Brand Awareness (BAW2), Brand Awareness (BAW3).
Next, the 3 items address Perceived Quality dimension, that are Perceived Quality
(PQ1), Perceived Quality (PQ2), Perceived Quality (PQ3)
The last component 5 includes only 2 items that are Store Location (SL1) and
Store Location (SL2).
4.4.4. KMO and Bartlett's Test for Dependent Variables
Besides, the dependent variables or Brand equity are either tested and the results
are shown in the following tables.
Table 31. KMO and Bartlett's Test for Dependent Variables
KMO and Bartlett's Test for Dependent Variables

.739

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 311.160
54

df 3
Sig. .000

Table 32. Component Matrix
a

Component Matrixa

Component
1
BE2 .908
BE1 .894
BE3 .882
KMO of the dependent variables is acceptable at 0.379 and the significant is
0.000. In the component matrix, all the items which grouped into 1 component are
resulted with high loadings. This indicated the strong relationship of these items within
brand equity.
4.5. Reliability Statistics (second time)
55

After eliminating several unacceptable variables, the reliability test is run one
more time for the retained ones.
The outcomes are presented in following tables:
Table 33. Reliability Statistics of Brand Awareness (2
nd
)
Reliability Statistics Of Brand Awareness
.779 3
Table 34. Item-Total Statistics of Brand Awareness (2
nd
)
Item-Total Statistics Of Brand Awareness

Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
BAW1 7.16 2.500 .640 .675
BAW2 7.24 2.488 .655 .658
56

BAW3 7.08 2.731 .555 .767
Brand Awareness receives an acceptable Cronbachs Alpha at 0.779. In this time,
all items are still retained for further analysis.
Table 35. Reliability Statistics of Brand Association (2
nd
)
Reliability Statistics of Brand Association
.810 3
Table 36. Item-Total Statistics of Brand Association (2
nd
)
Item-Total Statistics of Brand association

Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item Deleted
BAS1 7.51 2.934 .619 .781
BAS2 7.52 2.607 .756 .634
57

BAS3 7.53 3.082 .608 .790
The next dimension has higher Cronbachs Alpha value (0.810). Like the first
time, not any items would be removed since the elimination would cause an decrease in
Cronbachs Alpha.
4.5.3. Perceived Quality
Table 37. Reliability Statistics of Perveived Quality (2
nd
)
Reliability Statistics of Perveived Quality
.774 3
Table 38. Item-Total Statistics of Perveived Quality (2
nd
)
Item-Total Statistics of Perveived Quality
Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item Deleted
PQ1 7.16 2.767 .567 .746
58

PQ2 7.02 2.440 .702 .586
PQ3 6.77 3.156 .574 .737

After eliminating PQ4, the Cronbachs Alpha of this dimension is 0.774. Not any
deletion of retained items are accepted since that matter would cause a significant
decrease in Cronbachs Alpha.

4.5.4. Brand Loyalty
Table 39. Reliability Statistics of Brand Loyalty (2
nd
)
Reliability Statistics of Brand Loyalty
.890 3
Table 40. Item-Total Statistics of Brand Loyalty (2
nd
)
Item-Total Statistics of Brand Loyalty

Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item Deleted
59

BL2 6.79 3.175 .762 .864
BL3 6.92 2.859 .831 .802
BL4 7.01 2.802 .767 .862
For the next group, one item is also removed that is BL1. As previous estimation,
an eliminate of BL1 would increase the Cronbachs Alpha to 0.890 which considered as
the highest value since other items do not have a better influence on the Alpha even if
one of them removed.
Table 41. Reliability Statistics of Store Location (2
nd
)
Reliability Statistics of Store Location
.792 2
Table 42. Item-Total Statistics of Store Location (2
nd
)
Item-Total Statistics of Store Location

Scale Mean Scale Corrected Cronbach's
60

if Item
Deleted
Variance if
Item Deleted
Item-Total
Correlation
Alpha if
Item Deleted
SL1 3.51 .994 .655
SL2 3.33 .933 .655
The SL3 is deleted for the second-time reliability test. This made the Cronbachs
Alpha higher (0.792).
4.5.6. Brand Equity
Table 43. Reliability Statistics of Brand Equity (2
nd
)
Reliability Statistics of Brand Equity
.875 3

Table 44. Item-Total Statistics of Brand Equity (2
nd
)
Item-Total Statistics of Brand equity

