Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Acknowledgements
This thesis was written during my employment as a corporate communication officer at the
Uni-Preseident Group, the largest food manufacturer and convenience store chains
(7-Eleven) in Taiwan, now I am their Marketing and Branding Director. Several individuals
and institutions have contributed to the writing of this thesis, and I would like to take this
opportunity to thank them.
Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisors, Professor Jim Stewart and Professor James C.
Chan, who offered me considerable direction and support throughout my studies. Dr.
Stewart, I thank for his continuing encouragement and giving me enough freedom to
carrying out my research and for welcoming my initiatives. Dr. Chan, I am indebted to him
for his great contribution to the methodology and design of this study.
thank Professor IIes, Harte, Holden, Rodgers, Kyriakidou, Gold and Zhang for their
supports to the research questions during the study.
Table of Contents
Title Page ......................................................................................................... 1
Acknowledgements........................................................................................... 2
Table of Contents.............................................................................................. 3
List of Figures ................................................................................................... 7
List of Tables..................................................................................................... 8
List of Appendices ............................................................................................ 9
Abstract .......................................................................................................... 10
Candidates Declaration.................................................................................. 11
Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................... 12
Knowledge Gap..................................................................................... 16
1.3.
1.4.
1.5.
Research Questions.............................................................................. 21
1.6.
2.0
Introduction .......................................................................................... 29
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.6
REFERENCE
165-189
List of Figures
Figure 1.1
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.4
Figure 2.5
Figure 2.6
Figure 2.7
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.5
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.6
Figure 4.7
Figure 4.8
Figure 4.9
List of Tables
Table 1.1 :
Table 1.2 :
Table 1.3 :
Table 2.1 :
Table 3.3 :
Table 4.1:
Table 4.2:
Table 4.3:
Table 4.4:
Table 4.5:
Table 4.6:
Table 4.7:
Table 4.8:
Table 4.9
List of Appendices
Appendices 1
Appendices 2
Appendices 3
Appendices 4
Appendices 5
Questionnaire................................................................... 209
Appendices 6
Abstract
Most of the extant research on brand equity has looked at the issue from the perspective of
either the consumer or the corporation. This research proposed an integrated approach
to brand equity management by utilizing both financial and customer-based approach.
Studies have validated the effect of brand equity on the value of the firm and addressed the
capital market effects of intangible associations such as economic value added and market
value added.
This study investigated the impact of retail brand equity on corporate financial performance
and the value drivers in convenience store chains. The research built on three main pillars.
First, the research investigated the effect of retail brand equity and the relationship with
corporate profitability/EVA/MVA.
attributes of retail brand equity based on customers perspectives. Thirdly, the research
built a causal structure model to link the retail brand equity constructs to brand financial
performance.
The results showed: 1) Retail brand equity has effect of price prestige driver and loyalty
driver.
and MVA.
quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction and brand loyalty are all positively related to
retail brand equity; especially perceived value shows 0.712 direct effects on retail brand
equity.
Keywords: retail brand equity, brand value, brand constructs, brand attributes, EVA, MVA,
corporate profitability, perceived value, customer satisfaction, brand loyalty, convenience
store chains
10
Declaration
I confirm that the thesis is my own work; and that all published or other sources of material
consulted have been acknowledged in the text or the bibliography notes.
I confirm that the thesis has not been submitted for a comparable academic award.
11
1.0 Introduction
This study investigates brand equity, brand value and the role in retail companies
performance for convenience store chains in Taiwan. The motivation for the research is
that with greater understanding of pertinent brand equity and brand value, marketing
strategies can be optimized and brand management facilitated. This study aims to
conceptualize, measure, and manage brand equity in a manner that drives corporate brand
value and financial performance by embracing an empirical approach. The important
contribution of this study is to develop a cause-effect conceptual framework to link
customer-based brand equity, brand value and corporate performance in a coherent
framework to illustrate the value creating process of brand equity and the value drivers for
convenience store chains. This framework may assist convenience stores to understand
how best to leverage customer-based brand equity to generate brand value and add to
academics the existing and relatively limited evidence in this area.
This chapter presents a general introduction to the research project on the impact of brand
equity and brand value. Section 1.1 highlights the research background and motivation.
Section 1.2-3 affects the discussion of knowledge gap and arguments of extant research
and theory. This gap provides the impetus for the research. Following from above, the
research questions and aims were set in section 1.4-5. Section 1.6.1-4 discusses the
formulation of a methodological framework that is appropriate for the investigation and
designing suitable operational processes for instrument development.
Section 1.7
illustrates the structure of this study including the development of a valid and reliable
instrument for measuring brand equity and linking it to brand financial performance.
Finally, a path analysis is drawn from the analytical findings to investigate the cause-effect
12
relationship between brand equity constructs. 1.8.1-5 briefly reviews works in previous
documents.
13
Table 1.1: 2010 Brand Values of Global and Taiwanese Top 10 Brands.
Global
Brand Value
Taiwanese
Million(US $)
Top 10 Brands
Million(US $)
1.
Coca Cola
70,452
1.
Acer
1,401
2.
IBM
64,727
2.
HTC
1,371
3.
Microsoft
60,895
3.
Asus
1,285
4. Google
43,557
4. Trend Micro
1,228
5. GE
42,808
5.
1,066
6.
McDonald's
33,578
6. Want-Want
482
7.
Intel
32,015
7.
391
8.
Nokia
29,495
8. Giant
291
9.
Disney
28,731
9.
276
26,867
10. Transcend
10. HP
Top 10 Brands
Brand Value
Master Kong
Maxxis
Synnex
240
Over the past two decades, Taiwan has successfully evolved itself from dependence on
foreign imports to local Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) production, and is
becoming a global leader in many high tech (IT) manufacturing industries. (TAITRA2, 2008).
Exports, led by electronics and machinery, generate 70% of Taiwan's GDP growth, and
have provided the primary impetus for industrialization. This heavy dependence on exports
makes the economy vulnerable to downturns in world demand: January-October 2009
exports were down 27% year-on-year, contributing to a 4% contraction of the island's GDP
14
in 2009 (CIA3 World Face book, 2010). The per capita GDP of Taiwan has been forecasted
to reach US$17,927 that is compared to Mainland Chinas of only US$3,999, its costs
associated with labor and other overhead factors were no longer competitive in
labor-intensive low-value industries (IFS4, 2010). Therefore, Taiwan cannot but to adjust
its developmental strategy to the higher-end goods and services sectors. From 2007 to
2009, the value of the service industry takes up from 65.55% of the GDP to 68.72%, and
58% of employee jobs were held within the service sector (MOEA 5 , 2010). Service
industries have becoming the major driving force of the Taiwanese economy. Table 1.2
shows the composition of GDP and labor force by sector estimated in 2009.
GDP
Labor Force
Agriculture
1.7%
5.1%
Industry
29.58%
36.8%
Service
68.72%
58%
(Source: MOEA)
Most of Taiwanese service sector comes from domestic demands. The technological
application of the service industry, developments and general application of IT technology
and integration of logistics techniques have led Taiwans business service sector towards
chain and franchise (C&F) stores development, specializations of the target market and
large-scale operations. This business model is the best way for companies to increase
3
15
market share (TIER6, 2008). Over 90 % of Taiwans economy is composed of small and
medium-sized companies. A large portion of these companies makes up Taiwans C&F
industry. With over 30 years experience from the past and moving into the future, Taiwanese
retail C&F brands have established a successful business model by good commercial
location, giant chain networks, rapid promotion and a well-developed logistics foundation.
By 2007, Taiwan had one of the highest densities of convenience store chains in the world
(TAITRA, 2008).
Until 2008, 2,242 C&F brands with a total of 107,305 chain stores in Taiwan existed. The
increased competition in service markets has made many companies realize that a strong
service brand is an essential part of their competitive advantage (Leslie and Malcolm, 1992).
Kapferer (1988) addressed that the brand today is built through retail. A strong brand can
differentiate a store from the competition (Floor, 2006). With the coming of a
consumer-dominant age, brands have become the main drivers of intangible value and
long-term growth profitability. Therefore, what value brands hold and where and how to
track brand value drivers have been challenging for Taiwanese chain and franchise stores
(TIER, 2007).
customer
behavior; retail reactions to competitors; and supplier reactions to retail brands, even
16
though retailers themselves influence the consumer decision making process, through
differentiated or well-established own brand strategies.
discussed what constructs retail brand equity and how it generates brand value.
Brands are not capitalized on the balance sheet in most countries, which counteracts a
long-term management focus on the value of any internally-developed brands. Most
corporations focused on aggregate, financial accounting-based measures that have been
criticized being useless for marketing decision making. Therefore, an argument and
knowledge gap was raised to justify which performance indicators are crucial to the
long-term brand equity management of retail companies.
Over the past two decade, brand equity has been a much-debated topic in brand
management for both practitioners and academics. Two opposing perspectives or schools
of thought have examined brand equity based on either the financial accounting approach
(or firm-based) (Farquhar et al., 1991: Simon and Sullivan 1993; Kapferer 1997, Doyle
2001), or the customer-based approach (Keller 1993; Srivastava and Rueckert 1994; Chen
2001).
The financial perspective, emphasize the value of the brand to firms. Simon and Sullivan
typify this perspective and define brand equity as the incremental cash flows that accrue to
branded products over and above the cash flows which results from the sale of unbranded
products. Most financial assessment uses a top-down approach that assumes a direct
relationship between the firms profitability and brand equity, where strong financial results
mean a strong brand, and, conversely, negative earnings may signal poor brand equity
(Fetscherin and Mark, 2008).
17
approach fails to include key factors within the marketing mix7 that is a powerful tool to
obtain sustainable competitive advantages (Lin and Kao, 2004; Fetscherin and Mark,
2008).
Cravens and Binder (2003) stressed that cash flow and short-term parameters are what
firms usually employ as indicators of performance, without considering long run value of
brand assets (Leuthesser, 1988). Heding et al. (2009) addressed that financial approach is
a suitable planning and execution tool to evaluate corporate short-term marketing activities,
but the strategic value and potential for brand building of marketing mix tools is
questionable.
branding, understanding how people make consumption decisions and using information
to better serve consumers has become a core competitive advantage of marketing.
Therefore, Keller (1993) profoundly changed the concept of brand equity from sender end
to consumer perspective.
Keller (1993) proposed the first conceptual model of customer-based brand equity as the
differential effect of brand knowledge (brand awareness and brand image) on consumer
response to the marketing of the brand (Fetscherin and Mark, 2008).
Aaker and
Joachimsthaler (2002) defined brand equity as the brand assets (or liabilities) linked to a
brands name and symbol that add to a product or service which has four dimensions:
awareness, associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty. Most customer-based
perspective takes a bottom-up approach to measure brand equity by mounding the brand
associations held in the consumers minds. (Fetscherin and Mark, 2008; Heding et al.,
2008).
7
Marketing mix: E. Jerome McCarthy proposed a 4 P concept in 1960, which has seen wide use in.
The four Ps are often referred to price, product, promotion and place.
18
While current literature has focused on building and conceptualizing brand equity, there
has been no consensus on how to measure it or on what constructs to include in the
measurement process (Mackay, 2001).
the literature as few models explain the process of realization of customer-based brand
equity (e.g. Rust et al, 2000; Doyle, 2004; De Bonis et al, 2003). These models lacked
either market orientation for benchmarking or a monitoring process for determining the
impact of value strategies on customer performance measures and company performance
measures. Therefore, a simultaneous financial- based and consumer-based approach to
measuring and managing brand equity will not only have significant implications for retail
companies attempting to improve the equity of brands, but will also useful in developing a
more complete picture of the long-term brand value creating process.
conceptual framework linking brand equity, brand value and corporate performance will be
explored and highlighted. This framework will provide marketers a better understanding of
a cause-effect relationship between brand equity and retailers performance. Thirdly, little
agreement over how brand value should be measured exists. This is in line with the
argument that a one size fits all solution in branding is not plausible (Mitchell, 2000).
19
Therefore, In Chapter 4, a test of the Hirose brand valuation model application in retail
store chains will be conducted and outlined. Fourthly, less discussion about the important
drivers of customer-based metrics exists. The study argues that a noticeable shift in
marketing paradigms (e.g. Grnroos, 1994; Denison and McDonald, 1995; Brodie et al.,
1997) is changing the criteria according to which consumers are likely to base their decision
preferences.
In Chapter 2 and
To summarize, this study makes a contribution to bridge the gap in the extant research by
developing an integrated conceptual framework that link customer-based brand equity with
brand financial performance.
constructs/attributes of retail brand equity in the convenience store chains. This studys
results will be practical to practitioners and researchers to help gain a better understanding
of the impact of retail brand equity on corporate profitability, EVA and MVA. The findings also
contribute to clarifying the implementation and effectiveness of brand equity development
20
21
The desk research covered literature in the field of marketing, accounting, financing, brand
management, brand valuation, value management, customer equity management, and
strategic management and convenience store management theories.
Factor analysis (reducing the data set to those dimensions which appear to best
measure profitability),
Correlation
analysis
(investigating
the
relationship
between
dependent
and
independent variables).
22
Multiple regression analysis (investigating the relationship between variables i.e. drivers
of brand value, corporate profitability, EVA and MVA, brand equity constructs).
23
Chapter
Chapter 1 Introduction
Desk research
Desk research
hypotheses setting
EVA, MVA,
Corporate profitability ratio
SERVPERF measure scale
Petricks (2002) measure scale
Day s(1984) measure scale
Gronholdt et al.s (2000) measure scale.
24
Definition of brand,
Definition of retail
Review of prior
research of brand
brand value
convenience store
chains
Philosophical
Development of research
orientation of study
Results of
SPSS
Results of
Financial based
Statistical Analysis
Customer-based
data analysis
survey analysis
Contributions to
practitioners and
academics
25
motivation, the macro economy of Taiwan, the retail industry and the convenience store
chain and franchise industry in Taiwan. 1.4 outlined the research questions and topic. 2.1-2
identified the purpose and goal of this study. 2.3-4 provided the research design and
approach in section.
1.8.2 Document 2
This report provided more specific descriptions of research questions, hypotheses and
methodology. The overview included literature about the nature of brand value and drivers,
research design, the development of the research instrument and data collection. This
document also entailed the operational process of the main study and data analysis
methods.
The report was divided into five sections. 1.1-2 updated the knowledge of industry and
retail business trend. 1.3 updated the research questions and developed five hypotheses.
1.4 briefly reviewed brand related literature including brand equity, brand valuation and
seven typical brand approaches. 1.5 briefly introduced brand measurement method and
corporate performance evaluation methods. The Hirose valuation model, Economic value
added model (EVA), market value added (MVA) model were reviewed in this section. 1.6
discussed the sampling frame and data analysis technique.
26
1.8.3 Document 3
This chapter reviewed and discussed the literature and evidence about the nature and
meaning of brand and brand value. The chapter was divided into six sections. Section 1
introduced arguments of extant research and literature. Section 2 examined what is Brand.
The section traced the origin and development of brand concept. Section 3 discussed the
brand equity concept based on multifaceted definitions and perspectives from academics
and practitioners. Section 4 focused on the brand value and benefits that may accrue to
firms and stakeholders. How consumers benefit from their relationship with a brand and
what are the value drivers that affect customer behaviors and corporate performance were
discussed. The benefit of branding was explored further by looking at different approaches
to brand valuation in section 5. Three brand valuation approaches: cost approach, income
approach and conjoint approach to measuring brand performance were explored. Section
6 overviewed the definition and format of the convenience store C&F Industry. Finally, in
section 7, a cause-effect conceptual framework was established to demonstrate the
relevance between brand equity, brand value, and corporate performance.
1.8.4 Document 4
This report demonstrated the results of an empirical investigation of brand value and
customer-based value drivers in chain and franchise stores. The chapter was divided into
six sections. Section 1 overviewed the research arguments and questions.
Section 2
discussed the impetus for re-conceptualizing the concept of linking brand value, brand
equity and customer equity in a coherent framework. A conceptual explanation for the
measurement of brand equity was examined and the research hypotheses were developed
from the propositions discussed earlier in the chapter. Section 3 overviewed the Hirose
valuation model, MVA model, EVA model, corporate profitability ration model. Section 4
accessed the application of the Hirose valuation model and evaluated the six research
27
hypotheses relating to the consequences of Hirose model, MVA, EVA and the Profitability
ratio model. In addition, section 5 offered a general discussion on the consequences of
research hypotheses.
applications of this research and the contribution to the body of knowledge and industry on
customer-based brand equity and branding strategy. In section 6, a reflective evaluation of
the strengths and weaknesses of this study was presented, thereby giving an indication of
avenues for the future enhancement of brand management research.
1.8.5 Document 5
In the study of document 4 indicated empirical results that brand value have a price
prestige driver and loyalty driver based on ten listed chain stores five-year average
financial statement. In document 5, this study enlarged the data panel to twenty companies
who fulfill the chain store definition. The purpose of using larger cross-industry samples
should not bias the empirical results. In addition to the above financial approach of brand
value, this study also adopted Rusts customer-based approach to investigate the
constructs of brand equity in Document 4.
investigated the cause-effect relationship between brand equity and brand value.
Therefore, this study formulated four hypotheses to investigate the constructs of retail
brand equity and the cause-effect relationship between retail brand equity and brand
value/corporate financial performance in document 5. This study hypothesized service
quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty as the four main
constructs and tested that the hypotheses utilized in the structural equation model.
Finally,
28
2.0 Introduction
The growing importance of brand in the market place is equally matched by a significant
increase in the amount of published literature on various aspects of the concept (Abimbola
2003). This Interest is reflected in the works of scholars such as Aaker, (1991, 1996); de
Chernatony (2001); Keller, (1993, 1998); and Kapferer (1997, 2001), among others. In
practice, brand also reflects the dynamic and ongoing dialogue between companies and
customers (Frank, 2001). Salinas and Ambler (2008) analyzed two purposes of brand
research in two general categories: technical purposes and other brand management
purposes. Brand studies with technical applications are generally focused on a value at a
given point in time such as trademark and royalty. Studies for management purposes aim to
measure the brand impact on the corporate performance and demand driver analysis or
brand strength employed for restructuring brand portfolios, performance evaluation and
budget allocation (Salinas, 2008).
This study investigates retail brand equity/brand value indicators and their relationship with
corporate performance/EVA/MVA for management purpose in convenience store chains.
In document 3, we had explored multi- dimensions concepts of brand, brand equity and
brand value from academics and practitioners. This chapter will focus on the concept and
definition of retail brand equity. What are the main constructs of retail brand equity that
generate value and affect corporate performance?
29
This chapter is divided into seven sections. Section 2.1 offers a specific definition of brand
in relation to this research. Section 2.2 examines the role of retail brand equity. Section 2.3
explores the constructs of brand equity for retailers. Section 2.4 focuses on the value that
may accrue to firms as an outcome of branding strategy. In this section, how consumers
benefit from their relationship with a brand is discussed. The value of branding is explored
further by looking at a non-financial approach to measuring retail brand performance in
section 2.5. Section 2.6 is a summary and conclusion to the chapter.
The brand is and has been defined in many different ways over the years, depending on the
perspective from which the brand is perceived (Heding et al., 2009). A traditional definition
of a brand was: the name, associated with one or more items in the product line, which is
employed to identify the source of character of the item(s) (Kotler 2000, p.396). The
American Marketing Association (AMA) defined the brand in 1960 as:
30
This definition resonates with the historical role of branding as identification of ownership
(Murphy and Hart, 1998). The ownership explanation fits well with the production era
marketing. However, brands today are much more than that. Hallbery (1995) criticized
that the concept reflected in the AMA definition can simply be called the traditional
branding concept of a brand. This defines focuses on the differentiability of products
achieved through brand.
brand as the basis for creating continual value for the consumer. Levitt (1960) justified
that a brand is more than a product; because dimensions can exist that differentiate each
one in some manner from other products designed to satisfy the same need. These
differences may be rational and tangible-related to product performance of the brand or
more symbolic, emotional and intangible-related to what the brand represents (Keller, 1998).
In keeping with the notion that a brand embodies many parts, Keller (1998) defines brand
as:
Kellers customer-based concept observed that the uniqueness of brands is based on the
perception in the mind of the customer; the product itself is left out of brand scope (Fournier,
1998). De Chernatony (1992) perceived a company, which fails to think of business in
terms of customer benefits rather than in terms of physical products, is in danger of losing
competitive position in the market. De Chernatonys centre concept is putting the customer
at the centre of the business. Therefore, a broader customer-based definition of a brand
defined by de Chernatony and Keller as below:
31
(De
Chernatony 1992).