Scale Mean Scale Corrected Cronbach's
61

if Item
Deleted
Variance if
Item Deleted
Item-Total
Correlation
Alpha if
Item Deleted
BE1 7.18 2.833 .758 .825
BE2 7.21 2.950 .785 .802
BE3 7.21 2.900 .738 .843
The very high value of the Cronbachs Alpha of Brand Equity (0.875) proved for
its good internal consistency. Since there not any item deleted could increase Cronbachs
alpha value, all items are acceptable to be kept for next tests.
4.6. Correlation Testing
The Correlation statistic is used to test the possibility of relationship between one
dependent variable and other independent variables.
The result of Correlation testing is displayed in the following table:
Table 45. Correlations testing results
Correlations testing results
BE BAW BAS PQ BL SL
BE Pearson
Correlation
1 .463
**
.551
**
.729
**
.536
**
.372
**

Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
62

N 203 203 203 203 203 203
BAW Pearson
Correlation
.463
**
1 .341
**
.405
**
.447
**
.325
**

Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 203 203 203 203 203 203
BAS Pearson
Correlation
.551
**
.341
**
1 .386
**
.421
**
.394
**

Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 203 203 203 203 203 203
PQ Pearson
Correlation
.729
**
.405
**
.386
**
1 .451
**
.372
**

Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 203 203 203 203 203 203
BL Pearson
Correlation
.536
**
.447
**
.421
**
.451
**
1 .372
**

Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 203 203 203 203 203 203
SL Pearson
Correlation
.372
**
.325
**
.394
**
.372
**
.372
**
1
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 203 203 203 203 203 203
63

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The table above illustrates the correlation coefficients between a dependent
variable (BE) and five independent variables which are BAW, BAS, PQ, BL, SL as
0.463, 0.551, 0.729, 0.536, 0.372 respectively. What is more, all the significant level of
those variables are equal to 0. Having the results of Correlation test, we would move to
further stage of analyzing process that is Regression Analysis and Hypotheses Testing.
4.7. Regression Analysis and Hypotheses Testing
Regression analysis is used to test the strength of multiple relationships of one
dependent variable and five other independent variables. Apart from this, it is also used to
test hypotheses: H1, H2, H3, H4, H5. The whole result is displayed below.

Table 46. Model Summary
Model Summary
Model R R
Square
Adjusted
R
Square
Std.
Error of
the
Estimate
Change Statistics
R
Square
Change
F
Change
df1 df2
Sig. F
Change
1 .804
a
.646 .637 .49703 .646 71.975 5 19
7
.000
a. Predictors (Constant): SL, BAW, BAS, PQ, BL
64

Table 47. ANOVA
a
results

ANOVA
a
results
Model Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
1 Regression 88.903 5 17.781 71.975 .000
b

Residual 48.666 197 .247
Total 137.569 202
a. Dependent Variable: BE
b. Predictors (Constant): SL, BAW, BAS, PQ, BL
According to two tables above, we have the R Square value 0.646, meaning that,
there was 64.6% of variance of dependent variable (BE) could be explained by
independent variables (including BAW, BAS, PQ, BL, SL). Additionally, the Significant
F value = .000 (< .05) implied that regression model was appropriated with set of data.
Last but not least, the table Coefficients result below shows how much
independent variables contributed to the dependent variable.
Table 48. Coefficients
a
results

Coefficients
a
results
65

As the table shown, the largest beta coefficient is 0.527, which is for Perceived
Quality. The second large beta value is 0.255 of Brand Association variable. The third
one is 0.151 of Brand Loyalty. The next one is 0.099 of Brand Awareness. The last
variable SL has beta of -0.012. These numbers implied that except for SL, the rest of four
variables make a strong contribution to the dependent variable, especially Perceived
Quality.

Another figure needs considering is Significant Level. We could see all the
significant values of Brand Awareness, Brand Association, Perceived Quality and Brand
Loyalty are less than 0.05 which means their important influence on the dependent
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std.
Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) -.154 0.218 -.708 0.480
BAW 0.108 0.054 0.099 1.999 0.047 0.726 1.378
BAS 0.260 0.051 0.255 5.114 0.000 0.723 1.384
PQ 0.549 0.053 0.527 10.356 0.000 0.695 1.440
BL 0.149 0.052 0.151 2.885 0.004 0.656 1.525
SL -0.012 0.045 -0.013 -.258 0.797 0.755 1.325
a. Dependent Variable: BE
66

variable Brand Equity. Store Location variable is eliminated since its significant level is
greater than 0.5.

The strong relationship of four independent variables and the dependent one
supported hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4 which could be represented by the following
regression equation:

BE = 0.099BAW + 0.255BAS + 0.527PQ + 0.151BL

Since there not any evidences experience the relationship of Store Location and
Brand Equity, the hypotheses are answered and displayed as below:

Table 49. Hypotheses Testing Results

Hypotheses Testing Results

HYPOTHESES RESULTS
H1
There is a positive relationship between Brand Awareness
and Brand Equity.
Accepted
H2
There is a positive relationship between Brand Association
and Brand Equity.
Accepted
H3
There is a positive relationship between Perceived Quality
and Brand Equity.
Accepted
H4
There is a positive relationship between Brand Loyalty and
Brand Equity.
Accepted
H5
There is a positive relationship between Store Location and
Brand Equity.
Not
Accepted

67

Figure 7. Revised research model

Brand equity
Brand
awareness
Brand
association
Perceived
quality
Brand loyalty
68

CHAP V

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1. Conclusion
The research Measuring brand equity base on the fanpage users on facebook ,
the case of KFC Vietnam Company was conducted by applying the model of customer-
based brand equity (Aaker 1991) for the ultimate purpose of measuring brand equity of
KFC Vietnam via its Facebook fanpage and test how strength that each dimension which
are namely as brand awareness, brand loyalty, brand association, perceived quality and
other proprietary assets affects brand equity.
In order to achieve the purpose, the research has been studied for five months,
from January 2013 to May 2013. The study started with literature review, academic
theories and other sources of data to measure customer-based brand equity. Five
dimensions mentioned above are used to discuss in the preliminary individual survey
through administered questionnaire with respondents.
After being considered several methods, quantitative is the main method of the
research. A sample of 203 users using KFC fanpage were surveyed, the collected data
was analyzed by SPSS program version 20.0. Descriptive statistics was conducted to
provide the general information of brand equity of the firm. The next step is to test the
reliability of measurement scale and refine the scale by applying Reliability and Factor
69

analysis. Afterwards, in order to define the relationship among variables, correlation test
and multiple linear regression analysis were applied in the research. Last but not least, the
results of five dimensions are reveals to draw conclusion in terms of how brand equity is
improved.
Table 50. Components Results
Components Results
Components Items Mean values
BRAND
AWARENESS
(BAW)
BAW1 3.58
BAW2 3.50
BAW3 3.66
BRAND
ASSOCIATION
(BAS)
BAS1 3.77
BAS2 3.76
BAS3 3.75
PERCEIVED
QUALITY (PQ)
PQ1 3.32
PQ2 3.45
70

PQ3 3.70
BRAND LOYALTY
(BL)
BL2 3.57
BL3 3.44
BL4 3.35
After statistical analyzing process, the results have been revealed to support
hypotheses in the favorably influence of the four components: brand awareness, brand
loyalty, brand association, perceived quality. Among them, PERCEIVED QUALITY has
the highest Beta value (0.527), followed by BRAND ASSOCIATION, BRAND
LOYALTY, BRAND AWARENESS as 0.255, 0.151, 0.099 respectively. The
DISTRIBUTION NETWORK dimension was eliminated because its significant level is
not appropriated (0.797)
Based on statistical data, the customer perspective on brand equity of KFC are
acceptable proved by the mean value of brand equity (3.60). However, this level is not
very high and should be increased. Thus, the results and findings from this research
should be concerned and applied to increase the brand equity, especially PERCEIVED
QUALITY, BRAND ASSOCIATION, BRAND LOYALTY and BRAND
AWARENESS because of its impact on the brand equity.
5.2. Recommendation
After testing how strength the five dimensions affect brand equity, this section
will propose some recommendations which mainly suggested by users in order to
improve the power of brand equity of KFC Vietnam Company. The ideas are given based
71

on five contributing elements in the priority order which are namely: perceived quality,
brand association, brand loyalty and brand awareness and Store Location.
DIMENSIONS BETA RECOMMENDATIONS
Perceived quality

0.527 With the highest mean value (0.527), the result
indicates an essential role and an a positively impact of
perceived quality on brand equity. Thus, managers need
to focus enterprise resources on improving product
quality while building the brand equity.
According to users, KFC Vietnam has relatively
satisfied their expectation. However, if the firm strive
to maintain the set of loyal customers as well as
increase new customers, there are some
recommendations should be considered:
Employees must be trained periodically to enhance
overall quality process in goods and services.
Need an inspection process. The aim of inspection in
production of goods is to eliminate unacceptable
standards in product before it gets to the final
consumer.
Conduct a standardized safety tool in order to make
production process go smoothly by communicating
clear data, events, activities and making smart
72

decision.
Provide a better working environment (workplace,
equipment, etc) to increase service quality.
Ensure delivering meals to customers within 15
minutes as promoted. Expand distribution channels to
make it as quick as possible.
Conduct service periodically among customers to
know their perception about the product quality.
Ensure that the quality will match customers
expectation.