In the early 20th century, more financial perspective of a brand existed also included internal
and organizational processes as:
Many people know what a brand is because they can immediately come up with an
example of a typical brand. In terms of definition, however, a difficulty exists to have one
all encompassing definition that will satisfactorily explain the concept of brand (Abimbola,
2003). Kapferer (2001) observed that the inability to come up with a singular definition
reflects the complexity that is inherent in any attempt to define a concept, which in reality
may mean different things to many people. Kapferer (2001) went further to say that:
32
they are all right in their own way - a brand is all of these things
simultaneously. (Kapferer, 2001, p.3)
Building on the issues discussed above, a specific definition of brand is offered in this paper.
Following Murphy (1990) and Keller (1998), this thesis defines brand as:
How then could a firm develop a brand with these attributes? The next section explores the
strategic attributes- brand equity and the value drivers presented by extant research and
literature.
Brand equity, as first defined by Farquhar (1989), is the added value, with which a given
brand endows a product. High brand equity implies strong competitive advantage, which
firms can charge a premium price; an increase in customer demand exists; better trade
leverage exists; margins can be greater; and his company becomes less vulnerable to
competition (Bendixen et al., 2003).
33
differential effect, higher brand knowledge, and a larger consumer response (Keller,
2003a), which normally leads to better performance, both from a financial and a customer
perspective. The underlying conceptual logic of strong brand equity is an asset that is
expected to enhance customer value, increase customers purchase intentions, and
increased the corporate market performance.
grouped it into five categories: perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand awareness, brand
association, and other proprietary brand assets such as patents, trademarks, and channel
relationships. These components have been widely adapted to measure customer-based
brand equity in previous studies.
from a financial perspective as the total value of the brand that is a separable asset when it
is sold or included in a balance sheet (Feldwick, 1996), customer-based brand equity is
defined from the perspective of the customer and is based on consumer knowledge
(Washburn and Plank, 2002).
Brands play an important role in the retail market, and provide valuable benefits to retailers
as well as customers. Recently, more retailers have seen the importance of branding and
have recognised the need to adopt distinctive positioning within their marketplaces.
However, the drivers of brand equity for retailers are often misunderstood and unclear
(ACNielsen, 2003).
ACNielsen (2003) conducted a shopper trend study based on 12 Asia Pacific countries;
tackled store equity (specific to retail chains) measures the strength of the store brand by
examining the extent of consumer loyalty, and their willingness to pay a premium to the
34
store. John Roberts proposed this conceptual approach. Roberts adopted the approach
of Kellers (1993) to relate brand equity to the rich literature on consumer behaviour using
Lavidge and Steiners Hierarchy of effects model (Roberts and Lilien 1993).
Keller
considers brand equity in terms of consumer knowledge (sources of brand equity) and the
actions that the knowledge allows the firm to undertake (outcomes of brand equity). The
brand knowledge consists of the level of brand awareness (both recognition and recall),
brand image, perceived quality, and customer loyalty. Roberts then developed a
conceptual framework that shows a typical decision process that consumers may
undertake as shown in Figure 2.1.
Need
Information
Arousal
Search
Awareness
Evaluation
Purchase
Post
Purchase
Preceptions
Consideration
Preference
Category
Sources of
Outcomes of
uity
ty
uity
Figure 2.1: Relationship between Sources and Outcomes of Brand Equity Model
(Source: Roberts, 1998)
35
category as well as that of the brands. In developing markets or for new categories, this is
important. Additionally, to add a consideration stage may be useful since not all aware
brands may be considered and the determinants of consideration may be different to those
of preference and choice (Gensch, 1985).
Roberts developed a model that calibrates and relates consideration of source and
outcomes of consumer-based brand equity as the models two construct sets. Outcome
of brand equity can be measured by the number of consumers recommending the brand,
those for whom it is bought most often or their favourite brand, the price premium or
reservation price that the brand commands, and extendibility (e.g. see Keller 2003 pp
104-112). The sources of brand equity, awareness, customer loyalty, perceived quality
and brand image, can then be related to this outcome construct to understand the drivers of
brand equity.
Sources
What people know
Awareness (%)
Outcomes
What consumers are willing to do
Emotive Loyalty
Consideration (%)
Associations (%)
Preference
Recommendation
Price Premium
Willingness to pay
price premium
Associations (%)
Store Location
Willingness to travel
Associations (%)
36
This study will adopt ACNielsens Winning Brands store equity model as the fundamental
conceptual framework that illustrates the cause-effect relationship between brand equity
and brand value.
Huribut (2008)
addressed that a stores brand equity is not just something that products like Pampers,
Kleenex and Band-Aid have built up over the years, but also about the image that stores
like Wal-mart, Home Depot and Best Buy have built over time. The brand is the store, and
the store is the brand. Therefore, the stores brand equity is the sum of many critical
elements including strategic positioning, merchandise assortments, visual merchandising,
pricing, customer service and marketing.
makes us the leader is our focus on creating customer value through world-class quality
service, attentive to consumer behavior and provide services that are turned into
customers' needs to ensure 100% customer satisfaction. The customer-oriented driving
force has decreased emphasis on short-term transactions and has increased focus on
long-term customer value metric, including customer relationships, customer satisfaction
(Oliver, 1980), market orientation (Narver and Stanly 1990), and customer value (Bolton
and Drew, 1991).
This research reconstruct service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, customer
37
loyalty as relating to a higher order construct of retail brand equity (Yoo et al., 2000, Yoo
and Donthu, 2001, Kim et al., 2003).
Cronin and Taylor (1992) provided SERVPERF scale to corroborate the superiority of their
performance only instrument over disconfirmation-based on SERVQUAL Scale. In
equation form, it can be expressed as:
k
38
i ij
j=1
SQ =P
Where
SQi = perceived service quality of individual i.
k = Number of attributes / items
P = Perception of individual i with respect to performance of a service firm on attribute j.
The SERVPERF scale is found to be superior as the efficient scale and more efficient in
reducing the number of items to be measured by 50%. (Hartline and Ferrell,1996; Babakus
and Boller, 1992; Bolton and Drew, 1991). This research will utilize SERVPERF scale to
construct the stores service quality based on customers perception.
Webster (2000) indicated that a strong brand provides a number of benefits to retailers
such as pre-established demand, providing a good image of the retailers with the customer
and providing a relationship of trust and creditability with the customer. This aspect is the
concept of consumer perceived value in the brand equity model of Baldauf et al. (2000),
whereby consumer value is defined as the customer overall assessment of the utility of
the product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given (Zeithaml, 1998).
The received factor is the benefits a purchaser obtained from the vendors contributionand the given factor is the buyers costs (financial and/or non-monetary) of receiving the
offering (Dodds, 1991; Zeithmal, 1988). Many of the precedent studies have emphasized
product quality as the primary take factor and price as the give factor (Grewal et al.,
1998; Lichtenstein and Burton, 1990; Zeithmal, 1988). However, service is also a logical
39
Sheth et al. (1991) classified five categories of perceived value. Functional values are
associated with the utility level of the product (or service) compared to the alternatives.
Social value is described as the willingness to please, and social acceptance. Emotional
values are those choices made based upon feelings and aesthetics. Epistemic values can
be utilized to describe the early adopters because they relate to novelty or
knowledge-searching behaviour.
(1993) claimed that customers perceived value is subjective, not objective; therefore,
different customers might have a variety of perceived values for consuming the same
product/service.
Customer value has been measured using a single dimension (e.g. Patterson and Spreng,
1997; Cronin et al., 2000) and multidimensional measurements (Whittaker et al., 2007;
Wang et al., 2004; Ruiz et al., 2008).
the utilization of single dimensional construct has also been criticised as unable to capture
40
measurement errors (Chruchill, 1979; Parasuraman et al., 1994; Petrick, 2002). In the
service contexts, a multidimensional approach has been suggested and may be more
suitable (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001; Woodruff, 1997). Sheth et al. (1991) contends that
the multidimensional concept of value is not just limited to functional aspects (quality and
price) but also affective aspects (emotional and social value).
Many debates about the characters of the constructs when they are being examined in
structural equations have occurred. Petrick (2002) suggests that a need exists for a
different scale to be developed for measuring the customers perceived value. The
Petricks (2002) scale of customer value consists of five items: behavioural price, monetary
price, emotional response, quality, and reputation. This study will adopt Petricks (2002)
perceived value measuring scale that applied three measures of customer value namely:
reputation for quality, value for money, and prestige.
defined customer satisfaction as a state of mind in which the customers needs, wants, and
41
expectations throughout the product or service has been met or exceeded, resulting in
future repurchase and loyalty.
The study in the organizational research on the customer expectations explaining the
discrepancies between the expectations and the reality - comprises of at least three
different theories explaining the discrepancy effects of expectations cognitive dissonance
or assimilation theory; contrast theory; and assimilation-contrast theory (Woodman and
Tolchinsky 1982). Fornell (1992) claimed that high customer satisfaction reduces the
competition in terms of price promotion. Kotler (2003) emphasized that customer
satisfaction is a forward-looking metric. If customer satisfaction starts slipping, then market
share erosion will soon follow. Reichheld and Sasser (1990) addressed that customer
satisfaction also reduces price elasticity for current customer and leads to high margins
and customer loyalty.
the store and leads to benefits in establishing and maintaining relationships with the
customer (Anderson and Weiz,1992). Therefore, how to measure customer satisfaction
has become a crucial issue for marketers.
integrated satisfaction level would cause customers in complex perceptions and result in
the loss of relevant information.
42
Another definition of brand loyalty offered by Jacoby and chestnut (1978) can balance the
incompleteness of Wilkies definition. Jacoby and Chestnut provided a conceptual
definition of brand loyalty that brand loyalty is (1) biased (i.e., non-random), (2) behavioral
response (i.e., purchase), (3) expressed over time, (4) by some decision- making unit, (5)
with respect to one or more brands out of a set of such brands, and is a function of
psychological (decision-making, evaluative) processes.
brand loyalty can be arranged into three categories: 1) behavioral, 2) attitudinal, and 3)
both of attitudinal and behavioral.
This research will adopt Gronholdt et al (2000) customer loyalty measuring scale that
includes three constructs: willing of repurchasing, recommendation to others, and cross
purchasing.
43
This research intended to provide evidence as to the efficacy of using both financial and
customer-based brand equity measures brand performance.
Figure 2.3
Value to the
Corporation
Corporate
Brand
Service Quality
Brand
Building
Customer -
Value
Satisfaction
Perceived Quality
Value to the
Customer Loyalty
Consumer
combination of attributes and values that creates a unique, vivid and meaningful identity for
a brand (Schnfelder, 2004). Franzen and Bouwman (2001) proposed that brands are
bought because they possess characteristics that are experienced as relevant by a group
of consumers. These characteristics or brand meanings are known as brand values.
Rokeach (1973) defines a value as a durable belief that makes a particular type of
behaviors and lifestyle good and preferable compared to a converse state. De Chernatony
44
(2001) pointed out that: people buy brands whose values concur with their own values.
Franzen and Bouwman (2001) differentiate brand value into product related values,
symbolic brand values, relationship values and purchasing behaviors values. Product
related values influence the performance of the product, the cultural meaning inherent in
product usage, the ability of the product to activate emotions, through to values reflecting
the ability of the product to provide sensory enjoyment or to fulfill feelings of beauty.
Symbolic values represent how consumers see brands manifesting themselves to others.
These values may be expressive, impressive or terminal (ibid.). Brands are also perceived
to simplify the purchasing process (e.g. Sheth and Paratiyar, 1995). Purchasing behavior
values represent the path the brand is perceived to positively affect the purchasing situation.
For instance, values that are pertinent to purchase may be the extent to which the brand as
simplifying the purchasing choice, providing low cost of searching or post purchase service.
Finally, numbers different values have been defined to describe the differences in consumer
interaction as with the brand (Fournier, 1998). Relationship values influence commitment
feelings that someone attaches to the brand. Biel (1997) underlines the importance of
relationship values to the creation of strong (i.e. preferred) brands as:
To build strong brands and to keep them strong, it is important to
understand the way in which consumers gain brand insight and form
brand relationships. It is these insights that permit us to guide the
actions through which consumers interpret the character of the brand
(Biel, 1997).
Many rich ideas about brand value in firms and in individual levels came from different fields
of literature. The value discussed here also represents those that provide a profound link
between the meaning of brand and the implication of brand definition for both consumers
and the brand owners. The value of brands to retail companies and consumers are
examined in turn below.
45
Practical
Perceptions of brand
Physical justifications
Symbolic
Fits my lifestyle
Response
Figure 2.4: Customers Rational and Emotional Response to Brands
Source: Lannon and Cooper (1983)
46
The value of brands to the customers is integrated and discussed under three keynotes in
this thesis. They are described in the following sections.
consumption activity is not merely a fulfillment of want and need; but also an expression of
self in which retail brands seem to serve as iconic representations of consumer values and
an image of self.
Keller (1993) addressed that the key to create strong brands is to create
positive associations about the brand in consumers minds. This represents a crucial
source of future economic income for the retail brand (Abimbola, 2003).
47
purchasing a commodity from an unknown store. The risk of the latter is not defined in
terms of monetary value alone. The time and search effort are also included, as well as risk
that may be encountered due to the usage of the unknown retail brand. These may include
physical risks such as monetary loss, health and personal injury. Emotional or
psychological risks also exist such as damaging one's personal standing among friends
and family, and loss or damage to an item of sentimental value. With increasing functional
parity and the sheer proliferation of brands, consumers find it easier to interpret the benefit
that a familiar retail brand offers them, and feel more confident in their purchase without
having to make extensive risk analysis (Batra et al., 1996).
types of relationships consumers have with brands. She identifies six qualities of a brand
relationship. These are: love, self connection, commitment, interdependence, intimacy,
and brand partner quality. Each of these may contribute to different aspects of consumers'
memory. The rational information and cognitive sense may help in brand risk assessment,
but the emotional part may trigger the affective parts of the memory.
DallOlmo Riley and de Chernatony (2000) observed that the developing literature on
relationship marketing might be contributing to the new emphasis on consumer-brand
relationships and on concepts such as brand loyalty.
focus on the consumers one at a time (Blackston, 2000). The refreshed interest in the
concept of brand loyalty reflects the intention of companies to retain their customer base in
48
Relationship marketing
49
competitors. The cost of overcoming customer loyalty (cf. Porter, 1979, 1994; Rumelt,
1997) is also an added barrier with which any would be competitors have to contend; in
fact, empirical research shows that attracting first time buyers costs between 5-6 times
more than strengthening an existing customer base (Peter et al., 1999, p.321). Therefore,
customer loyalty provides predictability that reduces the elasticity of demand. The inability
of competitors to duplicate the overall impression and reputation (Grant, 1997) that a brand
connotes in customers' minds is a powerful means of securing competitive advantage.
Aaker (1991) observed the value of the brands would be the marginal value of the extra
sales (market share) that the brand name supports.
Jones (2008)
demonstrated that each stakeholder group would have different primary concerns and
objectives in relationship to the brand. For example, investors will be looking for a sound
financial performance, with benefit of strong brands is seen in lower funding costs.
Suppliers or distributors may be looking for transfer effects of brand reputations; the impact
of brands is evident in lower costs. Customers may be looking for three types of benefits:
functional, symbolic and hedonic which may generate profitability and growth.
In society term, retail brand owners seek to extend the goodwill created by a brand in the
consumer's mind to competitive (or even different) marketplace, particularly since
everything people associate with a brand contributes to the commercial success of the firm.
Managers are, therefore, well placed to build upon the goodwill that their existing brand
commands in the market. This facilitates entry into a retail sector that is different from the
original sector associated with the earlier brand. Managers can build upon the dominance
and market presence of the private level brand to further strengthen the brand's market
share as well as its competitive position (Abimbola, 2003). It is estimated that in 1988, up
50
to 66% of successful new brands were line on brand extensions (Tauber, 1988; Aaker,
1990). Value may accrue due to decreased distribution costs and shared advertising. The
parent brand may positively influence the image of the extended brand and vice versa. The
risk of failure is also reduced when a successful brand is extended into a new product
category or substitutes. Figure 2.7 shows the multi-domain value of retail brands to the
firms.
Brand Value
Customers
Suppliers
Employees
Finance
Affects Customers
Behaviors
Performance
Revenues increase
values
Price Premiums
Lower Costs/Higher
Margin
Lower Costs/Higher
improves efficiency
Margin
Capital
2.4.3
Value drivers are the set of building blocks that, when properly combined, allow a company
to generate value (Laboy, 2009). The purpose of this section is to investigate and describe
key factors of brand value from corporate and market-based perspectives that support the
development and implementation of revenue building strategies. In the literature, different
types of value propositions are presented. Floor (2006) indicated that a good location,
51
good employees and perfect operational excellence are the most important asset for a
retailer. Treacy and Wiersema (2003) proposed three different types: product leadership,
customer intimacy and operational excellence.
Rationalise
Growth
Price Prestige
Driver
Costs
costs
Variable
costs
Expansion
Driver
Driver
Raise price
Advantage
Fixed
Loyalty
Increase
New
New
Loyalty
Products
Channels
Brand
Existing
Overseas
Premium
building
products
markets
On niches
activities
Focus
Products
New
businesses
52
Rintamki et al (2007) employed the term customer value proposition instead of the more
general term value proposition and distinguish between economic customer value
propositions, functional customer
value propositions,
emotional customer
value
propositions, and symbolic customer value propositions. Srivastava et al. (2001) proposed
to focus on market-based processes to optimize the use of a firms resources and to
improve the delivery of superior value to customers. Market-based processes drive a firms
financial performance and lead to repurchases by transforming the intellectual and
relational market-based assets of an organization into an offering that customers prefer
over competitors. These market-based processes include customer relationship
management, product development management, supply chain management, logistic
development management, the acquisition, development and deployment of human
resources. Besides these processes, the intellectual and relational market-based assets of
an organization are necessary for creating competitive customer-oriented offerings.
Intellectual assets are the types of knowledge a firm possesses about the external
(marketplace) and internal (organizational) environment and are utilized to develop and
implement marketing, product, and sales strategies. Factors of relational assets are, for
example, trust or reputation and depend on the individual firms objectives that make it
difficult for rivals to imitate them (Abimbola, 2003).
53
strategies (Grant, 1991). The need of a non-market asset, such as a new store location or
technology, can be determined by the information gathered from the market-based assets.
Figure 2.7 depicts the process of value creation developed by McNaughton et al (2002).
Cost Advantage
Customer
Loyalty
Asset
Creation
Market
Other Asset
Types
Competitive
Advantage
Perceived
Customer
Perceived
Value
Customer
Value
Customer
Attraction
Customer
Satisfaction
Cash
Flow
Impacts
Market-based
Assets
Customer Value
Words of
Mouth
Firm Value
From the above, one can imply that a firms value is attributed from brand tangible assets
and intangible assets (Hogan et al, 2002). The term tangible assets (Hogan et al, 2002) are
applied interchangeably with the terms market-based processes (Srivastava et al, 2001)
and non-market assets (McNaughton et al, 2002). However, all three different terms mean
tangible elements, such as technology, supply chain, product development, point of sale,
or human resources. The term intangible assets (Hogan et al, 2002) are employed
interchangeably with the term intellectual assets (McNaughton et al, 2002; Srivastava et al,
2001). Both terms mean a firms current and potential value drivers that drive brand equity
and a firms financial performance.
54
Various non-financial
approaches to evaluating retail brand value exist. Concepts such as brand loyalty (e.g.
Brown, 1953; Ehrenberg, 1966; Jacoby and Chestnut, 1977), customer satisfaction
(Anderson and Narus, 1996) and brand equity (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Keller, 1993, 1998) are
measures for gauging the effectiveness of branding strategy. Converting brand
performance into financial terms depends on many factors (including the behaviour of the
customer towards a brand), because consumer perception is an important factor in any
marketing metrics. Kokkinaki and Ambler (1999) classified such market metrics into six
categories including one category for financial values (actual sales figure, profitability and
gross margin). Some widely employed non-financial measurements are depicted in Table
2.1.
55
Performance Category
Market Metrics
1. Brand awareness
2. Brand perceived quality
3. Brand associations
4. Brand loyalty
5. Other proprietary brands assets, such as
patents, trademarks, and channel
relationships
1. Brand awareness
2. Perceived quality
3. Perceived value
4. Social image
5. Customer satisfaction
1. Quality
2. Price-prestige
3. Convenience
Customer Behaviour
1. Customer preferences
56
1. Customer satisfaction
2. Number of complaints
Relative to Competitor
Innovation
Financial
1. Sales
2. Gross margins
3. Profitability
This study will utilize both financial and customer-based approach to measure retail brand
equity performance.