Brand
association

0.255
Brand association, as being discussed, is any object
related to customers memory about a particular brand.
Thus, in order to increase the level of brand association
which now still remain its mean value as 0.255, some
following recommendations should be taken into
consideration:
Sponsor a variety of sporting clubs, running out on
the street with KFC logos or sponsor interesting
promotions with many celebrities.
Use social media, especially Facebook, to build
brand association by posting links to videos, photos
people and events that increase the brand interest and
appeal.
73

Brand loyalty

0.151
According to Aaker (1991), brand loyalty is the essence
of brand equity. Eventhough its mean value is not
quietly high (0.151), brand loyalty still remains the
important role among other dimensions. Understanding
the point, several recommendations are selectively
given below:
Be willing to take time to listen and talk with
customers to have their useful ideas implemented.
Let customers give feedbacks about performance of
employees, the department and the organization.
Answer them sincerely.
Develop a unique brand story which will
significantly increase your of hitting home-run with
the customers in order to make them loyal.
Frequently discount price for usual customers by
providing Customer Cards.
74

Brand awareness

0.099
The Table of Components Results indicates that brand
awareness has the lowest mean value (0.099), meaning
that, it has least impact on brand equity. However, as a
matter of fact, if brand awareness is managed well, it
would bring lots of benefits to the firm, especially, its
brand equity. To achieve this purpose, we have given
some suggestions as follow:
Design a professional website whereby customers can
order their meals and update information.
Concentrate on building fanpage (updating
information, answering customers questions, holding a
photography competition or writing about feelings
when people enjoying KFC,)
Have the website interactive with customers in terms
of they can directly give comments, feedbacks, ask
questions via the website.
Store Location - 0.013 KFC restaurant are now located at particular places
where customers can get access easily. That is the
reason why it is seen as an evident affair that would not
impact on the brand equity.
So this factor should have a remarkable alteration to
have more customers. For instance, the company can
run a campaign KFC on each kilometer.
75

5.3. Limitations of the research.
The target customer of KFC company is young generation, so this research is
mainly focused on users who aged under 40 and live in Ho Chi Minh City. Because
people who are 40 or more less likely to go to fast food restaurant so their opinion are
less reliable than youngers.
The research is only based on users of KFC fanpage meanwhile there are other
consumers of KFC do not use Facebook. Moreover, because of limitation of time and
ability, the study is used to measure brand equity of KFC among a variety of other brands
on the Vietnamese market.
5.4. Recommendations for further researches
On one hand, the research has just measured brand equity of KFC. If the company
wants to get closer with customers, they need others research on some aspects such as
purchase attention, customer satisfaction
On the other hand, with the limitation of time and ability, this research is just
adopted the model of Aaker 1991. This might be not relevant to the subject. However,
this can be seen as consultation for further researches which should applied on other
famous models.

76

LIST OF REFERENCES

AAKER, DAVID KELLER, KEVIN (1990) Consumer Evaluations of Brand
Extensions. Journal of Marketing 1990
AAKER, DAVID KELLER, KEVIN (1993) Interpreting Cross-Cultural Replications
of Brand Extension Research. International Journal of Research in Marketing
1993
AAKER, DAVID (1990) Brand Extensions: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Sloan
Management Review 1990
AAKER, DAVID (1991) Managing Brand Equity. Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand
Name. Free Press: New York.
AAKER, DAVID (1992) The Value of Brand Equity. Journal of Business Strategy 1992
AAKER, DAVID (1996) Building Strong Brands. Free Press: New York.
AAKER, JENNIFER (1997) Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing
Research 1997
Article: KFC Vit Nam . Retrived from:
http://www.kfcvietnam.com.vn/?en#/KFCVietnam/1
Article: KFC: 7 nm chu l v chin lc thn trng. Retrieved from:
http://doanhnhansaigon.vn/online/tin-tuc/kinh-te/2011/11/1059298/kfc-7-nam-
chiu-lo-va-chien-luoc-than-trong/

77

Article: Th trng fastfood: "Ni chin" thng hiu ngoi!. Retrived from:
http://www.doanhnhansaigon.vn/online/kinh-doanh/chuyen-lam-
an/2012/12/1070288/thi-truong-fastfood-noi-chien-thuong-hieu-ngoai/
ASSAEL (1992): Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action.
Canava, R. Y., Delahaye, B. L. & Sekaran, U. (2001). Applied Business Research:
Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Australia: John Wiley & Sons Australia,
Ltd.
Comfrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A First Course in Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
DEKIMPE STEENKAMP MELLENS - ABEELE (1997): Decline and variability in
brand loyalty, International of Research in Marketing.
FARQUHAR, PETER (1990) Managing Brand Equity. Journal of Advertising Research
1990
Gorusch, R.L. (1983), Factor Analysis, 2nd Edition, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Hatcher, L. (1994). A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor
Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Cary, N.C.: SAS Institute, Inc.
KELLER, KEVIN AAKER, DAVID (1992) The Effects of Sequential Introduction of
Brand Extensions. Journal
KELLER, KEVIN (1993) Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based
Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing 1993
78

KELLER, KEVIN (1998) Strategic Brand Management. Building, Measuring, and
Managing Brand Equity. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River.
KIM, JAE; WOOK, CHOI; JIHO, QUALLS; HAN KYESOOK, WILLIAM (2008):
It takes a marketplace community to raise brand commitment: the role of online
communities, Journal of Marketing Management
KOTLER, PHILIP (1994) Marketing Management. Analysis, Planning, Implementation
and Control. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs.
LACHLAN JAMES (2011): Location Intelligence in the retail and fast food industry
MARYANN P. FELDMAN, AYDAN S. KUTAY (1997): Innovation and Strategy in
Space: Towards a New Location Theory of the Firm
MUNIZ, ALBERT M.; O'GUINN THOMAS C. (2001): Brand Community, Journal
of Consumer Research of Marketing Research
Nunnally & Bernstein (1994) :Psychometric theory (3rd Ed.)
Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985), "A Conceptual Model of Service Quality
and Its Implications for Future Research," Journal of Marketing, pp. 41-50.
R. MOTAMENI AND SHAHROKHI (1998): Brand equity valuation: a global
perspective, Journal of Product and Brand management.
SALZER-MORLING (2004): Silence of the brands, European Journal of Marketing.
SAMUELSEN SANDVIK (1997): The Concept of Customer Loyalty, Proceedings of
26
th
European Marketing Academy Conference.
SCOTT A J (1993) Technoplis: High Technology Industry and Regional Development
in Southern California. University of California Press Berkeley
79

STORPER M AND R WALKER (1988) The Capitalist Imperative: Territory,
Technology and Industrial Growth. Basil Blackwell Oxford.
TUOMINEN (1995): Customer-based brand equity: Delivering value for the firm, rade
and customer.
WEBSTER AND KELLER (2004): A road map for Branding in Industrial Markets,
Journal of Brand management.
YOO AND DONTHUS (2001): Brand equity scale.

80

APPENDIX A
Questionnaire in English
QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT BRAND EQUITY OF KFC VIETNAM
INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
Block 6, Linh Trung ward, Thu Duc Districts

Survey Cover Letter
Dear Ms./Mrs./Mr.,
My name is To Hai Duong. I am a senior from the International University,
School of Business. I am doing this thesis research on the brand equity of KFC Vietnam
based on users of its fanpage. I hope you would be pleasure to spare your valuable time to
help me do research on your behavioral perception toward your perception on brand
equity of KFC. All your attitudes and opinions are very useful for my research. The
information will be absolutely classified. Sincerely thank you.
PART I: BASIC INFORMATION
A. How old are you:
a. Under 15 years
b. 15-18 years old
c. 18-25 years old
d. 25-40 years old
e. Over 40 years old (stop)
81

B. Sex:
a. Male
b. Female

C. How long since the last time you ate at KFC food stores?
a. 1 week
b. 2 weeks
c. 1 month
d. 2 month
e. Longer than 2 months
f. Never (stop)

PART II: USERS PERCEPTION TOWARD KFC
82

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
BRAND ASSOCIATION:
1. I easily recognize some
characteristics of KFC dishes as
mentioned.

2. I easily remember the logo, images
of KFC.

3. I think of KFC when I think about
fast food.

BRAND AWARENESS:
4. KFCs image is very unique
compared to other fast food brands on
the market.

5. KFC is a premium brand in the
market.

6. I love people seeing me when I
have meals in KFC stores as a
premium brand.

PERCEIVED QUALITY:
7. KFC's products suit my taste.