The financial approach will adopt Hirose valuation model which had
been tested in document 4. The customer-based approach will adopt customer behavior
measure construct i.e. service quality, perceiver value, customer satisfaction and customer
loyalty to measure customer preference to store brand.
57
implements that facilitate the creation of brand value based on the customers perspective.
John Roberts (1998) illustrated a source (what people know about brand) and outcome
(what consumers are willing to do) relationship of brand equity model (p.35). This model
was adopted by ACNielsen as the fundamental theory of Winning Brands store equity
model published in 2001 (p.36). The model demonstrated that the more customers know
about the brands awareness and association, the higher price premium and emotive
loyalty that exists.
underpins the financial strength of a brand to the firm as Doyles value creating proposition
stated in 2007 (p.52).
This study integrated the above two different but complementary perspectives: the financial
approach was based on Doyles value creating proposition that focused on the effect of
brand value on corporate performance; the customer-based approach highlighted how
brand equity can drive brand value and what is the construct of retail brand equity. These
constructs were examined as important implements that facilitate the creation of brand
value.
58
Finally, different measures of brand valuation were examined and the importance in the
quest for appropriate evaluation of brand performance was highlighted. These measures
were divided into financial oriented and customer oriented. The most common financial
measures focus mostly on stock prices, sales revenue and gross margin. This study
adopted the Hirose valuation model that used five-year corporate financial statement to
analyze and predict brand value as stated in document 4.
In addition to financial
discussion of the differences between them as well as the link that existed in their usage as
financial and marketing metrics.
59
3.0 Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the method utilized to investigate the research
hypotheses. The overview includes specific issues such as the conceptual framework of
the research, research design, the development of the research instrument and data
collection. The operational process of the main study and data analysis is also discussed.
The chapter is divided into five main sections. Section 3.1 is to conceptualize the research
framework.
provides the research methodology and design by discussing the research sampling frame,
research instruments and data analysis technique. The customer survey is reported in
3.5 and the chapter summarizes in 3.6.
perspectives.
Based
on
customers
perspectives,
retail
brand
equity
is
conceptualised what the brand means to the consumer that is concerned with: service
quality (e.g. Turban ,2002; Gronroos 1982; Smith and Houston 1982; Parasuraman et
al., 1988; Cronin and Taylor, 1992), perceived value (Webster 2000; Baldauf et al, 2000;
Zeithaml, 1998; Shethetal, 1991; Petrick,2002), customer satisfaction ( Codotle et al. 1987;
Anto 1996; Woodman and Tolchinsky 1982; Fornell 1992; Bettencourts, 1997; Kotler
2003; Czepiel et al., 1974) and customer loyalty (Choong, 1998; Fader and Schmillein
60
1993; Gronholdt et al., 2000; Jacoby and Chestnut, 1998). Based on financial perspectives,
brand equity represents the sale or replacement price of a brand to a focal company that
has three value drivers (i.e. prestige, loyalty and expansion) (Hirose, 2002). This study
approached the issue by combining the financial perspective on customer-based brand
equity with that ACNielsens winning brand store equity model to conceptualize the
process of convenience store chains brand value creation. This conceptual model
develops a cause-effect framework based on financial and customer perspective of brand
equity that links brand equity, brand value and financial performance together as shown in
Figure 3.1. Therefore, the following research hypotheses were formulated based on this
conceptual model.
Customer-based Approach
(Source-Cause)
Financial-based Approach
(Outcome-Effect)
Corporate
Retail
Brand
Profitability,
Brand Equity
Value Drivers
EVA, MVA
Service quality
Perceived value
Customer Satisfaction
Customer Loyalty
Price Premiums
Loyalty Driver
Expansion Driver
Brand
Building
Efforts
61
Strong store brands need to be recognizable, accessible and offer value- but as markets
develop, so do consumer expectations, and they need increasingly to look at the totality of
the shopping experience and invest more in convincing consumers that they offer best
service quality and value for money.
location to attract large numbers of customers, thus manufacturers are willing to pay a
higher cost to obtain the exclusive rights for a certain period of promotion.
Convenient
service such as automated money orders, copiers, fax and automatic teller machines,
long-distance phone cards and train/flight/art performance tickets are provided based on
each neighborhoods individual needs, and consumers are willing to pay more for a retail
brand that makes shopping easier: less time, less effort and less stress. In addition to low
and fair prices, convenience store also offers creative promotion, extensive range (e.g.
parcel home-delivery, color copying, pre-order gifts), a pleasant store experience and high
shopping convenience (e.g. payment acceptance for mail-order sales, life insurance and
utility tickets), therefore, offer consumers a strong consumer proposition and satisfaction
(McKinsey, 2003).
Meanwhile, the cost efficient supply chain is replacing price impact as one of the chain
stores competitive advantages. Sales differentials per cost of sales is an index of excess
62
profitability that demonstrates unit price differentials between stores. (e.g. WalMart is
known for its very low prices, but Wal-Mart has wide range, eco-purchasing system,
friendly store image and provides a pleasant shopping experience.)
So Wal-Mart offers a
high-value positioning of more for less retail brand image and maintained an outstanding
performance.
This strong consumer proposition has created the growth in traffic and basket size,
resulting in a much higher productivity, better stock situations, great merchandise
presentation, and thus a more compelling shopping experience for customers, leading to
higher sales productivity.
(cost and price premiums advantage) than weaker brand because consumers make more
frequent visits, fill larger than average shopping baskets, or pay price premiums at the
stores of brands they perceived to be strong (Court et al, 1999). Hirose model
conceptualized a strong retail brand has an impact on price premium advantage namely
price prestige driver.
Price prestige driver is the factor of brand value, which focuses on the price advantage
created by the reliability of the brand that enables the store to sell the product constantly at
higher prices compared with the competitor. Price advantage is explained by the excess
value of branded stores over that of non-branded stores (Hirose, 2002). Based on the
above propositions, specific hypothesis one is formulated:
competitors with superior features, price and convenience, an emotional relationship may
exist in the stores brand perhaps in symbol or slogans. When stores become able to
develop customer loyalty to and trust in stores brand, the customer will begin to make
purchase decisions based on brand rather than physical or functional aspects of the
products and services, and as a results, the brand will reduces marketing costs as high
brand awareness and loyalty, thereby providing stores with trade leverage in bargaining
with manufacturers or venders, attracting new customer and more time to respond to
competitive threats (Aaker, 1996, Floor, 2006). Martin-Consuegra et al. (2007) proposed
evidence that a satisfied and loyal customer is willing to pay more for the service, repeat
the purchase and attach value to maintaining the relationship with the store. Therefore,
the Hirose model conceptualized a strong retail brand that has an impact on customer
loyalty advantage namely loyalty driver.
Loyalty driver is the factor, which focuses on the capability of a brand to maintain stable
sales for a long period based on stable clients or repeat purchaser with loyalty.
Having
high brand loyalty means a store can charge a relatively higher price for product and higher
margins than competitors (Richard and Larry, 2007). Loyal customers usually require less
investment from the store to maintain the relationship than the costs incurred to develop
the relationship at the outset. Therefore, the effect of a brand could be expressed as
prestige driver and loyalty driver, both of which reflect price and quantity effect of the cash
flows generated by the brand in its relationship with customers. The Hirose committee
proposed to adopt the stability of market share by cost of sales as a parameter for loyalty
driver since the data is objective based on financial statements data and captures growth
and decline of markets. A strong retail brand position in the mind of the consumer leads
to a higher market share. A higher market share generally results in a higher return on
investment and profitability.
64
A strong retail brand can also grow rapidly through franchising at lower capital costs.
Independent entrepreneurs are willing to work under the umbrella of a strong brand as they
know that a strong retail brand guarantees high sales. A strong retail brand can benefit
from the local power of independent entrepreneurs and quickly build market share and
brand equity. A higher market share generally results in a higher return on investment. In
addition, a strong retail brand can also enter the new market easier. For example, 7Eleven, Mercuries and Ten Ren Tea Co. can therefore be successful in opening restaurant
chains. Their consumer franchise as a chain store is a leverage for new products and
services.
Expansion driver states a brand is widely recognized and is capable of expanding from
traditional industry and markets to similar or different industries as well as to overseas
expanding market geographically.
growth rate of the overseas sales and the growth rate of sales in the non-core segment of
the stores as the parameter for brand expansion power.
formulated:
Reinartz and Kumar (2002) proposed that profitability must be managed concurrently to
ensure a stores maximum positive results. The best known and most widely employed
profitability ratios are Return on Assets (ROA), Return on Equity (ROE), Gross Margin
(GM), Net Margin (NM) and Pretax Margin (PM).
65
efficiency the stores operations (Ross et al., 2006). ROA describes how effective a store is
at converting its assets into net profit. Generally, the higher the number, the better the
performance.
from stockholders equity. Gross margin is a stores total revenue minus the costs incurred
when producing the product and service that generated the revenue.
represents that a store is efficient, well-run and has appropriate cost control. NM is the final
profit after taxes, research and development, non-recurring and other income statement
take-outs. NM is a good measure for store to evaluate how efficient to turn revenues into
real profits while keeping costs under control.
Yeung and Balas (2007) research demonstrated that strongly branded companies are
more profitable and the significance of brands effects on internal profitability8 based on
the top 300 companies in the United States. A strong retail brand reflects greater
operational efficiencies, higher returns, lower costs and faster growing margin.
Kim and
Kim (2003) found that brand equity has a positive effect on a companys performance and
over 50% of the variations in performance can be attributed to brand equity for chain
restaurants and luxury hotels.
three brand equity components (brand awareness, perceived quality and brand loyalty)
have a significant influence on subjective performance measures including profitability
performance, market performance and customer value (Yeung and Bala, 2007).
Aaker
and Joacimsthaler (1999) quantified the importance of branding to the bottom line.
EuiTrend utilized perceived quality as the key brand equity measure and found that
Accounting Profitability measures include ROA (Return of Asset, net Profit/total asset), ROE
(Return of Equity, Net profit/total equity), MG (Gross Margin, gross margin/sale), NG (Net Margin,
Net margin/sale), PM (Pre Tax Margin, pretax margin/sale)
66
companies with the largest gains in brand equity enjoy an average of 30% stock returns.
The relevant literature and evidence provide an overwhelming support for a positive link
between brand value and profitability.
As many academics have emphasized, brand building is not an expense, but an investment
in the brands and the companys future (Davids & Dunn, 2002). Stores with solid financial
performance also perform substantially on key nonfinancial indicators, including market
share, customer satisfaction, labor productivity and labor relations, interest and principal
payments to lenders, reputation with banks and other lenders and return on invested
capital.
Unlike traditional profitability measures, both EVA and MVA measures take into
account the cost of equity capital to maximize shareholder wealth and stores market value.
67
MVA is the difference between the market value of the store (including equity and debt) and
the total capital invested in the store.
investing the capital and transforming it into bigger. In 1978, 95% of the Dow Jones
industrial market capitalization accounted for tangible assets (plant and equipment). By
2004, this had fallen to just 28%, with the majority of value now residing in intangibles.
Market value reflects the markets verdict on how successful managers have been in
investing the capital entrusted to shareholders and transforming into bigger. Therefore,
higher MVAs are more beneficial.
positive effects on MVA in computer and peripheral accessories industries. Therefore, this
leads the sixth hypothesis:
PrPri
H1
Prestige Driver
H2
Loyalty Driver
Profitability
H5
EVA
Brand Value
H3
Expansion
Store
H4
H6
MVA
customer satisfaction and customer loyalty as the main constructs of retail brand equity.
Stores offer a position on the goodsservices continuum, thus, perceived service quality
represents an essential pillar of value (Grnroos, 1995).
continue offering new services such as parcel home-delivery, color copying, catered lunch
boxes ordered in advance and payment acceptance for mail-order sales, life insurance and
casualty insurance. Thus the element of convenience has been steadily rising. This
service diversification helps expand the customer base and bring about incidental
shopping (Ishikawa and Tai, 2002). In addition, this service quality builds a barrier for
competitors to imitate (Parasuraman and Grewal, 2000) and represents a basis for
differentiation (Berry, 1995) and competitive advantage (Reichheld and Sasser, 1990). Yoo
et al. (2000) found that brand equity is positively related to service quality.
Vatjanaseregaguls et al. (2007) research showed that a relationship exists between each
dimension of quality perception: perception tangibles, perception reliability, perception
responsiveness, perception assurance, perception empathy and each of consumer
decision factors in the Thai hotel industry.
indicated that services quality has the highest brand equity index and are an important
factor of brand equity. Based on above research evidences, the seventh hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 7:
69
Consumers have become increasingly more sophisticated and demanding during the past
two decades with the availability and abundance of products, services, information, and
technology, as well as a new abundance of retail stores and channels (Terblanche and
Boshoff, 2004).
customer dimensions perceived value (service quality, technical quality, price, and social
value) has a positive impact on the customers purchasing intentions. Wang and Alisons
(2005) findings also showed that the customer perceived value in raising the degree of
customer satisfaction and brand preference has a significant correlation in retail stores.
Based on above researched evidence, the eighth hypothesis assumes:
Hypothesis 8:
Customer satisfaction has positive impacts on the strength and favorability of associations
towards a retailer in consumers minds (He and Yan, 2011).
70
investment. In the same vein, Gruca and Rego (2005) find empirical support to the link
between customer satisfaction, cash flow and shareholder value. Torres and Josep (2007)
found that customer satisfaction has a positive direct effect on brand equity. This evidence
leads to the ninth hypothesis:
Loyal customers provide stores a consistent source of revenue (repeat and increased
purchases) and for cost reduction (less promotional expenses) that leads to increased
profits.
an increase of 25% to 85% in profits (Kerin et al., 2009; Reichheld and Sasser, 1990).
Furthermore, stores spend more than five times as much to obtain a new customer than to
retaining an existing one (Kotler and Keller, 2006; Wills, 2009).
The extant research provides mixed evidence of the nature of the relationship between
satisfaction and loyalty. Some researchers (e.g. Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Woodside et al.,
1989) including those who conceptualized loyalty based upon attitudes or intentions (e.g.
Dabholkar et al., 2000; Yang and Peterson, 2004), found evidence of a positive
relationship between satisfaction and loyalty.
that satisfied customers are often loyal and that they engage in repeat business (e.g.
Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Homburg and Giering, 2001).
hypothesis:
The brand equity dimensions of service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction and
71
brand loyalty are proposed as constructs of retail brand equity and the antecedents to
brand value as is shown in Figure 3.3.
H7
Service quality
H8
Perceived Value
PrPri
Bran Equity
H9
Customer
Satisfaction
H10
Customer Loyalty
The
research
conceptual
model
that
links
financial-based
brand
equity
and
72
A1
Service
A2
Quality
H7
EVA
MVA
H1 H5
H6
A3
PD
A1
Customer
Perceived
A2
Value
H10
Loyalty
Equity
LD
H8
Brand
Value
H3
A3
ED
H9
A1
H2
Brand
Customer
H4
Profitability
Satisfaction
Figure 3.4: The Research Conceptual Model Links Brand Equity to Brand Financial
Performance
73
This study aims to be Applied research instead of Basic research. The emphasis in a
basic research is on the examination of theoretical issues designed to add information and
knowledge to a study (Kerlinger and Lee, 2000).
implicated with solving a specific problem. Utilizing information and theoretical insight
found in a basic research study, applied research enables one to transfer theoretical
findings to determine how they can solve a practical problem.
identified two ways of applying research to real life situations. The first approach, termed
effect studies, is designed to be:
In instances like this, actual effects are generalised from the research setting into practice.
Theory functions as an abstraction that offers conceptual explanations. This abstraction
a theoretically plausible explanation based on knowledgeable understandings of issues
74
relating to brand value and brand equity gathered from the literature as a well as industry
experience.
Effects observed in the research are not expected to generalise directly to other
settings.
Rather, effects are applied to test the theory. Furthermore, the theory is
In distinguishing between these two types of research, Calder, Philip, and Tybout (1981)
and Tybout and calder (1999) emphasized the need for clarifying between theory
application and effect application.
requirement is the need for appropriate research settings that correspond to, and closely
make the intended application. The main consideration, therefore, is not that an effect
study guarantees external validity, rather that theory and effect application research have
different roles to play in application to real-life situations (Abimbola, 2003).
Therefore, an empirical study is incorporated to investigate the apply theory of brand equity
and brand value in convenience store chains. Ten hypotheses were proposed. From these
hypotheses predictions about the convenience store chains, accurate data analysis
utilizing standardized statistical methods is crucial to determine the validity of empirical
research. Statistical formulas such as regression, t-test, R-square, and various types of
ANOVA (analyses of variance) are fundamental to forming logical and valid conclusions. If
empirical data are significant under the appropriate statistical formula, the research
hypothesis is supported. If not, then the null hypothesis is rejected (or, more correctly, not
rejected), meaning no effect of the independent variable(s) is observed on the dependent
variable(s). Ideally, empirical research yields empirical evidence, which can then be
analyzed for statistical significance or reported in raw form.
75
This study utilized a quantitative method to ensure the validity and reliability of the
proposed hypotheses. We employed corporate financial statement data to assess the
brands financial value to the firm and relationships with the corporate performance, EVA
and MVA. However, financial approach cannot assess the consumers perceptions,
feelings, and attitudes towards the brand; therefore, customer survey is utilized to measure
consumers mindsets and insights for branding application in this study. While studying
brand equity using either a consumer-based (qualitative method) or a financial-based
(quantitative method) approach has yielded valuable insights on the different ways that
brand equity can be measured and managed (Kartono, 2005).
The measurement model adopted for this study is under following considerations: The
model should 1) provide robust estimates of brand value and components; 2) be practical
for convenience store chains and franchise industry to implement; and 3) be usable for
store marketing investment. In document 4, we have tested the application of Hirose
brand valuation model in 10 chain stores. The results showed that price prestige driver
and loyalty driver are the two main constructs of brand value and brand value has positive
relationship with corporate EVA, MVA and profitability.
sample panel to 20 chain stores utilized multivariate statistical methods to include many
variables in a single analysis and to assess the separate contribution of each variable
within an overall model.
76
analysis, principal component analysis, and multiple regression analysis. Through this
multivariate analysis, we expect to obtain more specific relationship between each brand
value variable (PD, ED, LD) and brand equity variable (service quality, perceived value,
customer satisfaction and customer loyalty), corporate profitability (ROA, ROE, GM, PM,
NM), EVA and MVA.
chains and franchise industry is reflected by dramatic increases in marketing and branding
activities. This is particularly relevant for this study..
The determining characteristics of the convenience store chains have been outlined in
document 3. Twenty chain store brands were selected including 16 listed in Over the
Counter (OTC) and four listed in Gre Tai Securities market (GTSM ) as shown in Table 3.1.
They are:
Eleven Appliance, convenience or department chain stores
Five 3C chain stores
Four Restaurant chain stores
The study estimates brand value at the level of the corporate brand (e.g. 7-Eleven and
Family Mart) instead of the individual store (e.g. 7-Eleven, Starbucks or Family Mart, The
bread). Therefore, the sample frame covered corporate brands alone.
77
Brands
Establish year
Numbers of stores
7-Eleven
1987
47009
Shin Shin
1971
Far Eastern
1967
81
Collins
1969
89
Apparel chain
Tonlin
1982
Department chain
Ruentex
1976
72
Family Mart
1988
2000
Appliance chain
Mercuries
1965
300
Test Rite
1978
30
Les Enphants
1973
1052
Poya
1997
44
Ten Ren
1975
114
Greatwall
1960
70
Restaurant chain
Nan Chow
1950
11
Restaurant chain
1989
28
Tsann Kuen
1978
150
3C chain
Synnex
1988
149
3C chain
E-Life
1986
84
3C chain
Sunfar
1995
73
3C chain
Sampo
1962
50
3C chain
Services
The numbers of stores were estimated based on each corporate official website in 2011.
78
correlation between brand value and expansion driver. In document 5, we will enlarge
data panel from 10 to 118 to further investigate how each of the key drivers of brand value
respondents to corporate value and performance.
The Hirose committee proposes a valuation methodology expressing brand value as:
The ten-year (2000-2009) annual financial data were collected for brand value calculation
from various stock exchanges as shown in Appendix 1.
The Hirose committee performed a trial calculation to measure brand value employing
historical data for three, five and 10 years, and as a result, the committee selected the past
five years which gives the highest correlation with the recent market capitalization amount.
Data for the past three years was not stable and for the past 10 years is unable to reflect
recent structural changes in the economy as well as increasing speed of corporate
innovations (Hirose, 2002). Therefore, this study adopts 2004-2009 as models test period.
The period of 2004 to 2009 included the sharp run-up in the market to the peak of the
Financial Crisis in 2007 and a steep decline thereafter. The period was characterized by
generally higher prices and ended with the so-called Financial Crisis Recession of 2009.