8. KFC products are diversified.

9. Service quality at KFC stores are

83

well-satisfied.
10. I strongly believe in the quality of
KFC products

BRAND LOYALTY:
11. I go to KFC store when I want to
use fast food.

12. I frequently eat at KFC stores.

13. I do not care about the other
brands but KFC

14. I am willing to buy KFC despite
of its higher price, as long as in the
acceptable range.

STORE LOCATION:
15. The KFC stores are conveniently
located to customers.

16. I easily found a KFC store

84

everywhere.
17. I chose KFC because of its Store
Location.

BRAND EQUITY:

18. I still prefer KFC if other stores
are selling the same quality food as
KFC

19. I still choose KFC if other stores
are selling these dishes taste like
KFC.

20. If other stores are not
differentiated to KFC, KFC is a better
choice.

85

APPENDIX B
Questionnaire in Vietnamese
BNG HI: GI TR THNG HIU CA KFC
TRNG I HC QUC T
KHOA QUN TR KINH DOANH
Phng Linh Trung, Qun Th c

Th ng,
Xin cho anh/ch,
Ti l T Hi Dng, sinh vin nm cui trng i hc Quc T, i hc Quc
gia TP.HCM. Ti ang lm lun vn tt nghip nghin cu v ti sn thng hiu ca
KFC Vit Nam da trn nhng ngi s dng ca fanpage KFC Vit Nam. Knh mong
anh ch dnh cht thi gian tr li bng cu hi di y. Tt c nhng quan im
cng nh kin ca anh ch u rt c ch cho bi lun vn ca ti. Tt c cc thng tin
s c tuyt i gi b mt v ch nhm mc ch nghin cu. Xin chn thnh cm n.
PHN I: THNG TIN C NHN
A. Anh/Ch bao nhiu tui:
a. Di 15 tui
b. 15-18 tui
c. 18-25 tui
d. 25-40 tui
e. Trn 40 tui

B. Gii tnh ca anh/ch:
86

a. Nam
b. N
C. Anh/Ch n ti ca hng KFC cch y:
a. 1 tun
b. 2 tun
c. 1 thng
d. 2 thng
e. Lu hn 2 thng
f. Cha bao gi (dng)

PART II: KIN CA KHCH HNG V THNG HIU KFC:

Hon
ton
khng
ng
Khng
ng
Khng
c
kin
ng
Hon
ton
ng
NHN BIT THNG HIU:

1. Ti d dng nhn ra mt s c
tnh v mn n ca KFC khi c
nhc n.

2. Ti d dng nh n logo, hnh
nh ca KFC.

3. Ti ngh ngay n KFC khi ngh

87

v thc n nhanh.

LIN TNG THNG HIU:

4. Hnh nh ca KFC rt c o so
vi cc thng hiu thc n nhanh
khc trn th trng.

5. KFC l mt thng hiu cao cp
trn th trng.

6. Ti thch c mi ngi nhn
thy khi ang ngi n trong cc ca
hng ca KFC, mt thng hiu cao
cp.

CM NHN CHT LNG:

7. Sn phm ca KFC ph hp vi
khu v ca ti.

88

8. Sn phm ca KFC a dng, c
nhiu mn n.

9. Cht lng phc v ca cc ca
hng KFC tt.

10. Ti hon ton tin vo cht lng
sn phm ca KFC.

S TRUNG THNH VI THNG HIU:

11. Ti n cc ca hng KFC ngay
khi ti mun dng thc n nhanh.

12. Ti thng xuyn n cc ca
hng KFC.

13. Ti khng quan tm n cc ca
hng khc ngoi KFC.

14. Ti sn sng mua KFC d gi c
cao hn nhng ni khc trong khong
chp nhn c.

89

H THNG PHN PHI:

15. Cc ca hng KFC nm v tr
thun li cho khch hng.

16. Ti d dng tm ra mt ca hng
KFC trn ph.

17. Ti chn KFC v v tr ca cc
ca hng thun tin cho ti.

TI SN THNG HIU:

18. Nu cc ca hng khc c bn
nhng mn n cng cht lng nh
KFC, ti vn thch n KFC.

19. Nu cc ca hng khc c bn
nhng mn n khu v nh KFC, ti
vn chn KFC.

20. Nu cc ca hng khc khng c
khc bit g ln so vi KFC th chn

90

n KFC l s la chn khn ngoan
hn.

Final PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Final PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY HOCHIMINH CITY

Вам также может понравиться