79
Financial Data to be collected includes: Sales, Cost of Sales, Operation Cost, Advertising
and Promotion Cost, Overseas Sales, Non-core Business Sales.
profitability ratios are Return on Assets (ROA), Return on Equity (ROE), Gross Margin
(GM), Net Margin (NM) and Pretax Margin (PM). These five rations are measured how
efficiently the firm manages operations (Ross et al., 2006)
Return on Assets (ROA) measures profit per dollar of assets. The calculation model is:
Return on Equity (ROE) measures how the stockholders fared during the year. Therefore,
ROE is the true bottom-line measure of performance.
The ROA and ROE usually measure performance over a prior period; thus, this study
applied a six years average equity and average assets to calculate the five ratios. The
financial data collected from the 20 chain and franchise stores are including total assets,
80
total equity, net income, gross margin, net margin, and pretax margin as shown in
Appendix II.
EVA= Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT) - (Capital * Weighted average
Or
Re = cost of equity
Rd = cost of debt
E = market value of the firm's equity
81
EVA is a tool to evaluate corporate debt-equity ratio and maximize the value of a share of
stock. The financial data to be collected includes: cash, receivables + inventories +
prepayments, fixed asset, short-term debt, short-term NIBl, long-term debt, other long-term
liabilities, shareholders equity, total sales and total expenses as shown in Appendix III.
R&D (research and development) capital expenditure was not separated from total
expense on the income statement in 10 chain and franchise companies. Therefore, the
cost of capital expenditure will exclude R&D expense. Finally, EVA is regressed on brand
value to examine the effect of brand value on optimal capital leverage.
MVA is the present value of a series of EVA values. MVA is economically equivalent to the
traditional NPV measure of worth for evaluating an after-tax cash flow profile of a project if
the cost of capital is utilized for discounting. MVA calculation shows the difference between
the market value of a company and the capital contributed by investors (both bondholders
and shareholders). This is the sum of all capital claims held against the company plus the
market value of debt and equity.
Higher MVA indicates better market value. A high MVA indicates the company has created
substantial wealth for shareholders. A negative MVA means that the value of
82
management's actions and investments are less than the value of the capital contributed to
the company by the capital market (or that wealth and value have been destroyed). The
financial data to be collected includes a six-year average stock price and market value and
firm equity as shown in Appendix IV. The MVA is regressed on brand value to examine the
association.
3.4.3
1. Descriptive statistics
An initial inspection of the data revealed main features of a collection of twenty corporate
brands brand value, prestige driver, loyalty driver, expansion driver, profitability, EVA, and
MVA quantitatively.
this inspection formed the basis of virtually every quantitative analysis of data.
2. Pearsons r analysis
Liner was
employed to determine the relationship between BV, PD, LD, ED and the various
performance indicators (i.e. profitability rations, EVA and MVA) as follows:
the coefficient lie between 0 (zero or no relationship between the two variables) and 1
(1 perfect relationship), this indicates the strength of a relationship.
the closer the coefficient is to 1, the stronger the relationship; the closer it is to 0, the
weaker the relationship;
the coefficient is either positive or negative- this indicates the direction of a relationship.
83
To assess the reliability and validity of quantitative measurement models, the following
statistical tests were assessed:
The t-test: this test of means is to test the difference of each mean scores, if the
significance level is 0.05 or less, the null hypothesis is rejected, and concludes that one
variable does differ from the other in terms of brand value.
ANOVA (F-statistic): the test involves comparing variances to make inferences about
the means. The variance of the means of the variables will be large if the variables
differ from each other in terms of brand value. The ANOVA test results in what is
called the F-statistic. The larger the ratio of variance, the greater the value of the
F-statistic.
If the
one variable are accompanied by changes in the other variable and in the same
direction. (e.g. larger values in one variable tend to go with larger values in the other).
If the two variables change in the opposite directions, larger values on one will tend to
go with smaller values on the other. This is called a negative correlation.
If no clear
tendency exists for the values on one variable to move in a particular direction (up or
down) with changes on another variable, then they are zero correlation. The
correlations coefficient (r) cannot lie outside the range between -1 and +1. Those two
values of r represent, perfect negative and perfect positive correlation. When r=0,
there is no correlation.
-
84
information. Proportion of variability in a data set accounts for the statistical model
provides a measure of how well future outcomes are likely to be predicted by the model.
In the linear regression model, R2 is simply the square of the sample correlation
coefficient between the outcomes and their predicted values. The coefficient of
determination ranges from 0 to 1.
EFA used to the study has a set of questionnaire items with no clear idea of what
constructs might underlie them. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is used to the
constructs which have been design to be measure in the study. The aim is to explore
what constructs there might but rather to confirm a structure that has been designed into a
study.
Both types of model share a distinction between common factors and specific
factors. The method derives estimates for the factor loadings of each of the common
factors and the specific factors, and gives summary indices (call eigenvalues) of the
importance of each of the common factors, shown by how much of the covariation among
the observed variables each one accounts for. The size of the loadings for the common
factors determines the correlations among the observed variables.
loadings for the specific factors determines the reliability of the common factors. Factor
analysis (EFA and CFA) is used to estimates to select a subset of common factors, usually
retaining only the largest investigates variations in three or four observed variables mainly
reflect the variations in a single unobserved variable, or in a reduced number of
unobserved variables. The observed variables are modeled as linear combinations of the
potential factors, plus "error" terms. The information gained about the interdependencies
between observed variables can be used later to reduce the set of variables in a dataset.
This study will adopt EFA to explore the attributes of each construct based on customers
survey.
85
PCA performs a variance-maximizing rotation of the variable space; it takes into account all
variability in the variables. Factor analysis estimates how much of the variability is due to
common factors ("communality"). The two methods become essentially equivalent if the
error terms in the factor analysis model (the variability not explained by common factors,
see below) can be assumed to all have the same variance (Wikipedia).
Test results
86
Fetscherin and Mark (2008) adopted Hedonic regression model10 to test the relationship
between price and the various product attributes, market share, product variety and brand
equity.
measures to test Rust et als customer equity framework and explored the drivers of value
equity and brand equity.
incorporate the brand-building efforts that influence the various dimensions of brand equity
and are also influenced by the provision of value to the firm.
construct of brand equity that was not presented in Aakers original model. The major focus
of Yoo et al.s (2000) research was to explore the brand-building efforts and the resulting
effects of price on the dimensions of brand equity. Yoo et al. investigated the effects of
price, store image, distribution intensity, advertising spending, and price deals on three
particular dimensions of brand equity: perceived quality, brand loyalty, and brand
awareness.
Extant brand equity measurements can be classified into two terms: relative or absolute.
However, when comparing a limited number of brand equity scores (as in the present
study), absolute measures are virtually meaningless.
relative measure to examine whether the service quality, perceived value, customer
satisfaction and customer loyalty are positively related to brand equity and do affect
performance as conceptualized by prestige driver, loyalty driver and expansion driver.
These are core equity dimensions and are expected to be relevant antecedents of
corporate value and profitability.
developed based on four dimensions of retail brand equity i.e. service quality, perceived
10
87
value, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty for convenience store chains as
proposed in literature section 2.3.1-4.
Peterson (2000) noted that the art of questionnaire design is an imperfect process. This is
because it involves the development of a structured instrument that will facilitate effective
communication between researcher and participants. Each questionnaire is, therefore,
unique in terms of the investigation for which it is developed. This recognition led to the
consensus that questionnaire development is an imperfect process with no standard
procedures for developing a good one (Churchill, 1999; Kumar et al, 1999; Malhotra and
Birks,1999).
and reliable questionnaire can be developed. The process that will be adopted to guide the
development of the questionnaire for this investigation is that of Maihotra and Birks (1999,
p. 320) and Peterson (2000). This process is depicted in Figure 3.5:
88
Figure 3.5: Questionnaire Design Process (Source: Maihotra and Birks, 1999)
An online survey was administered targeting consumers in Taiwan who have shopping
experience in convenience stores. The questionnaire intended to render the respondents
actual and honest responses to the questions; therefore, no incentives were employed to
encourage respondents participation in this study. The objective of this survey was to
assess the usefulness of the Cronnin and Taylors (1992) SERVPERF, Petricks (2002)
SERV-PERVAL , Czepiels et al. (1974) customer satisfaction and Gronholdts et al. (2000)
customer loyalty scale.
unit of analysis was the individual customer. This survey was conducted using 104
software, a leading human resource company who have 5 million members to offer an
internet-based survey tool in Taiwan. The survey combined four different sets of items
(scales), each scale was assigned to measure one of the four constructs. The
measurement adopted a 5-point Likert-scale 11 .
responses on several Likert items. The questionnaire was per-tested among twenty
11
A Likert scale is a psychometric scale commonly used in questionnaires, and is the most widely
used scale in survey research. When responding to a Likert questionnaire item, respondents
specify their level of agreement: i.e. strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree,
agree and strongly agree.
89
respondents, who were drawn from the target population explained in the following section.
Multi-item scales are typically used when measuring complex constructs that are not easily
captured by a single question (Kerlinger and Lee, 2000). In constructing a multi-item
scale one need to ensure that items generated were adapted to suit the specific
characteristics of convenience store chains.
These questions are likely to capture information about different aspects of a complex
construct. Typically, potential scale items that are relevant for capturing the constructs are
gathered from several sources. In this investigation items were gathered from ACNielsens
survey of attributes of convenience brand equity conducted in 2007 and 2008 as shown in
Table 3.2. These items were grouped according to the specifically defined constructs that
they are meant to capture. Scholarly experts were then consulted to review this initial pool
of items.
90
2008
Vary
1. Convenient to get to
NA
NA
NA
NA
-1
NA
NA
12
11
10
-8
11
-5
10
12
-2
13
-10
14
14
15
-7
16
-11
16
17
-1
NA
18
NA
13
19
-6
15
20
-5
17
21
-4
Attributes
91
The experts consist of marketers in the area of marketing strategies, consumer behaviour,
brand management and new business development. This group of practitioners examined
the different types of constructs in the context of retail brand equity. Additionally, the
questionnaire and the relevancy of each item in eliciting information from respondents
were also reviewed.
that of respondents in the pre-test. Experts in this process are primarily to establish the
content validity of the items in capturing the construct. Experts were also consulted to
examine the precision of the items gathered in representing the constructs of investigation.
The experts were then invited to identify the relevancy of various items grouped in terms of
their corresponding appropriateness for measuring each of the research constructs, items
were assessed in terms of clarity of definitions. The general contextual integration of the
pooled items and suggested alternative wordings were also assessed as listed in the initial
item pool of Table 3.3.
Since
convenience stores are located all over Taiwan, sample frame will not be in a specific
geographical area.
breakdown of internet user by age shows that 34.4% belong to the 15-24 age group,
28.1% to the 25-34 group, 28.6% to the 35-44 group), they meet chain stores focus
groups age of 15-45 for this research. In addition, following advantages of on-line survey
concluded by De Leeuw and Nicholls in 1996 was also considered:
1. Easy to use: Beckenbach (1995) reports that more than 80% of the respondents have
no problem at all using a computer and interviewing program.
92
Base on De Leeuw and Nicholls (1996)s statements, this on-line survey expects to
achieved a higher response rate (above 25%), a faster response speed, and lower cost.
However, the opportunities to go deeper into issues that may arise from the research
investigation are not offered.
93
These first two questions are for screening respondents to comply with the sampling
requirement at the data collection stage. The principal objective of this screening is to
eliminate possible errors due to respondents not shopping in convenience store in Taiwan.
This is particularly important as retail brand familiarity is an integral part of consumer brand
attitude formation (Riezebos, 1994) and decision making process. Question controlling for
consumers' lack of knowledge, or for having a definite attitude to the research stimulus, is
crucial to the accuracy of data collected. In addition to the screening questions, the first
section will also collect respondents' age (3a) and gender (3b). Others that will be included
94
are those for eliciting respondents' regularity of shopping (3c), location (3d), and basket per
purchasing (3e), will also be elicited in this section. The last question in this section was to
identify the respondents convenience store preferences for the following substantive
questions.
important part to collect the critical information to accomplishing the objectives of the
research study (Kumar et al, 1999; Peterson, 2000).
This section can also contain other questions that a researcher specified as related to the
research topic or important for the study as a whole (Kumar, et al, 1999; Maihotra and
Birks, 1999; Peterson, 2000). Scaling is a form of measurement. This survey adopted
Likert type scales that requires respondents should: Indicate a degree of agreement or
disagreement with each of a series of statements about the stimulus objects (Maihotra and
Birks, 1999, p.296). The Likert scale can easily be designed and administered. Also,
respondents do not have problems understanding the items (Malhotra and Birks,1999) and
they are less likely to experience difficulties in finding the opposite value on the scale. One
uniform set of response categories exist providing clarity for each item (Peterson, 2000).
In the scale items respondents will be required to assess the rating or ranking of each item
(Churchill, 1999; Lehman et al, 1998).
The service quality in questions 1 to 11 in the questionnaire are scale items designed to
measure customer purchasing behavior i.e. the assumption that service quality is positively
related to brand equity.
95
The scale for perceived value is based on Petrick (2002) indicated perceived quality (four
items), emotional response (five items), monetary price (six items), behavioural price (five
items) and reputation (five items) to address the overall evaluation of perceived value and
to avoid considering specific elements of value.
service quality are duplicated, this study adopted emotional, monetary price, behavioural
price and reputation (question 14-24) for perceived value measure scale.
The scale for customer satisfaction refers to Czepiels (1974) and Cronin et al. (2000)
integrated satisfaction level that included three items (question 27-29): a customers wise
choice, a good shopping experience than expect and provide product or service meet
exactly what customer need. The results focus the outcomes of customer satisfaction and
the intention to continue to shop in the preference store.
The scale for customer loyalty was developed based on Gronhoklt et al (2000) that
included four items (question 32-35): willing of repurchasing, cross purchasing, customers
first choice, willing to pay a little higher price than competitors and recommends to others.
The scale for brand equity was developed based on Hiroses (2000) that included three
brand functions: price prestige, customer loyalty and expansion power. Since the statistic
96
result showed the coefficient of expansion driver and brand value is 0, it represented the
two variables has negligible association.
power from measure scale and design questions to two brand value drivers: price prestige
drivers and loyalty driver in the end of each measure scales. i.e. Q12-13, Q 25-26, Q30-31,
Q36.
Attributes
Up-to-date equipment
material
Provide service right the first Q5. Wide selection of high quality brands and
time
products.
Knowledgeable
97
Have
customers
interest at heart
-
product information.
Customer feels transactions Q10. Ready to eat food and drink is of high quality.
are safe
Employees
who
trustworthy
Q12. Will above service quality make you willing to
pay a higher price to stores products or services?
Q13. Will above service quality make you willing to
repeat purchasing stores products or services?
Perceived Quality : Petricks (2002) measurement Scales
-
It gives me pleasure
It gave me happiness
Appeared to be a good
bargain
98
Reasonably priced
Economical
rewards.
Q19. Have programs that reward regular purchase.
Fairly priced
Easy to buy
My choice to purchase in this Q25. Will above perceived value make you willing to
store was a wise one
Willingness of repurchasing
My choice to purchase in this Q27. My choice to shop in this store is a wise choice.
store was a wise one
99
Willingness of repurchasing
Recommends to others
Cross purchasing
Willing to pay a little higher Q36. I am willing to pay a higher price to purchase
price than competitors
100
the way they think the research wants rather than how they actually feel. This sequence
outline follows guidelines for questionnaire protocol by eliciting introductory and then
substantive information (Peterson, 2000; Churchill, 1999).
In the substantive information portion, since items describe customer satisfaction were
made up of two antecedents of satisfaction derived from Cronin Jr. et al. (2000) , Petrick
(2002),
Anderson and Sullivan (1993) models i.e. store Service Quality Scale and the
Perceived Value Scale, the question started from service quality scale and perceived
value scale. Each Store Service Quality Scale and Perceived Quality referred to 11 item
scale proposed by ACNielsen and reviewed by exports.
Therefore,
the third section of questions was customer satisfaction and the last section was customer
loyalty.
The questions of four constructs of retail brand equity were designed in the
sequence of service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty.
A strong recommendation exists to number the questions to aid completion, editing, coding
101
and tabulation (Peterson, 2000; Malhotra and Birks, 1999). Therefore, each question was
numbered. The length of the questionnaire is also an important issue to consider.
Commonly people believed that long questions are undesirable.
Peterson (2000)
suggested that the relative length of a questionnaire varies according to the purpose of the
research. However, Jobber and Saunders (1986) found that 58% of the mail surveys in an
industrial setting were between four and ten pages. Bryman and Emma (2003) provided
general advice to keep questions short is the main piece of advice to be followed.
Therefore, this study will reduce the physical length of the questionnaire to four pages to
improve the perception of the length.
The questionnaire was first developed in English and at a later stage translated into
Chinese.
Pre-testing ensures that the instrument meets the researcher's requirements in terms of
the information that will be collected (Kumar, et a!, 1999) as well as its adequateness. In
102
this instance, pre-testing plays a role in questionnaire design that is similar to that of test
marketing a new business (Churchill, 1999). The purpose in both instances is to ensure
that the questionnaire is appropriate for the purpose. Churchill (1999) recommended that
the pre-test stage should be conducted by personal interview irrespective of the method of
administration. This personal interview method has two key advantages which are enable
the administrator to probe for further clarification and to receive feedback from the
respondents in a way that cannot be done with the online-administered method.
Therefore, a protocol interview was conducted.
103
summarizing the relationship between variables that is simpler than the original data but
also captures the essence of that relationship. The basic logic is that items which reflect
features of an underlying construct will show common patterns of answering.
For
example, a customer who feels good about his or her shopping experience will tend to
respond in a consistently favourable way questions about different aspects of satisfactions.
Consistency in responses from study participants will produce correlations among items,
and these correlations are the starting point for identifying patterns that reflect underlying
constructs. In a measurement model (Figure 3.4), the observed variables are those which
are measured directly from questions and the latent variables are the constructs which
assumed are causal factors in how sample members respond to the observed variables.
The multivariate analysis methods adopted in this study are exploratory factor analysis
(EFA), principal component analysis, multiple regression analysis (MRA) and path
104
analysis.
1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA): As stated in section 3.4.3.
Regression
can be used for prediction (including forecasting of time-series data), inference, and
hypothesis testing, and modeling of causal relationships.
4. Path analysis
Path analysis is a statistical method of finding cause/effect relationships. Multiple
regressions focus on causality, path analysis can be viewed as a special case of structural
equation modeling (SEM) but no measurement model. Path analysis includes models
equivalent to any form of multiple regression analysis, factor analysis, canonical correlation
analysis, discriminant analysis, as well as more general families of models in the
multivariate analysis of variance and covariance analyses (MANOVA, ANOVA, ANCOVA).
105
2) Construct Validity addresses the question of what construct the scale is actually
measuring. When assessing construct validity, the study attempts to answer
theoretical questions such as why the scale works and what deductions can be
inferred about the underlying theory (Cronbach, 1971, p.477). Construct validity is
a rigorous standard and the most sophisticated and difficult form of validity to
establish (Maihotra and Birks, 2000). Construct validity includes nomological,
convergent, and discriminant validity.
106
used as the criterion variable. The correlation coefficient between them is called
validity coefficients. This study scores constructs as the predictor variables of the
brand equity is the criterion variable.
then the criterion should be met as being a safe driver. In other words, if the
simulation test scores could predict the road test scores in a regression model,
the simulation test is claimed to have a high degree of criterion validity.
107
A balance is struck between these two approaches by purifying the individual scales
that make up the composite scale through the EFA procedure before assessing
dimensionality. The dimensionality of retail brand equity was determined through the
EFA process. Evidence of uni-dimensionality is inferred from the resulting analysis of
EFA if items load significantly on a specific factor that is a non-trivial factor and makes
conceptual sense. This provided evidence to suggest that the items within the retail
brand equity scale are uni-dimensional (Hair, et al, 1998 ; Spector, 1992).
108
distributed
to Taiwans consumers by
http//:www.104 survey.com. to meet the appropriate sample size of 384 based on typical
response rates for an online survey is 20%. In total 700 questionnaires were returned
respondent had not completed the questionnaire. The overall response rate 500
completed questionnaires from two thousand bed spaces was 25%.
In Figure 3.4 discussed the conceptual framework of the research questions and
the effect of retail brand equity from financial and customer-based approach. The chapter
outlines the research design and the effect on the research method selection. The purpose
of employing a quantitative research method is to measure brand equity by both financial
and customer-based perspectives to bridge the gap of extant literature. The nature of the
information sought for testing the research hypotheses and how to obtain this was
conducted next. The development of the research instrument, the nature of the pre-test
that was administered, and the initial method of analysis were also discussed.
109
4.0 Introduction
This chapter discusses the statistical evidence, the inference from which specific structural
justification for research hypotheses are drawn. The issues in this investigation encompass
two approaches- financial and customer-based brand equity. The first part investigates
the financial approach developing specific brand value propositions that explains
hypotheses one through six. We have tested the application of Hirose model in document 4.
This chapter will further investigate the multi-relationship between each models variable.
The second part of the customer survey examines the attributes of four brand equity
constructs and their relationships. Thirty- six questions were designed to indicate the
substantive variables for eliciting respondents' preference and attitudinal opinion for each
constructs. Following the gathering of substantive items, multivariate analysis was
incorporated to analyze the complex relationships between the constructs and brand equity
as proposed in hypotheses seven through ten.
This chapter presents the research results in the following sections. Section 4.1 reveals
brand value calculation and analysis for Taiwans top 20 chain stores. Section 4.1.1-5
presents the association and variation statistics for the Hirose model test, profitability ratios,
EVA and MVA models. Section 4.2 indicates the quantitative research outcome and
summary.
Section 4.3.1-4 underlies the process of developing a scale, item analysis and
discussion, factor identification and labeling. Section 4.3.5-9 presents the attributes
analyses of each construct and the principal components results.
the measurement models reliability and validity. Section 4.3.12 shows the correlation
between brand equity and the four constructs. Section 4.4 demonstrates the path analysis
results of retail brand equity and the link with brand value and financial performance.
110
Table 4.1 shows the descriptive statistics of minimum, maximum, arithmetic mean standard
and standard deviation of all variables.
111
BV
118
9903
PD
118
145
LD
118
.4767
.9745
.848860
.12000108
ED
118
2.75
1.0242
.17385
ROA
112
-.00513
26.48
.060304
0.438604
ROE
112
-.3976
61.18
.110242
.1008140
GM
112
0.058
0.6178
.258424
.1329807
NM
112
-.08
0.1535
.034712
.0412495
PM
112
-.2261
41.52
.055562
.0560372
EVA
118
-54460
MVA
118
-108762
Minimum
Maximum
74034136
Mean
Std. deviation
2.09E8
4.263E8
1.914E7
the study, a regression specification places high structure on the four performance models
created and directly tests the impact of the variables of brand value.
However, the
The regression models were all statistically significant (ANOVA sig.= 0.000, p 0.001), the
112
were checked for assumptions of the confidence intervals, covariance matrix, model fit,
t-test, R squared change, part and partial correlations, co-linearity diagnostics,
Durbin-Watson and normal probability plot.
higher Prestige driver ( =0.081, t=29.307, P 0.000). The coefficients 0.162 (0.2
coef
0.2) of Loyalty driver show the association between two variable is positive but low,
confirming Hypothesis 2 that loyalty driver is positively related to brand value. Contrary to
expectations and result in document 4, a negative correlation between expansion driver
and brand value existed (p=-.057) rejecting Hypothesis 3. However, they were statistically
insignificant (sig=.027) representing that the two variables had negligible association.
These results confirmed the view of Keller, Aaker and Kapferer that higher levels of brand
equity such as perceived quality, brand associations and brand loyalty have a positive
influence on consumer choice, preferences and intention to purchase and pay a premium
price for the brand. Thus, the evidence showed that price prestige driver and loyalty driver
are the two main constructs of brand value in store chains and franchise industry.
113
PD
LD
ED
Pearson correlation
.991***
.162**
-0.057
t-test
79.781
2.392
.107
1.021
4.397E7
3.014E7
81.471
1.052E8
3237978.854
1.024
1.025
1.010
.000
.039
.027
Std. error
VIF
Sig.(one-tailed)
F
2190.87
Adj-R2
.983
D-W
1.907
common factors are responsible for the covariance among the observed variables based
on prior knowledge about the variance in the factors (Hair et al, 1998). Therefore, factor
analysis was utilized to classify six variables into two principal components: factor 1 and
factor 2 as shown in Table 4.4. Items with factor loading <0.5 were considered for deletion
while those with item-to-total scores equal or greater than 0.45 were retained. A scale
114
reliability analysis was assessed, to examine inter-item correlation. Items with inter-items
correlation equal to or greater than 0.30 were retained. Secondly, the communalities of the
items representing the amount of variance accounted for by the component solution of
each variable were assessed. Items with low communalities (<0.4) were considered for
deletion. Both scree plot and items with Eigenvalues >1 were assessed for all the items
retained.
A further test of factorability of the two principal components for the profitability scale was
judged appropriate by examining the Bartlett's test of sphericity (x2= 1026.037, df= 10,
Sig.=0.000) and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (0.753). As an
independent scale this reflects as a proper internal consistency as further indicated with a
standardized alpha value of 0.784. The two components (renamed PM and GM) were
evaluated as valid and reliable observed items for the latent dependent construct of
corporate profitability. This factor analysis suggests that PM and GM can be regarded as
an indication of corporate profitability. Therefore, further regression analysis is employed
to investigate the relationship between brand value and corporate profitability again.
Table 4.3 shows the coefficients of brand value are positively related to higher gross
margin (0.01 coef 0.045 0.1) and pre-tax margin (0.01 coef 0.015 0.1). However, the
Adj-R2 (0.002) with explained variances at 0.2%, have little statistical meaning in the case
of panel data. This result is similar to Yeung and Balas research evidence based on the
business week top 100 global brand value in 2007. Yeung and Balas literataure proposed
that one should focus on the significance of brands effects on internal profitability.
Firms
with higher brand equity generate higher brand value; margins can be greater (increasing
value and decreasing cost make branded companies more profitable) and the company
becomes less vulnerable to competition (Bendixen, Bukasa, and Abratt 2003). This
115
normally leads to better performance, both from a financial and a customer perspective.
ROA
Pearson correlation
ROE
GM
NM
PM
.020
.023
.035
.040
.016
-1.048
2.615
.691
-.002
-1.747
Std. error
3.111E8
1.222E9
3.055E8
1.088E9
8.915E8
8.328E7
1.185E7
7.664E7
3.59E8
-7.179E7
12.731
10.382
1.128
1.378
1.707
0.415
0.401
0.352
0.332
0.433
t-test
VIF
Sig. (two-tailed)
F
4.853
Adj-R2
.148
D-W
.592
Variance
Cumulative
Cronbachs
Item-Total
Value
Factor 1
Alpha
Correlation
3.075
1.220
61.495
24.391
61.495
85.886
Factor 2
PM
.989
-.134
ROA
.988
-.134
ROE
.981
-.148
GM
.205
.804
NM
.341
.718
.992
.940
.993
.984
.309
.308
.308
116
Factor1 (PM)
Factor2(GM)
Pearson correlation
.015
.045
t-test
.165
.486
3.971E7
3.971E7
6569678.519
1.928E7
0.434
0.313
Std. error
VIF
Sig. (one-tailed)
F
.132
Adj-R2
.002
D-W
.338
value drove debt/equity ratio up by 9.27%. In the MVA model, each dollar increased in
brand drove stock prices up by 5.5%. However no effect on stock return was seen.
The results provided sufficient evidence that a positive relationship between brand equity
and the corporate economy and market value exist.
117
EVA
MVA
Pearson correlation
.927***
.555***
t-test
21.272
.830
4.283
.949
91.103
.787
1.49
1.49
0.000
0.000
Std. error
VIF
Sig. (one-tailed)
F
352.725
Adj-R2
.857
1.013
D-W
driver is highly correlated to EVA. (R=0.78, F=138.959, D-W=1.907). This indicates that
the higher prestige driver, the higher EVA ( =719.013, t=20.223, P
coefficients 0.112 (0.1
EVA.
0.000).
The
The coefficient of expansion driver and EVA is 0 (0.0-0.20) that represents the two
118
PD
LD
ED
Pearson correlation
.886***
.112
.000
t-test
20.223
-.208
.520
Std. error
35.536
1.53E9
1.049E9
719.013
-3.176E8
5.455E8
VIF
1.024
1.025
1.010
Sig. (one-tailed)
0.000
0.114
0.365
138.959
Adj-R2
0.780
D-W
1.907
Table 4.8 shows a correlation coefficient between MVA and three brand value variables.
The results indicated, the coefficients 0.555 (coef
driver is highly correlated to MVA. (R=0.297, F=17.471, D-W=1.6). This indicates the
higher prestige driver, the higher MVA ( =2.041, t=7.024, P 0.000). The coefficients
0.135 (0.1
driver are also positively related to MVA. The Adj-R2 for this regression model is 0.297,
which explained variances at 29.7% of this model.
119
LD
ED
.555***
.135
.022
7.024
.737
.669
.291
1252E7
8577835.352
2.041
9222938.997
5741174.820
VIF
1.024
1.025
1.010
Sig. (one-tailed)
0.000
0.072
0.405
Pearson correlation
t-test
Std. error
PD
17.471
Adj-R2
0.297
D-W
1.60
In chapter three, this study hypothesised three functions (PD, LD, ED) of brand value and
the relevance with corporate performance on the basis of substantive theory and the
Hirose Model.
Kapferer 1992) that higher levels of brand equity such as perceived quality, brand
associations and brand loyalty have a positive influence on consumer choice, preferences
and intention to purchase and pay a premium price for the brand, and laid the conceptual
foundation for this empirical work. This section indicated the truth brand value- price
prestige driver and loyalty driver and the positive correlation with corporate EVA and MVA
support for the research hypotheses one, two, five and six. The empirical phase of this
study set out to understand a particular problem: that of understanding the nature of brand
120
value and the function to impact on corporate EVA and MVA after examining the value of
the statistical correlation obtained from the analysis of this empirical investigation. Figure
4.1 and 4.2 shows the regression outcome of this quantitative research.
PrPri
0.991**
Prestige Driver
Adj-R2
Store
0.002
Profitability
rejected
0.162
Loyalty Driver
Brand Value
0.927**
EVA
0.555**
MVA
Driver
PrPri
Prestige Driver
0.886**
0.555**
0.112
EVA
Loyalty Driver
0.135
MVA
0.000 rejected
Expansion
0.022
Driver
121
than females. The characteristics of the respondent sample are exhibited in Table 4.9.
Age
People
Ratio%
Cumulative %
15-24
69
13.8
13.8
25-34
241
48.2
62.0
35-44
156
31.2
93.2
34
6.8
100.0
Female
231
46.2
46.2
Male
269
53.8
100.0
95
8.0
8.0
Hypermarket
414
34.6
42.6
Supermarket
321
26.8
69.4
367
30.6
100.0
44-
Gender
122
55-99
237
47.4
47.4
100-199
151
30.2
77.6
200-299
51
10.2
87.8
300-
61
12.2
100.0
416
83.2
83.2
Family Mart
71
14.2
97.4
Hi-Life
13
2.6
100.0
Store Preference
7-Eleven
Data reduction is the process of describing a data matrix by computing the small number of
measures that characterise the data set. For this purpose, principal component analysis
was utilized as a reduction technique to summarise the data into a smaller set of factors or
components. In addition, principal component analysis is a widely utilised factor analytic
technique within brand equity research ( Aaker and Keller, 1990, Keller, 1993). To achieve
123
these objectives we first undertake data reduction as a means of uncovering the underlying
dimensions of retail brand equity from the primary data collected for this investigation.
Below 0.50
Unacceptable
0.50 - 0.60
Miserable
0.60 - 0.70
Mediocre
0.70 - 0.80
Middling
0.80 - 0.90
Meritorious
Marvellous
to 0.90
(Source: Kaiser Rice 1974)
124
Interpretation is based on the levels of correlation that can be categorised as either high or
low. High levels of correlation allow one to conclude that the attributes are related and
justify their grouping with a factor (Loehlin, 1998, p.154). Examining the attribute to total
correlation and internal correlation purified the result of the questionnaires administered.
For the individual attributes representing a latent variable to be positively correlated as
internal consistency is crucial and is expected in attributes measuring the same underlying
factor (see for instance, Bollen, 1984). Attribute analysis represents a means of data
reduction by eliminating attributes that do not form an internally consistent relation with the
125
rest of the scale. High correlation between attributes is, therefore, a quality sought of a set
of attributes forming a scale (DeVellis, 1991).
126
14775.359,
df
0.956
496
000
Components
1
Q31
0.845
0.158
0.216
0.118
0.159
Q36
0.837
0.165
0.200
0.176
0.174
Q26
0.725
0.302
0.277
0.104
0.201
Q29
0.658
0.142
0.328
0.219
0.225
0.628
0.426
0.288
0.059
0.081
Q27
0.607
0.306
0.233
0.269
0.310
Q32
0.605
0.327
0.116
0.296
0.359
Q29
0.601
0.426
0.290
0.058
0.073
Q33
0.594
0.258
0.232
0.328
0.338
Q13
*delete
Q24
*delete
0.481
0.262
0.289
0.250
0.272
Q22
*delete
0.476
0.247
0.221
0.214
0.292
Q15
*delete
0.473
0.357
0.198
0.196
0.418
Q9
0.207
0.737
0.080
0.208
0.272
Q7
0.225
0.708
0.265
0.177
0.206
Q10
0.299
0.694
0.218
0.145
0.236
Q11
0.244
0.680
0.252
0.226
0.123
Q8
0.171
0.662
0.179
0.228
0.207
Q14
*delete
0.473
0.357
0.198
0.196
0.418
Q23
*delete
0.758
0.037
0.056
-0.015
0.037
Q2
0.186
0.201
0.824
0.027
0.090
Q1
0.206
0.108
0.806
0.107
0.137
Q6
0.202
0.129
0.784
0.005
0.019
0.315
0.192
0.667
0.043
0.097
Q21
127
Q3
0.218
0.465
0.647
0.044
0.088
Q4
0.248
0.549
0.559
0.152
0.154
Q5
0.245
0.497
0.498
0.043
0.201
Q35
0.294
0.151
0.048
0.872
0.215
Q30
0.270
0.154
0.033
0.871
0.241
Q25
0.185
0.242
0.078
0.842
0.281
Q12
0.143
0.312
0.062
0.834
0.186
Q19
0.199
0.250
0.112
0.206
0.786
Q20
0.258
0.265
0.122
0.212
0.728
Q18
0.301
0.170
0.200
0.272
0.705
Q17
0.223
0.342
-0.058
0.291
0.701
Q16
0.400
0.107
0.240
0.206
0.557
128
Attributes
Factor
Variance
Coefficient
Loading
explained
Alpha
Q9
0.735
Q7
0.708
Q10
0.694
Q11
0.680
Q8
0.662
14.30%
0.893
The service quality (group 2) was composed of seven items: (Q2) Variety of convenient
service, (Q1) Clear sign board, (Q6) Long opening hours, (Q21) Convenient to get to, (Q3)
Clean and hygienic store, (Q4) Well presented display of products, (Q5) Wide selection of
high quality brands and products. The pattern matrix for the service quality (group 2)
construct with the percentage of variance explained in the data and Cronbach's alpha for
the scale are shown in Table 4.13. The coefficient alpha for the scale is at 0.904. This
indicates an excellent level of reliability. The initial 11 attributes of service quality were all
retained for further regression analysis.
Attributes
Factor
Variance
Coefficient
Loading
explained
Alpha
Q2
0.824
Q1
0.806
129
Q6
0.784
Q21
0.667
Q3
0.647
Q4
0.559
Q5
0.498
13.80%
0.904
130
Attributes
Factor
Variance
Coefficient
Loading
explained
Alpha
Q19
0.786
Q20
0.728
Q18
0.705
Q17
0.701
Q16
0.557
12.42%
0.892
The pattern matrix for the customer loyalty construct with the percentage of variance
131
explained in the data and Cronbach's alpha for the scale are shown in Table 4.15. The
coefficient alpha for the scale is at 0.950. This indicates an excellent level of reliability.
Nine attributes of brand loyalty were retained for further regression analysis.
Attributes
Factor
Variance
Coefficient
Loading
explained
Alpha
Q31
0.845
Q36
0.837
Q26
0.725
Q34
0.658
Q28
0.613
Q27
0.607
Q32
0.605
Q29
0.601
Q33
0.594
19.05%
0.950
products and services from this store than its competitor, (Q30) Above customer
satisfaction make you willing to pay higher price to stores products and services, (Q25)
Above perceived value make you willing to pay a higher price to a stores products and
services, (Q12) Above service quality make you willing to pay a higher price to a stores
products and services.
The pattern matrix for the brand equity construct with the
132
percentage of variance explained in the data and Cronbach's alpha for the scale are shown
in Table 4.16. The coefficient alpha for the scale is at 0.957. This indicates an excellent
level of reliability. Four attributes of brand equity were retained for further regression
analysis.
Attributes
Factor
Variance
Coefficient
Loading
explained
Alpha
Q35
0.872
Q30
0.871
Q25
0.842
Q12
0.834
12.74%
0.957
(Bartlett's
test
of
spherity=14775.359,
df.=496,
sig.=0.000)
with
133
Factor
Eigen-
Variance
Cumulated
Item-total
loading
value
correlation
Q31
0.845
0.813
Q36
0.837
0.827
Q26
0.725
0.762
Customer
Q34
0.658
0.770
Loyalty
Q28
0.613
Q27
0.607
0.805
Q32
0.605
0.795
Q29
0.601
0.799
Q33
0.594
0.801
Q9
0.735
0.766
Q7
0.708
0.754
Service
Q10
0.694
Quality 1
Q11
0.680
0.718
Q8
0.662
0.693
Q2
0.824
0.767
Q1
0.806
0.719
Service
Q6
0.784
0.679
Quality 2
Q21
0.667
Q3
0.647
0.768
Q4
0.559
0.759
Q5
0.498
0.674
6.095
4.575
4.416
19.048
14.296
13.799
19.048
33.343
47.142
0.820
0.755
0.635
Cronbachs
0.950
0.893
0.904
134
Q19
0.786
0.786
Perceived
Q20
0.728
0.768
Value
Q18
0.705
Q17
0.701
0.737
Q16
0.557
0.618
Q35
0.872
0.907
Q30
0.871
Q25
0.842
0.902
Q12
0.834
0.862
Brand Equity
3.973
4.077
12.415
12.742
59.557
72.299
0.776
0.910
0.892
0.957
135
The content validity, construct validity and criterion-related validity were also tested and
met the criteria.
coefficient between brand equity and four constructs support Hypotheses seven to ten.
The results indicated, four independent variables - service quality (0.5 coef 0.642 0.7),
customer loyalty (0.5coef 0.7470.8) is highly correlated to brand equity (Adj-R = 0.672,
F=256.379, p.000). This confirms Hypotheses seven through ten that service quality,
perceived value (0.5 coef 0.784 0.8), customer satisfaction (0.5 coef 0.747 0.8) and
2
perceived value, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty are positively related to brand
equity.
Table 4.18: Descriptive Statistics for Brand Equity and Four Constructs
N
Brand
Equity
Service
Quality
Perceived
Mean
500
3.6513
.72583
500
4.0647
.55620
500
3.8324
.61770
500
3.8980
.66301
500
3.9173
.68075
Value
Customer
Satisfaction
Customer
Loyalty
Std. deviation
136
Service
Perceived
Customer
Customer
Equity
Quality
Value
Satisfaction
Loyalty
Brand
1.000
.642***
.784***
.747***
.747***
.642***
1.000
.771***
.693***
.674***
.784***
.771***
1.000
.793***
.774***
.747***
.693***
.793***
1.000
.819***
.747***
.674***
.774***
.819***
1.000
t-test
-1.424
.118
8.533
3.979
5.122
Std. error
-.139
.054
.059
.055
.051
-.198
.006
.507
.219
.263
2.604
3.887
3.828
3.516
.000
.000
.000
.000
Equity
Service
Quality
Perceived
Value
Customer
Satisfaction
Customer
Loyalty
VIF
Sig.
.000
256.379
.672
Figure 4.3 demonstrates the association of the retail brand equity and four constructs.
Service quality
0.642***
0.784***
Perceived Value
0.747***
PrPri
Bran Equity
Customer
Satisfaction
0.747***
Customer Loyalty
Figure 4.3: The association of the retail brand equity and four constructs.
137
4.4 Path Analysis of the Causal Model for Retail Brand Equity
This study extends multiple regression analysis to estimate the strength of effects
(cause-effect relationship) within a hypothesized causal system. In Cronin Jr. et al.s
(2000), Petricks (2002) and Sullivans (1993) measure models, service quality and
perceived value are the two antecedents of customer satisfaction. In addition, Bitner (1990)
proposed that customer satisfaction is the antecedent of customer loyalty.
Based on
above literature and theories, the structural pathways of the model developed two types of
variables i.e. exogenous variables (independent variables) and endogenous variables
(dependent variable). Three types of relations exist between observed variables (Hoyle,
1993) are: association, direct effect and indirect effect.
Service quality
Customer loyalty
Perceived Value
PrPri
Bran Equity
Customer
Satisfaction
The first multiple regression models utilized customer satisfaction as dependent variable,
service quality and perceived value as independent variables. The regression result is
shown in Table 4.20.
138
Perceived
Service
Value
Quality
1.000
.793***
.693***
Service Quality
.693***
.771***
1.000
Perceived Value
.793***
1.000
.771***
2.561
4.84
15.16
Std.
.636
.203
VIF
2.463
2.463
.000
.000
t-test
Sig. (one-tailed)
.000
451.227
Adj-R2
.643
Table 4.20 shows the correlation coefficient between customer satisfaction and service
quality and perceived value is 0.693 (0.6 coef 0.693 0.7, p=.000) and 0.793 (0.7 coef
0.793 0.8, p=.000) revealed a highly positive correlation between these three variables.
The standardized coefficients Beta of perceived value 0.636 is higher than service quality
0.203 which indicated that perceived value has higher positive correlation with customer
satisfaction than service quality. Adj-R2 (0.643) explained variances at 64.3%.
Service quality
0.693***
Customer
0.793***
Satisfaction
Perceived Value
Figure 4.5: The Correlation between Customer Satisfaction, Service Quality and
Perceived Value
139
The second multiple regression models utilized customer loyalty as a dependent variable,
service quality and perceived value as independent variables. The regression result is
shown in Table 4.21.
Customer Loyalty
Brand
Perceived
Service
Loyalty
Value
Quality
1.000
.674***
.774***
Service Quality
.774***
.771***
1.000
Perceived Value
.674***
1.000
.771***
2.273
14.295
4.376
Std.
.626
.192
VIF
2.463
2.463
.000
.000
t-test
Sig. (one-tailed)
.000
394.074
Adj-R2
.612
Table 4.21 shows the correlation coefficient between brand loyalty and service quality and
perceived value of 0.774 (0.7 coef 0.774 0.8, p=.000) and 0.674 (0.6 coef 0.647 0.7,
p=.000) revealed a highly positive correlation between these three variables. The
standardized coefficients Beta of perceived value 0.626 is higher than service quality 0.192
which indicated that perceived value has higher positive correlation with brand loyalty than
service quality. Adj-R2 (0.612) explained variances at 61.2%.
140
Service quality
0.774***
Customer
Loyalty
0.674***
Perceived Value
Figure 4.6: The Correlation between Brand Loyalty, Service Quality and Perceived
Value
The third multiple regression models utilized customer loyalty as dependent variable,
service quality, perceived value and customer satisfaction as independent variables. The
regression result is shown in Table 4.22.
Customer Loyalty
Customer
Service
Perceived
Customer
Loyalty
Quality
Value
Satisfaction
1.000
.674***
.774***
.819***
Service Quality
.674***
1.000
.771***
.693***
Perceived Value
.774***
.771***
1.000
.793***
Customer
.819***
.693***
.793***
1.000
1.286
2.148
6.260
13.356
Std.
.083
.285
.537
VIF
2.58
3.603
2.816
.000
.000
.000
Satisfaction
t-test
Sig. (one-tailed)
.000
141
415.944
Adj-R2
.714
Table 4.22 shows the correlation coefficient between brand loyalty and service quality,
a highly positive correlation between these four variables. The standardized coefficients
Beta of customer satisfaction 0.537 is higher than service quality 0.083 and perceived
value 0.285 which indicated that customer satisfaction has higher positive correlation with
brand loyalty than service quality and perceived value. Adj-R2 (0.714) explained variances
at 71.4%.
Service quality
0.674***
0.774***
Customer
Perceived Value
Loyalty
0.819***
Customer
Satisfaction
Figure 4.7: The Correlation between Brand Loyalty, Service Quality, Perceived Value
and customer satisfaction.
The fourth multiple regression models utilized brand equity as dependent variable, service
quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction and brand loyalty as independent variables.
The regression result is shown in Table 4.23.
142
Brand
Brand
Service
Perceived
Customer
Customer
Equity
Quality
Value
Satisfaction
Loyalty
1.000
.642***
.784***
.747***
.747***
.642***
1.000
.771***
.693***
.674***
.784***
.771***
1.000
.793***
.774***
.747***
.693***
.793***
1.000
.819***
.747***
.674***
.774***
.819***
1.000
-1.424
.118
8.533
3.979
5.122
Std.
.005
.431
.200
.246
VIF
2.604
3.887
3.828
3.516
Sig.
.000
.000
.000
.000
Equity
Service
Quality
Perceived
Value
Customer
Satisfaction
Brand
Loyalty
t-test
256.379
Adj-R2
.672
Table 4.23 shows the correlation coefficient between brand equity and service quality,
perceived value, customer satisfaction and brand loyalty are 0.642 (0.6 coef 0.642 0.7,
p=.000),
0.784 (0.7 coef 0.784 0.8, p=.000), 0.747 (0.7 coef 0.747 0.8, p=.000)
and 0.747 (0.7 coef 0.747 0.8, p=.000) revealed a highly positive correlation between
these five variables. The standardized coefficients Beta of perceived value 0.413 is higher
than service quality 0.005, customer satisfaction 0.200 and brand loyalty 0.246 which
indicated that perceived value has higher positive correlation with brand equity than other
three constructs. Adj-R2 (0.672) explained variances at 67.2%. Figure 4.8 shows the path
analysis results.
143
Service quality
= 0.203
=0.005
=0.192
Perceived Value
=0.626
Customer loyalty
=0.636
=
0.246
PrPri
Bran Equity
=0.431
=0.537
=0.200
Customer
Satisfaction
Figure 4.8: The Path Analysis Results of Retail Brand Equity Constructs
Constructs
Indirect Effect
Direct Effect
Total Effect
Service Quality
0.087
0.005
0.092
Perceived Value
0.281
0.431
0.712
Customer Satisfaction
0.132
0.200
0.332
0.246
0.246
Customer Loyalty
Based on the significant 'causal' relationship identified as in Figure 4.8, Table 4.24
exhibited the findings of direct, indirect and combined effects of the four factors which
achieved a R2 value of 67.2% of the variance in retail brand equity. The indirect path of
brand equity included service quality 0.047, perceived value 0.154 and customer
satisfaction 0.132. The total indirect effect is 0.5.
effect 0.005 on brand equity, but has two indirect paths which are customer satisfaction
0.203 and brand loyalty 0.192, drive the indirect effects on brand equity are 0.04 and 0.047.
144
The combined effect of service equity on brand equity is 0.092. Perceive value has a direct
effect 0.431 on brand equity, and has two indirect paths which are customer satisfaction
0.127 and brand loyalty 0.154. The total effect of perceived value on brand equity is
0.712.
Customer satisfaction has a direct effect 0.2 and an indirect effect 0.132 on brand
equity. The total effect of customer satisfaction is 0.332. The most significant combined
effect on brand equity is perceived value 0.712.
145
Q7
Q8
0.708
Q26
0.725
0.662
Q27
0.735
0.607
0.694
0.613
Q9
Q28
Q10
Service
0.680
Q29
0.601
Quality 1
Q11
Q31
0.083
0.845
Q32
Q1
0.806
0.605
Q33
Q2
Brand Loyalty
0.824
Q3
0.647
Q4
Q5
0.559
Service
Q34
Customer Satisfaction
0.658
Quality 2
0.578
0.092
0.667
0.626
EVA
0.886
Q21
0.712
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q36
0.837
0.498
0.784
Q6
0.594
0.557
Perceived
0.701
Value
0.555
0.991
PD
Brand
Equity
0,162
0.705
0.786
MVA
LD
0.112
0.135
0.728
EVA
MVA
Q20
146
validity tests.
In addition, the structural relationships among various constructs were assessed to test the
direct and indirect effects on brand equity. The results showed that perceive value is the
highest correlation with brand equity, second is customer satisfaction, and the third is
brand loyalty.
147
Section 5.2 discusses the implication of the constructs and attributes of retail
showed that brand has effect of price prestige driver and loyalty driver and a positive link to
corporate EVA and MVA. This confirmed Kapferers (1992) address that brand generate
three generations of profit: the price premium, more attraction and loyalty and higher
margin. These effects also work on the convenience store chains and demonstrated the
increasing intangible assets within a companys financial structure. These increasingly
intangible assets that do not appear on the balance sheet are patents, distribution rights
and brands. According to a study by Brand Finance, intangible assets represent between
60% and 75% of capitalization value in the major stock indices. This study showed a
substantial transfer of brand value that each dollar increased in brand value drove
debt/equity ratio up by 9.27% and stock prices up by 5.5% (see section 5.1.1 EVA Model
and MVA Model).
148
The findings also provide evidence to suggest that there is a positive relationship between
brand equity and the corporate profitability.
possible explanation for this result is that the profitability ratio is a more complex measure
with lagged factors being more relevant. The current findings from the profitability ratio
would suggest that brand value may be of little value in predicting this particular dimension
of profitability performance.
Based on extant literature, a belief that greater brand value means greater profitability
lacks evidence.
the bottom line. This study highlighted this critical notion but provided more rigorous
impact of brand value on corporate financial performance.
In addition, this study also tested the Hirose brand valuation model to investigate the
functions of brand value in chain stores.
taxonomy of brand valuation practice: methodologies and purposes addressed that the
Hirose model is purely academic and has no commercial usage based on market tests of
the models methods. Many theoretical methods do not appear to be employed for
corporate marketing strategies and brand management purposes. Therefore, the
calculation testing process showed the following findings and problems:
1. Problems with Prestige Driver: In calculating the brand prestige driver, the brand
attribution rate is estimated first. The Hirose committee assumed the advertising
expense ratio as an indication that the more advertising and promotion cost spent, the
higher the brand attribution rate becomes. However, many companies that do not
show advertising and promotion cost as an independent item exist (such as Mercuries),
thus, the Hirose committee suggested using the industry average for such companies
149
as a solution. This studys evidence reveals a problem: i.e. the five- year average of
advertising and promotion cost in chain store is US$75 million which is almost 29 times
that of Shin Shins total operating expense of NT$3 million. Therefore, the problems of
applying average industrial figures may not be appropriate and having no statistics or
consistent data available regarding advertising and promotion cost in the publicly
reported financial statement.
2. Problem with Loyalty Driver: The measurement of loyalty via stability of cost of sales is
unfounded.
3. Problems with Expansion Driver: the regressions result showed no association with
brand value exists. A possible explanation for this rejection could be that most chain
stores in Taiwan have mainly focused on domestic market growth and expansion until
the late 1990s, chain stores became interesting in expecting the service and geographic
scope. China had cheap labor and abundant land, and an enormous consumer market
that drew Taiwan chain stores to continue to broaden their retail operation. Table 6.1
illustrates the management of the top ten chain stores investment status. However,
chain stores faced challenges expanding in China such as the political relationship,
local policies and regulations affecting the retail performance and strategies. Currently,
only nine out of twenty chain stores earned profits from overseas markets. Therefore,
the assumption of the model that a strong brand is able to expand into similar or different
industries, markets and geographic regions is not confirmed. Currently, the expansion
driver is not contributing to the brand value in most of chain stores in Taiwan.
150
Start
Country
Income/Loss
Year
7-Eleven (2912)
2000
Income
Far Eastern
Collins
Tonlin
Ruentex
1999
China
Income
2004
China
Loss
Mercuries (2905)
1999
China
Loss
Test Rite
2001
China, Vienna
Loss
1999
China
Income
Poya (5904)
Income
Great Wall
Nan Chow
2000
China
Income
2007
China
Income
1999
Income
Japan
Synnex (2347)
1996
Income
Sunfar (6154)
1999
China
Income
Sampo
151
4. General problem: The model adopts an income approach that views the effect of a
brand being expressed as a prestige driver and loyalty driver, both of which reflect a
price and quantity effect of the cash flows generated by the brand. The evidence has
confirmed that PD and LD are positively influenced on brand value. Therefore, by
multiplying loyalty driver with prestige driver can calculate the most stable and certain
portion of the present and future cash flows attributed to the brand and then discounting
to the present value. The utilized discount rate now becomes an issue. The discount
rate is for valuing the companys ability to generate future free cash flows, ignoring cash
that the company has already generated, and then add the cash to get the value of the
firm. The question is: How volatile are the future profits generated by the brand likely to
be? What is the appropriate and convincible discounted rate? The model applying
risk-free rate in the calculation employed in discounted cash flow is critical and does not
equal with reality. This research selected Family Mart (five-year average sale growth
rate 8%) and Poya (five-year average sale growth rate 15%) as a benchmarking brand
and then adjusted relative risk 1.5 % to calculate the projected discount rate 10% for the
industry. The impact of brand was assumed sustained over time.
152
performance, a manager cannot make marketing decisions that have the largest impact
on store operation.
In conclusion, measuring brand value and equity is a challenge, which requires reliable and
valid methods and criteria to evaluate firm level performance. This study illustrated that the
Hirose model has inconsistencies in data resource and invalidated correlations between the
factors. Therefore, this models testing confirms that the model does not appear to be
applied in practice for brand valuation and corporate brand management purposes.
The initial exposition on the nature of brand is based upon de Chermatony and Farguhar s
(1989) proposition (see section 2.2). Their work clearly influenced the specific definition of
brand offered in this study. The current study also shares several ideas with Kapferer's
153
(1992) by explaining that consumer brand evaluation depends on how consumers see
themselves in relation to the value propositions that a brand is offering them. Other
models such as Aaker (1991, 1996), Keller (1993), Roberts and Lilien (1993) also
influenced our perspectives on the changing nature of factors that underlie retail brand
equity (see section 2.4). ACNielsen (2001) defined store brand equity in terms of the
awareness, consideration and association constructs. However, the customer-oriented
driving force has increased focus on long-term customer value metric, such as customer
relationships, customer satisfaction (Oliver, 1980), market orientation (Narver and Slater ,
1990) and customer value (Bolton and Drew, 1991).
This study incorporated the above trend to reconstruct service quality, perceived value,
customer satisfaction and brand loyalty are key influences on retail brand equity based on
Yoo et al.,( 2000), Yoo and Donthu (2001),
The
Retail brand equity was therefore operationalised as the preference and attitudinal
evaluation of the brands economic worth. This evaluation is based on the appropriateness
of a brand to individual wants, needs and emotions (service quality and perceived value);
previous pleasant experience (customer satisfaction); and those factors that reinforce
customers comment to re-buy or re-patronize a preference product or service consistently
(brand loyalty). These elements of retail brand equity also affect the behavioural patterns of
154
Kagara
(2010) also found that service quality is the key element of customer satisfaction at Attica
Bank.
For convenience stores, service quality will also evoke feelings of closeness, affection and
trust in the consumer. This means convenience stores must deliver higher quality than
the competitors to attract customers and generate customers satisfaction and loyalty.
To
achieve a high level of service quality, stores must improve either equipment themselves
with things such as technology and services cape or personnel. Thus, this study revealed
that a stores aim is to improve tangible service qualities such as:
1. Variety of convenient service (ATM, copy machine and i-bon)
2. Clear sign boards.
3. Clean and hygienic environment.
4. Well presented display and products.
155
This study concluded that the degree to which service quality management enhances
customer satisfaction and loyalty and has a significant impact on retail brand equity.
156
study proved five attributes positively related to customer perceived value as followings:
1. Have programs that reward regular purchase.
2. Provide stores private brands.
3. Has a membership system that offers great rewards.
4. Reasonably priced services and products offered.
5. Appealing and interesting promotions.
Retail success is totally dependent upon the customers' perception of store and products.
This study concluded that customer perceived value is long lasting, memorable and
unbreakable which affect customer satisfaction and loyalty and has a significant impact on
retail brand equity.
157
to narrow the variance in expectations (Anderson & Sullivan 1993). This is likely to reduce
uncertainty and provide cognitive economy in future choices. Secondly, given again that
the customer is satisfied, the result is positive evaluations. Thus, a positive association
between customer satisfaction and repurchase intentions is assumed. These include
loyalty, word-of-mouth, price sensitivity, feedback to the supplier, and job satisfaction
among the suppliers personnel (Anderson et al 1994, Peppers and Rogers 1997,
Reichheld, 1996).
than retaining customers and encouraging them to spend a higher proportion of shopping
budget at stores (Nielsen 2008).
Gronholdt
et
al.s.(2000)
suggestions
that
included
willing
of
repurchasing,
recommendation to others and cross purchasing. The survey result showed that brand
loyalty has direct effect =0.246 on brand equity. In addition, a significant moderating
variable between service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction and brand equity
that leads a direct effect of 0.5 on brand equity exists. The result supported hypothesis
ten that brand loyalty is positive related to brand equity.
Howard and Seth commented that greater brand loyalty among consumers leads to
greater sales of the brand. The loyal buyer behavior link has an important impact on
financial performance because repeat customers are generally cheaper to service than
new customers. Therefore, loyal customers are more profitable as they are the main
158
between consumer-based brand equity (four main constructs: service quality, perceived
value, customer satisfaction and brand loyalty) and store market performance (in the form
of the price prestige driver, loyalty driver, corporate profitability, EVA and MVA), and
suggested that any changes in these consumer-based brand equity measures may
significantly affect the brands resulting market performance.
Another contribution is to show a cause - effect relationship between retail brand equity
constructs that given additional insights for marketers to measure a brands market
159
perceived value is the key driver of brand equity among convenience store chains. This
finding highlights the need to gain an understanding of the separate impact of both
intangible and tangle attributes and their contribution to brand equity and customers
preference.
160
evidence that brand value positively impacts corporate EVA and MVA.
Therefore, an
inference that can be drawn from this finding is an actual creation of brand equity that
influences the stock market increase and shareholder value. If shareholders perceive the
value of a brand to be less than market competitors, they may be less disposed towards
buying such a brand.
demonstrated that service quality and perceived value increased customer satisfaction and
loyalty.
If the customer is very satisfied and willing to repeat the purchase, the customer
is willing to pay a higher price, as they are not easy to compare the performance of
services or product in the sector.
because these customers attach value to maintaining the relationship with preference store
(Huber et al., 2001).
perceived value with strong emotional appeal. Convenience store chains will therefore
pay attention to maintain their customer base, implement new technologies to create a
present and emotional shopping environment, offering value-added loyalty/store cards and
promotion.
Understanding and measuring retail brand equity (and factors that enhance the magnitude
of brand equity) are of significant importance to retail businesses. Measuring these factors
help stores to understand why some apparently 'big-brands' lose their loyal customers and
161
help explain why some brands with no strong names behind them are able to make a rapid
in-road into their product and service category. With this in mind, discussion on the
application of the retail brand equity model reflected upon a usage metric for measuring
consumer value. The application of the retail brand equity model is also discussed for
measuring the impact of branding policy on creating shareholder value, and assessment of
marketing practices' contribution to competitive strategy.
Stores
162
(Taiwans top 20 listed chain stores) for brand value calculation and research question
analyses is possible a limitation.
Taiwanese companies. Therefore, this studys findings may not be useful for smaller
companies and the relevance of the findings in other industries have to be confirmed by
further research. Thirdly, the attempt of estimating the dynamics of the brand value and
profitability relationship was inconclusive.
provide a useful insight into the role of brands in determining corporate financial
performance such as higher margin and bottom line. Fourth, the dimension of retail brand
equity could be exploring further based on both financial based and customer-based
perspective. The four constructs proposed in this study explained variances at 67.2%.
Therefore, further research should be carried out in respect of other value driver,
concentrating on analyzing other antecedents and consequences. Finally, a longitudinal
research to assess causal relationships between customer-based brand equity and brand
financial performance is proposed.
financial data precedes brand equity data. This means that causality cannot be assessed
at the aggregate brand level.
This study demonstrated results about the impact of brand value, brand equity and the
value drivers for convenience store chains.
research in this area and encourage more collaborative work between academics and
practitioners. A major benefit of such collaboration is to bring together valid and practical
163
company. The major obstacle of financial approach is the difficulty to perceive customers
preference and perspective on corporate brand equity.
customers perspective such as perceived value, brand awareness, brand association and
brand loyalty are criticized too customer oriented and poor measure of brands profitability.
Therefore, a conjoining approach was initiated to link both financial and a customer-based
perspective in a coherent framework in document 3.
Based on the above initiated conceptual framework, the first empirical research was a
financial approach. This study formulated six hypotheses to investigate the impact of brand
value on corporate EVA/MVA and profitability.
application of the Hirose valuation model to measure brand value of Taiwans top ten listed
chain stores. The results showed that brand value have impact of price prestige driver
and loyalty driver and is positively related to corporate EVA/MVA and profitability in
document 4. This study also tried to explore the constructs/attributes of brand equity in
convenience store chains based on Rusts customer equity theory and linked them to
brand value through a customer survey.
poorly designed. This study failed to provide evidence of the relationship between brand
equity and brand value.
164
brand value, corporate value performance for convenience store chains in Taiwan. This
study specifically conceptualized the concept of retail brand equity, and clarified the
construct through a psychometric instrument administered to consumers. These factors
influence the subjective evaluation of brand equity. More specifically, the main
contributions of this study can be identified as follows:
1. This study illustrated a conceptual model that link customer-based brand equity to
brand financial performance.
2. This study provided empirical evidence that brand has functions of price prestige and
loyalty driver and is positively related to corporate EVA and MVA in chain stores.
3. The research addressed the potential causal ordering among various components of
retail brand equity i.e. perceiver value, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty and
service quality, and tested the predictive capacity of the resulting instrument.
4. The constructs of retail brand equity were identified as metaphors of price prestige
driver and loyalty driver.
5. Therefore, this study has wider implications for fields such as account, marketing
strategy, and competitive strategy, as well as, made a significant contribution to
management of branding for convenience store chains in Taiwan. .
165
PREFERENCES
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name,
The Free Press, N.Y.
Aaker, D. A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, D.A., Jacobson, R. (1994): The Financial Information Content of Perceived Quality,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, Issue 2, pp191-202.
Aaker, D.A. and Kevin L.K. (1993), Interpreting Cross-Cultural Replications of Brand
Equity Research, Journal of Research in Marketing, 10,55-59
Allred, A.T. and Addam, H.L.(2000), Service Quality at Bans and Credit Unions: What do
Their Customers Say? International Journal of Bank Marketing, 18(4), 200-207
Abratt R. and Geoffrey B. (1989), Valuing Brands and Brand Equity: Methods and
Processes, Nova Southeastern University and University of the Witwatersrand.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W., (1988), Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A
Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach, Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423
166
Anderson J. (1996), Customer Relationship Management- Making Hard Decision with Soft
Number, New Jersey: Prentice Hall International.
Arora, R. and Singer, J., (2006), Customer Satisfaction and Value as Drivers of Business
Success for Fine Dining Restaurants, Service Marketing quarterly, 28(1), 89-102.
Ailawai et al. (2006), Promotion Profitability for a Retailer: The Role of Promotion, Brand,
Category, and Store Characteristics, Journal of Marketing Research, vol.XLIII (Nov. 2006),
518-535.
Ailawai and Biri (2007), An Empirical Analysis of the Determinants of Retail Margins: The
Role of Store Brand Share. Journal of Marketing Research.
Abele K. P.N. (2008), Customer Equity: Dimensions and Realisation Process, Thesis of
Leicester Business School.
167
Biel. A. (1992), How Brand Image Drives Brand Equity, Journal of Advertising Research,
12(Dec.): 6-12. ARF Researching the Power of Brands Workshop.
Biel, A. L. (1997), .Discovering brand magic: The hardness of the softer side of branding,
International Journal of Advertising, 16: 199-210.
Barwise, P., Higson, C., Likierman, A., and Marsh, P. (1990), "Brands as 'Separable
Assets'", Business Strategy Review, Summer, 43-59.
Blooemer J., Ruyter, K. D. and Peeters, P., (1998), Investigating Drivers of Brand Loyalty:
the Complex Relationship Between Image, Service Quality and Satisfaction, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, 16(7), 276-286.
Blackett T. (2003), What is a Brand in Brands and Branding, adapted from www.
Interband.com.
168
Becerra, M. (2009), Theory of the Firm for Strategic Management, Cambridge University
Press, N.Y.
Berger et al., (2006), From Customer Lifetime Value to Shareholder Value, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 9, 156-167.
Baldauf, A., Cravents, K.S. and Binder, G. (2003) Performance consequences of brand
equity management: Evidence from organizations in the value chain, Journal of Product
and Brand Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 220-236.
New Jersey:
Prentice H
Bloemer, J., Ruyter, K. D. and Peeters, P., (1998),Investigating Drivers of Bank Loyalty:
the Complex Relationship Between Image, Service Quality and Satisfaction, International
Journal of Bank Marketing,16(7), 276-286.15.
Blattberg, R. C. and J. Deighton (1996), Manage Marketing by the Customer Equity Test.
169
Bonner, P. G. and Nelson, R., (1985), Product Attributes and Perceived Quality: Foods,
Perceived Quality, edited by Jacoby, J. and Olson, J. C., Lexington Books, New York,
64-79.
Bowbrick P. (1992), The Economics of Quality Grades and Brands. London: Routledge.
Breur, T., (2006), The Importance of Focus for Generating Customer Value, Journal of
Financial Services Marketing, 11(1), 64-71. 18.
Butz, H. E. and Goodstein, L. D., (1996), Measuring Customer Value: Gaining the
Strategic Aadvantage, Organizational Dynamics, 24(3), 63-77.19.
Babakus, E. and Boller, G.W. (1992), An Empirical Assessment of the SERVQUAL Scale,
Journalof Business Research, Vol. 24, pp. 253-68.
Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H. (1991), A Multistage Model of Customers Assessment of
Service Quality and Value, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, March, pp. 375-84.
170
Busacca B, Michele C. and Fabio A. (2008), Creating and Managing Superior Customer
Value, Advances in Business Marketing and Purchasing, Vol. 14, 149-204
Chang, C. H. and Tu, C. Y., (2004), Exploring Store Image, Customer Satisfaction and
Customer Loyalty Relationship: Evidence from Taiwanese hypermarket Industry, Journal
of American Academy of Business, 7(2), 197-202.
Chen, S. and Quester, P.,( 2006), Modeling Store loyalty: Perceived Value in Market
Orientation Practice, Journal of Services Marketing, 20(3), 188-198.23.
Choi, D. H., Kim, C. M., Kim, S. I. and Kim, S. H.,(2006), Customer Loyalty and Disloyalty
in Internet Retail Stores: Its Antecedents and Its Effect on Customer Price Sensitivity,
International Journal of Management, 23(4), 925-942.24.
Cobb-Walgren, C. J., Ruble, C. A. and Donthu, N.,(1995), Brand Equity, Brand Preference,
and Purchase intent, Journal of Advertising, 24(3), 25-40.25.
Choong, J.N. (1998), The Theory of Reasoned Action Applied to Brand Loyalty, Journal
of Prouct and Brand Management, 7 (11), 51-61.
Cronin, J. J. Jr., Brady, M. K. and Hult, G. T. M., (2000),Assessing the Effects of Quality,
Value, and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service
Environments, Journal of Retailing, 76(2),193-216.26.
171
Cronin, J. J. Jr. and Taylor, S. A., (1992), Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination
and Extension, Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68. 27.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B. and Grewal, D., (1991), Effects of Price, Brand, and Store
Information on Buyers Product Evaluation, Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3),307-319.
De Chernatony, L. and F. Dall'Olmo Riley (1998) Defining "brand" : beyond the literature
with experts' interpretations, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.14, No.5, pp.417-443.
Das et al. (2009), Managing tomorrows brands: Moving from measurement towards an
integrated system of brand equity. Brand Management Vo.17. 1.26-38
172
Doyle P. (1990), "Building Successful Brands: The strategic Options," Journal of Consumer
Marketing 7, (2),3-20.
Doyle, P. (1994), Marketing Management and Strategy. London: Prentice Hall Europe.
Doyle, L.E., Nolan,K. E., Mullany F. J., Ambrose, E.(2007), "Value-Creation and Migration in
Adaptive and Cognitive Radio Systems", Arslan, Huseyin (Ed.), Springer, Available:
February, 2007. ISBN-10: 1-4020-5541-2.
Doyle P. (2000), Value Based Marketing: Marketing Strategies for Corporate Growth and
Shareholder Value, Chicester: John Wiley and Sons.
Davis, S.M., and Dunn, M. ( 2002), " Building the Brand-Driven Busines
Operationalization, pp. 135-158
Elliott, R. and Larry P. (2007), Strategic Brand Management, Oxford University Press Inc.,
N. Y.
173
Floor K. (2006), Branding a Store, TBWA Company, Ko Floor and BIS Publishers,
Amsterdam.
Fournier, S., Dobscha, S., and Mick, D. (1998), Preventing the Premature Death of
Relationship Marketing, Harvard Business Review. 76(1): 43-50.
Fornell, C., (1992), A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: the Swedish Experience,
Journal of Marketing, 56(1), 6-21.
Franzen, G., and Bouwman, M. (2001), The Mental World of Brands, Henley-onThames, World Advertising Research Cente
Grant R.J. (1991), The resource-based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for
174
Grant, J. (2006), The Brand Innovation Manifesto- How to Build Brand, John Wiley &
Sons Ltd.
Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J. and Borin, N., (1998),The Effects of Store Name,
Brand Name and Price Discounts on Consumers Evaluations and Purchase Intentions,
Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 331-352.
Gabay G. et al. (2009), Consumer Centered Brand Value of Foods: Drivers and
Segmentation, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 18/1 (2009) 4-16, emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
Gregroy J. et al. (2009), A New Brand of Value- Integrating Branding into Corporate
Performance Management.
Satisfaction
and
Loyalty:
Cross-Industry
Differences,
Total
Quality
Grnroos C. (1982), Adopting a Service Logic for Marketing, Marketing Theory, Vol 6.,
No. 3, 99, 317-333.
Gardner B. B. and Levy S.J. (1955), The Product and the Brand HBR, Vol 33, pp 33-39.
Hallbery G. (1995), All Consumers are not Created Equal, Wiley, N.Y.
Hartline, Michael D., and O.C. Ferrell (1996), The Management of Customer-Contact
Employees: An Empirical Investigation, Journal of Marketing, 60 (October), pp. 52-70.
Haight, D. (1999), Understanding the Financial Value of Brands- Brand Finance Report,
Brand Finance plc. www.brandfinance. Com.1999
Haigh, D. and Jonathan K. (2004), How to Define Your Brand and Determine Its Value.,
Hirose. Y. et al. (2002), The Report of the Committee on Brand Valuation, the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan Government.
Heding, T., Charlotte F.K., Mogens B. (2009), Brand Management: Research, Theory and
Practice, Simultaneously USA and Canada.
Holehonnur et al. (2009), Examining the Customer Equity Framework from a Consumer
Perspective, Palgrave Macmillan 1350-231x, Brand Management, Vol17.3.165-180
176
Haxthausen O. (2009), Valuing Brands and Brand Investments: Key Learnings and Future
Expectations, Brand Management, Vol. 17,1, 18-25
Ishikawa A. (2002), The Success of 7-Eleven Japan, The Sanno Institute of Management,
World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Ind, N. (2003), Beyond Branding- How the New Values of Transparency and Integrity are
Changing the World of Brands, London N1 91N, UK
Jacoby. J., Chestnut, R.W. and Fisher. W.A..(1978). A Behavioral Process Approach to
Information Acquisition in Nondurable Purchasing, Journal of Marketing, Zeseal.clz
15.4.532-544.
Kapferer, J.N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management, New Approach to Creating and
Evaluating Brand Equity. London Kogan Page.
177
Kapferer, J.N. (2001), Re-inventing the Brand: Can Top Brands Survive the New Market
Realities? London Kogan page.
Kapferer, J. N. (2004), The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining
Brand Equity Long Term, Great Britain by MPG Ltd., Bodmin, Cornwall
Kerin, R. A. and Raj S. (1998), Exploring the Brand Value-Shareholder Value Nexus for
Consumer Goods Companies, Academy of Marketing Science.
Koller, T., Marc G., David W., Jeffrey P. L. (1990), Valuation Workbook, Mckinsey &
Company Inc.
Kotler, P., (2003), Marketing Management, 11th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Kolter P., Swee H.A., Leo, S.M., Tan C.T. (1990), Marketing Management- An Asian
Presents, Pretice Hall, Inc.
178
Kim, W.G. and Kim, H.B. (2003) The Relationship between Brand equity and Firms
Performance in Luxury Hotels and Chain Restaurants, Tourism Management, Vol.26, No.
4, pp.549-560.
Klaus P. and Stan M. (2007), The Role of Brands in a Service-Dominated World, Brand
Management Vol. 15, No.2, 115-122, 2007.Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
Keller K.L. and Donald R. L. (2009), Assessing Long-Term Brand Potential, Brand
Management, Vol.17, 1,6-17.
Kortge, G.D. and Okonkwo, P.A.(1993). Perceived value approach to pricing. Industrial
Marketing Management, 22, 133-40
Laboy P. (2009), The Importance of Measuring Brand Value and Brand Equity, COO,
Tocquigny , www.tocquigny.com, 16.09.2009
179
Levitt, T. (1960), Marketing myopia, Harvard Business Review, July- August, 45-46.
Laurent, G., Kapferer, J.N. and Roussel, F. (1995), The Underlying Structure of Brand
Awareness Scores, Marketing Science, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp 170-179.
Leone et al. (2006), Linking Brand Equity to Customer Equity), Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, November 2006 125-138.
Lichtenstein D.R. and Burton S. (1990), "An Assessment OF the Moderating Effects of
Market Mavenism and Value Consciousness on Price-Qualtiy Perception Accuracy, in
Advances in Consumer Research Volume 17, eds. Marvin E. Goldberg, Gerald Gorn, and
Richard W. Pollay, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 53-59.
Meyers, D., Jack Y., Sicco, V.G. (2005), Beyond Branding: How the New Values of
Transparency and Integrity Are Changing the World of Brands, Kogan Page Ltd.
Mybigmedia:
http://mybigmedia.wordpress.com/about/
Business
Finance-Oriented
180
Murphy, (1990), Assessing the Value to Brands, Long Range planning, vol. 23, 3, pp.
23-9.
Murphy, (1992), Assessing the Value of Brands, What is Branding?, In Branding A key
Marketing tool, McMillan, pp. 1-12 and 189-197.
Murphy J. and Hart S. (1998), Brands- The New Wealth Creator, London Press.
Myers C. A. (2003), Managing Brand Equity: A Look at the Impact of Attributes, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 12 No.1, p.p.39-51, Emerald Group Publishing
Limited.
Monroe, K. B. and Krishnan, R., (1985), The Effect of Price on Subjective Product
Evaluation, Perceived Quality: How Consumers View Stores and Merchandise, Edited by
Jacoby, J. and Olson, J. C.,Lexington Books, Lexington, 209-232.
McNaughton R.B., Phil O., Brian C. (2002), "Market-Oriented Value Creation in Service
Firms", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Iss: 9/10, pp.990 - 1002
Neal. W. and Ron S. (2008), Value Creation: The Power of Brand, South Western
educational Publishing.
Narver J.C. and StanlyF.S. (1990), The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business
Profitability, Journal of Marketing.
181
Nussenbaum D.A. (1990), Cost Analysis and Estimating Tool and Techaniques, Springer,
Verlag, ISBN 0387973257
Pecotucg A. and Clifford J. (2006), Hand Book of Markets and Economics: East Asia,
Southeast Asia, Australia and New Zeland, M.E. Shape.
Patterson, P. G. and Spreng, R. A., (1997), Modeling the Relationship between Perceived
Value, Satisfaction and Repurchase Intentions in a Business-to-Business, Services
Context: An Empirical Examination, International Journal of Service Industry Management,
8(5), 414-434.
Peter, J. P., Olson, J. C., & Grunert, K. G. (1999), Consumer behaviour and marketing
strategy, European edition. London: McGraw-Hill.
Porter, M.E., (1987), From Competitive Advantage to Corporate Sstrategy, HBR, May
-June, pp. 43-58.
Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, New York: Free Press.
183
Reichheld, F. F. & Sasser Jr, W. E., (1990), Zero Defections: Quality Comes to Services,
Harvard Business Review, Vol.68, No.5, pp.105-111
Raggio R. and Robert P. L. (2006), The Theoretical Separation of Brand Equity and Brand
Value: Managerial Implications for Strategic Planning, 1350-231X, Brand Management,
Vol 14, No.5, 380-395, 2007, Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
Raggio R. and Robert P. L. (2009), Chasing brand value: Fully leveraging brand equity to
maximize brand value, Brand Management, Vol 16, No. 4, 248-263, Palgrave Macmillan
Ltd.
Raggio R. and Robert P. L. (2009), Driver of Brand Value estimation of Brand Value in
Practice and case of Brand Valuation: Introduction to the specical issue, Journal of Brand
Management 17, 1-5 doi:10, 1057/bm 2009, 16
Rintamki T., Hannu K., Lasse M.(2007) "Identifying Competitive Customer Value
Propositions in Retailing", Managing Service Quality, Vol. 17 Iss: 6, pp.621 - 634
Rust R.T. et al, (2000), Driving Customer Equity- How Customer Lifetime Value is
Reshaping Corporate Strategy, Simon & Schuster. Inc., USA
Rust R. T. et al. (2004), Return on Marketing: Using Customer Equity to Focus Marketing
Strategy, Journal of Marketing, Vol.68, 1090127
Ross. S.A et al. (2006), Corporate Financial Fundamentals, McGraw Hill Co. Inc., NY
10020, USA.
184
Reichheld, F. F. and Sasser, W. E. Jr., (1990), Zero Defection: Quality Comes to Service,
Harvard Business Review, 68(5), 105-111.
Simon C.J. and MW Sullivan (1990), The Measurement and Determinants of Brand Equity:
A Financial Approach, Marketing Science Institute (MSI) Vol.12, No. 1, winter 1993, USA.
Smith, J.W. (1991),Thinking About Brand Equity and the Analysis of Customer
Satisfaction , in Maltz, E.(Eds.), Managing Brand Equity: A Conference Summary, Market
Science Institute, MA, Report No. 91-110, pp17-18.
Silk, A.J. and Urban, G.L. (1978), Pre-test Market Evaluation of New Packaged goods: A
Model and Measurement Methodolody, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15, pp.
171-191.
Schmitt H. B. and David L. R. (2008), Hand Book on Brand and Experience Management,
Edward Elgar Publishing, P.100-107
Salinas G. (2009), The International Brand Valuation Manual, Jone Wiley & Sons Ltd,
The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, Po19 85Q, U.K.
Srivastava, R.K. et al. (1998), Market-Based Assets and Shareholder Value: A Framework
for Analysis, Journal of Marketing, Vol.62, 2-18
185
Shamma H. M. and Salah S.H. (2009), Customer and Non-Customer Perspectives for
Examining Corporate Reputation, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 18/5
326-337, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I. and Gross, B. L., (1991), Consumption Values and Market
Choices: Theory and Application, South-Western, Cincinnati.
Schoenfelder, J. & Harris, P., (2004). High-tech Corporate Branding: Lessons for Market
Research in the next Decade , Qualitative Market Research. 7(2), 91-99.
Srivastava R.K., Liam F., H.K. (2001), The resource-based view and marketing: The role
186
Sweeney J.D. and Soutar G.N. (2001), Consumer perceived Value- the Development of
Multiple Item Scale, Journal of Retailing, 77(2): 203-220.
Tzokas, N., & Saren, M. (2004)., Competitive Advantage, knowledge and Relationship
Marketing: Where, What and How? Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 19(2),
124-135.
Tolba A. and Salah S. H. (2009), Linking Customer-Based Brand Equity with Brand
Market Performance: A Managerial Approach, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
18/5 356-366, Emerald Group Ltd.
Treacy, M., Wiersema, F.,(1993), Customer Intimacy and Other Value Disciplines,
Harvard Business Review 71 (1), 84-93.
Treacy, M., Wiersema, F., (1995), The Discipline of Market Leaders: Choose Your
Customers, Narrow Your Focus, Dominate Your Market, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
MA.
Tauber,(1988),Brand Leverage: Strategy for Growth in a Cost Control World,Journal of
Advertising Research, August/September, pp.26-30.
187
Trout and Ries (1972), How to Position Your Product Advertising Age, 43, 114-16
Van den Brink, D., Odekerken-Schrder, G. and Pauwels, P.,(2006), The Effect of
Strategic and Tactical
Wang H., Yujie W., Chunling Y. (2008), Global Brand Equity Model: Combining
Customer-Based with Product-Market Outcome Approach, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 17/5 305-316, Emerald Group Ltd.
Webster, F. E., (2000), Understanding the Relationships among Brands, Consumers and
Resellers, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 Iss. 1, pp. 17-23
Woodraff, R.B. (1997), Customer Value: the Next Source for Competitive Advantage,
Journal of the Academice of Marketing Source, 25 (2): 138-153
Washbum and Plank (2002), Measuring Brand Equity- An Evaluation of Brand Equity and
A Financial Approach, Marketing Science, 12(11), 28-51
188
Yeung, M. and Bala R. (2007),Brand value and firm performance nexus: Further empirical
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N.,( 2001), Developing and Validating a Multidimensional
Consumer-based brand equity scale, Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1-14.71.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S., (2000), An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix
Elements and Brand Equity, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2) 195-211.
189
(Appendix I)
2912 7-Eleven
2912 7-Eleven
2912 7-Eleven
2912 7-Eleven
2912 7-Eleven
2912 7-Eleven
2912 7-Eleven
2912 7-Eleven
2912 7-Eleven
2912 7-Eleven
2901 Shin Shin
2901 Shin Shin
2901 Shin Shin
2901 Shin Shin
2901 Shin Shin
2901 Shin Shin
2901 Shin Shin
2901 Shin Shin
2901 Shin Shin
2901 Shin Shin
2903 Far Eastern
2903 Far Eastern
2903 Far Eastern
2903 Far Eastern
2903 Far Eastern
2903 Far Eastern
2903 Far Eastern
2903 Far Eastern
2903 Far Eastern
Year
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Sales
56201706
63434566
72015000
77862000
80943000
93,673,610
99,979,618
102,363,841
102,191,258
101,756,386
932,639
818,554
681,000
754,000
779,000
721,000
645,000
623,000
666,000
683,000
18,056,170
16,927,480
16,569,000
17,763,000
17,161,000
18,231,000
18,549,000
20,515,000
21,033,000
Cost of Sales
39923040
45550414
50686000
54490000
56384000
65,514,526
69,736,937
70,619,544
69,456,344
68,790,619
791,807
688,636
565,000
633,000
662,000
605,000
537,000
514,000
552,000
565,000
14,490,535
13,434,032
13,217,000
14,085,000
13,529,000
14,376,000
14,662,000
16,330,000
16,794,000
Unit: NT,000
15116780
16846788
18380000
20051000
21363000
23,982,044
25,728,680
26,890,764
28,127,987
28,072,304
120,420
116,439
118,000
116,000
109,000
99,000
91,000
98,000
100,000
100,000
3,315,159
3,232,015
3,214,000
3,315,000
3,180,000
3,156,000
3,237,000
3,510,000
3,534,000
13739174
15251218
16641607
17750068
18699298
21,003,015
22,789,148
24,445,774
25,573,274
25,955,712
69,639
69,848
70,476
69,727
65,088
58,905
55,829
63,477
64,164
67,510
557,564
551,053
389,396
487,508
626,477
602,347
692,677
851,024
822,954
327
81,585
188,077
176,500
153,027
147,375
320,220
174,427
169,153
556,091
8,011
1,450
5,124
199
8,398
11,811
124,701
106,207
41,213
Non-core Sales
798747
693640
604000
944000
837000
821,494
903,954
907,093
1,049,786
1,363,859
12,060
12,689
10,000
9,000
7,000
17,000
10,000
15,000
16,000
13,000
2,215,970
385,387
229,000
411,000
1,431,000
703,000
314,000
1,094,000
426,000
190
(Appendix I)
Year
Dec-09
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Sales
22,203,000
11,000,931
9,450,482
9,900,000
9,624,000
8,364,000
6,917,000
6,303,000
5,110,000
4,071,000
3,462,000
2,775,446
2,522,662
2,347,000
2,340,000
2,493,000
2,553,000
2,319,000
2,221,000
2,011,000
1,894,000
2,775,446
2,522,662
8,526,000
8,956,000
6,780,000
5,603,000
5,008,000
5,279,000
5,295,000
Cost of Sales
17,786,000
9,532,797
8,015,780
8,357,000
8,059,000
6,895,000
5,478,000
4,877,000
3,733,000
2,890,000
2,405,000
2,060,880
1,881,345
1,774,000
1,771,000
1,876,000
1,900,000
1,726,000
1,683,000
1,527,000
1,494,000
2,060,880
1,881,345
7,135,000
7,508,000
5,494,000
4,574,000
4,209,000
4,368,000
4,509,000
3,727,000
969,428
945,360
1,045,000
1,148,000
1,158,000
1,084,000
1,131,000
1,108,000
1,038,000
963,000
315,135
279,318
273,000
262,000
266,000
261,000
239,000
237,000
240,000
246,000
315,135
279,318
1,242,000
1,283,000
946,000
1,092,000
1,052,000
1,066,000
1,048,000
876,528
969,428
945,360
1,045,000
1,148,000
1,158,000
1,084,000
1,131,000
1,108,000
1,038,000
963,000
315,135
279,318
273,000
262,000
266,000
261,000
239,000
237,000
240,000
246,000
315,135
279,318
1,242,000
1,283,000
946,000
1,092,000
1,052,000
1,066,000
1,048,000
Unit: NT,000
Oversea Sales
79,031
34,024
29,842
37,148
11,714
57,271
20,474
25,643
4,817
23,364
29,053
32,540
31,249
12,656
5,356
9,354
29,886
628,867
347,563
551,591
Non-core Sales
1,544,000
276,171
190,037
146,000
174,000
242,000
191,000
196,000
123,000
121,000
81,000
83,679
152,263
55,000
70,000
25,000
52,000
29,000
86,000
89,000
15,000
83,679
152,263
613,000
1,461,000
414,000
724,000
1,564,000
1,617,000
957,000
191
(Appendix I)
2915 Ruentex
5903 Family Mart
5903 Family Mart
5903 Family Mart
5903 Family Mart
5903 Family Mart
5903 Family Mart
5903 Family Mart
5903 Family Mart
5903 Family Mart
5903 Family Mart
2905 Mercuries
2905 Mercuries
2905 Mercuries
2905 Mercuries
2905 Mercuries
2905 Mercuries
2905 Mercuries
2905 Mercuries
2905 Mercuries
2905 Mercuries
2908 Test Rite
2908 Test Rite
2908 Test Rite
2908 Test Rite
2908 Test Rite
2908 Test Rite
2908 Test Rite
2908 Test Rite
2908 Test Rite
Year
Dec-09
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Sales
4,637,000
9,734,761
9,042,214
21,838,000
24,422,000
27,369,000
26,968,984
30,786,424
33,409,122
37,813,272
39,201,034
7,784,904
8,418,858
8,355,000
8,474,000
8,218,000
8,423,595
8,337,149
8,860,736
8,686,568
7,523,379
10,208,381
12,770,117
15,479,000
15,573,000
17,311,000
17,690,000
16,692,000
15,153,000
13,517,000
Cost of Sales
3,839,000
8,398,896
7,609,495
15,582,000
17,255,000
19,274,000
20,993,713
21,560,507
23,378,036
26,535,898
27,387,029
5,241,408
6,109,144
5,966,000
5,751,000
5,490,000
5,734,393
5,809,259
6,093,028
6,059,474
5,041,069
8,619,571
10,702,958
13,228,000
13,203,000
14,703,000
15,067,000
14,087,000
12,728,000
11,307,000
940,000
1,342,130
1,243,926
5,727,000
6,541,000
7,314,000
7,900,838
8,538,712
9,341,711
10,545,934
11,017,941
2,686,583
2,245,645
2,281,000
2,523,000
2,462,000
2,503,076
2,591,795
2,710,515
2,721,147
2,563,778
1,273,315
1,560,994
1,735,000
2,272,000
2,006,000
2,000,000
1,946,000
2,043,000
1,880,000
940,000
1,120,951
1,019,461
5,458,164
6,264,548
7,003,405
7,552,491
8,168,655
8,920,487
9,914,673
10,278,460
2,686,583
2,245,645
2,281,000
2,523,000
2,462,000
2,503,076
2,591,795
2,710,515
2,721,147
2,563,778
1,273,315
1,560,994
1,735,000
2,272,000
2,006,000
2,000,000
1,946,000
2,043,000
1,880,000
Unit: NT,000
Oversea Sales
743,008
40
2,914
40,566
41,012
48,010
42,815
65,897
20,748
152,667
622
2,814
320,368
656,355
890,626
281,439
263,791
7,721
531
14,430
253,356
187,653
431,155
503,489
764,500
803,024
Non-core Sales
1,012,000
1,562,129
2,016,016
132,000
171,000
186,000
268,056
263,876
300,884
349,359
333,965
238,426
2,733,855
422,000
548,000
174,000
403,370
997,748
964,054
487,096
1,039,104
393,853
358,742
543,000
294,000
579,000
457,000
296,000
683,000
377,000
192
(Appendix I)
Year
Dec-09
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Sales
10,628,000
2,026,038
1,884,957
1,767,000
1,830,000
2,132,000
2,321,811
2,295,782
2,284,920
2,333,863
2,367,717
1,710,396
1,995,763
2,177,000
2,740,000
2,927,000
3,156,186
3,436,606
4,096,937
4,682,886
5,596,925
1,107,866
1,159,131
1,292,000
1,394,000
1,565,000
1,760,853
1,708,752
1,786,789
1,748,265
Cost of Sales
8,667,000
1,329,670
1,206,065
1,053,000
1,019,000
1,093,000
1,190,341
1,232,697
1,241,195
1,282,681
1,303,946
1,359,468
1,543,307
1,619,000
2,031,000
2,113,000
2,249,846
2,466,713
2,940,366
3,456,636
3,992,090
452,437
454,033
1,292,000
1,394,000
1,565,000
722,981
694,143
733,117
725,633
1,794,000
745,188
715,585
733,000
736,000
879,000
1,010,161
1,023,036
1,007,240
1,057,289
1,044,157
325,412
383,314
485,000
622,000
684,000
732,401
836,365
984,285
1,187,737
1,380,494
558,016
607,259
454,033
508,000
529,000
598,000
854,981
888,973
861,190
1,794,000 615,983
589,519
613,213
620,049
752,088
844,672
878,596
853,364
884,408
870,178
282,415
330,747
409,642
538,335
592,550
620,554
724,329
845,543
993,714
1,096,561
398,839 450,371
488,593
511,071
566,284
667,093
653,419
687,920
668,648
Unit: NT,000
Oversea Sales
686,850
34,376
47,465
8,377
48,202
48,085
62,857
90,561
165,851
203,130
238,645
672
806
1,237
1,876
1,388
1,241
1,138
1,847
787
Non-core Sales
283,000
126,634
127,242
76,000
66,000
82,000
108,030
141,866
216,517
299,694
321,123
17,180
25,012
31,000
44,000
50,000
43,302
39,139
39,396
39,896
48,734
26,982
43,280
40,000
21,000
22,000
23,796
13,445
13,416
18,757
193
(Appendix I)
Year
Dec-09
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Sales
1,760,853
12,346,676
13,525,154
14,134,000
15,113,000
16,215,000
15,842,000
14,723,000
17,801,000
23,092,000
20,175,000
1,467,934
1,361,009
1,356,000
1,390,000
1,465,000
1,560,000
1,453,000
1,600,000
1,798,000
1,847,000
693,500
626,382
586,000
756,000
1,161,000
1,490,000
1,543,000
1,420,000
1,093,000
Cost of Sales
722,981
10,961,057
11,999,789
12,633,000
13,942,000
15,131,000
14,096,000
13,303,000
16,228,000
21,620,000
18,055,000
931,794
831,690
872,000
915,000
1,000,000
1,044,000
1,006,000
1,145,000
1,300,000
1,295,000
215,170
212,310
213,000
315,000
557,000
773,000
853,000
846,000
643,000
857,195
965,498
1,078,067
1,065,000
1,000,000
910,000
994,000
1,008,000
987,000
953,000
1,104,000
431,180
459,335
509,000
556,000
568,000
555,000
532,000
521,000
525,000
564,000
366,548
333,531
327,000
382,000
480,000
599,000
560,000
507,000
424,000
667,093
4,895
6,734
5,914 8,145
9,695
11,080
7,585
5,092
6,172
7,584
241,604
265,028
295,623
315,050
311,078
314,159
312,210
314,798
330,755
344,578
142,631
115,825
104,965
143,539
177,823
190,631
161,331
136,024
103,895
Unit: NT,000
Oversea Sales
1,996
119,019
86,777
55,161,621
149,418
29,845
17,616
386,121
649,321
421,106
362,240
364,444
127,098
149,923
106,666
46,488
15,663
5,114
34,737
91,338
377,116
-
Non-core Sales
11,250
317,299
248,111
136,000
254,000
149,000
211,000
633,000
816,000
708,000
538,000
70,060
105,586
235,000
325,000
300,000
126,000
17,000
242,000
126,000
448,000
68,084
145,316
179,000
116,000
137,000
78,000
39,000
76,000
44,000
194
(Appendix I)
Year
Dec-09
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Sales
Cost of Sales
734,000
7,560,546
10,031,736
14,038,000
23,217,000
30,390,000
29,996,993
29,558,776
33,341,571
30,883,924
27,013,682
46,775,989
47,029,273
55,579,000
65,607,000
62,104,000
57,590,117
52,331,627
51,359,728
47,432,803
42,195,384
424,000
5,920,271
7,697,008
10,985,000
18,858,000
24,901,000
24,336,436
24,026,270
27,439,440
25,651,430
22,647,996
43,542,751
44,172,295
52,478,000
62,072,000
58,503,000
53,747,907
48,974,049
48,303,507
44,530,433
39,680,111
371,000
1,558,584
1,748,384
2,277,000
3,489,000
4,508,000
4,586,416
4,496,389
4,736,963
4,649,955
3,511,195
1,415,985
1,441,738
1,558,000
1,513,000
1,809,000
1,918,691
2,113,974
2,036,015
2,254,065
1,802,875
105,195
1,024,810
1,297,176
1,718,908
2,814,146
3,829,507
3,829,215
3,155,243
3,505,014
3,668,870
2,959,696
810,959
792,135
997,157
1,119,262
1,337,530
1,465,918
1,653,075
1,501,587
1,637,099
1,111,590
7,011,000
9,514,000
11,380,000
13,337,970
12,986,391
15,066,813
13,954,412
5,243,000
7,228,000
8,676,000
10,141,628
9,972,001
11,632,762
10,798,770
1,592,000
1,949,000
2,241,000
2,582,285
2,466,555
2,738,362
2,646,068
1,312,884
1,648,450
1,916,709
2,221,844
2,103,238
2,373,786
2,295,455
Unit: NT,000
Oversea Sales
94,020
3,466
128,689
23,076
19,760
69,592
3,191,558
1,563,105
446,802
350,732
271,134
458,340
575,034
778,998
1,003,896
1,610,699
2,878,817
2,892,367
3,707,754
Non-core Sales
64,000
715,391
687,755
673,000
659,000
587,000
193,610
83,545
1,692,528
497,095
580,413
230,711
470,146
1,354,000
966,000
1,233,000
1,543,171
2,071,759
3,266,386
3,260,936
4,659,586
33,000
40,000
43,000
48,399
118,148
59,984
104,850
195
(Appendix I)
Year
Dec-09
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Sales
11,927,823
2,996,096
4,262,163
5,620,000
6,389,000
6,993,000
7,121,509
6,432,345
6,528,248
5,935,571
5,911,066
14,342,291
12,586,281
13,130,000
19,728,000
17,024,000
14,223,000
14,187,000
10,443,000
8,970,000
7,724,000
Cost of Sales
9,237,105
2,644,775
3,780,269
5,026,000
5,683,000
6,191,000
6,273,272
5,537,928
5,533,932
5,076,056
5,050,251
11,403,254
10,412,906
10,869,000
16,664,000
15,332,000
13,330,000
12,237,000
8,625,000
7,296,000
6,184,000
2,215,758
211,079
320,380
402,000
436,000
533,000
603,966
541,753
538,205
606,323
645,511
2,270,950
2,079,055
2,069,000
2,221,000
2,226,000
2,488,000
1,993,000
2,105,000
1,626,000
1,480,000
1,891,270
173,413
244,640
315,614
340,813
431,325
495,178
445,771
450,460
516,905
542,887
2,270,950
2,079,055
2,069,000
2,221,000
2,226,000
2,488,000
1,993,000
2,105,000
1,626,000
1,480,000
Unit: NT,000
Oversea Sales
11,067
638
1,677
1,677
1,042
127,452
182,506
50,861
34,396
248,645
1,741,891
1,373,533
1,126,412
557,258
305,881
Non-core Sales
44,078
21,908
18,238
8,000
17,000
22,000
29,867
28,973
54,361
27,597
27,597
1722812
1302116
1550000
839000
515000
395000
298000
329000
4088000
279000
196
Year
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
ROA
0.1086
0.1181
0.1107
0.0934
0.0810
0.0852
0.0106
0.0188
0.0043
0.0126
0.0233
0.0226
0.0459
0.0296
0.0186
0.0407
0.0100
0.0449
0.0516
0.0497
0.0379
0.0387
0.0131
0.0168
0.0619
0.0811
0.0739
0.0869
0.0763
0.0406
ROE
0.2163
0.2473
0.2453
0.2247
0.2153
0.2295
0.0132
0.0229
0.0051
0.0151
0.0276
0.0264
0.0900
0.0552
0.0299
0.0712
0.0128
0.0860
0.0771
0.0729
0.0508
0.0504
0.0155
0.0215
0.1268
0.1469
0.1239
0.1377
0.1124
0.0634
GM
NM
0.3034
0.3034
0.3025
0.3101
0.3203
0.3240
0.1501
0.1613
0.1676
0.1749
0.1716
0.1722
0.2116
0.2107
0.2096
0.2040
0.2015
0.1989
0.1757
0.2081
0.2262
0.2696
0.2901
0.3051
0.2476
0.2557
0.2557
0.2421
0.2308
0.2111
(Appendix II)
PM
0.0395
0.0446
0.0451
0.0474
0.0451
0.0481
0.0107
0.0236
0.0266
0.0179
0.0217
0.0250
0.0263
0.0374
0.0351
0.0329
0.0335
0.0311
0.0373
0.0513
0.0466
0.0527
0.0351
0.0268
0.1411
0.1535
0.1528
0.1354
0.1216
0.0814
0.0414
0.0494
0.0506
0.0470
0.0429
0.0456
0.0194
0.0339
0.0083
0.0260
0.0453
0.0440
0.0911
0.0571
0.0330
0.0723
0.0105
0.0914
0.0480
0.0592
0.0478
0.0566
0.0281
0.0348
0.1137
0.1447
0.1443
0.1562
0.1388
0.0772
197
Year
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
ROA
0.0194
0.0347
0.0623
0.0742
0.0307
0.0327
0.0874
0.0796
0.0674
0.0655
0.0667
0.0629
0.0274
-0.0314
0.0670
0.0472
0.0212
0.0662
0.0992
0.0881
0.0570
0.0573
0.0304
0.0144
0.0383
0.0635
0.0404
0.0484
0.0481
0.0717
ROE
0.0183
0.0547
0.1057
0.1218
0.0429
0.0553
0.2297
0.2157
0.1854
0.1798
0.1930
0.1917
0.0375
-0.0669
0.1123
0.0704
0.0274
0.1192
0.1616
0.1323
0.0772
0.0965
0.0478
0.0240
0.0641
0.1126
0.0633
0.0698
0.0706
0.1062
GM
NM
0.1896
0.1836
0.1595
0.1727
0.1484
0.1722
0.2958
0.2928
0.2997
0.3002
0.2982
0.3014
0.3320
0.3192
0.3030
0.3124
0.3094
0.3299
0.1507
0.1483
0.1561
0.1600
0.1635
0.1845
0.4873
0.4873
0.4631
0.4568
0.4383
0.4493
(Appendix II)
PM
0.0501
-0.0113
-0.0502
-0.0293
-0.0496
-0.0304
0.0286
0.0266
0.0223
0.0206
0.0193
0.0203
0.0324
0.0223
-0.0077
0.0065
-0.0065
-0.0108
0.0320
0.0361
0.0405
0.0275
0.0252
0.0157
0.0752
0.0522
0.0166
0.0154
-0.0146
0.0078
0.0187
0.0683
0.1658
0.1953
0.0633
0.0971
0.0308
0.0300
0.0265
0.0245
0.0237
0.0244
0.0366
-0.0423
0.0906
0.0694
0.0206
0.1011
0.0544
0.0443
0.0266
0.0386
0.0226
0.0156
0.0509
0.0787
0.0661
0.0908
0.0969
0.1348
198
Year
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
ROA
0.0931
0.1094
0.0735
0.0798
0.0927
0.0750
0.0859
0.0843
0.0850
0.0776
0.0883
0.1068
0.0200
0.0727
0.0874
0.0973
0.0719
0.0846
0.0347
0.0010
-0.0176
0.0135
0.0126
0.0792
0.1063
0.0671
0.0540
-0.0088
-0.0214
-0.0513
ROE
0.2709
0.2900
0.1567
0.1522
0.1778
0.1580
0.1528
0.1248
0.1282
0.1132
0.1228
0.1380
0.0255
0.1222
0.1457
0.1530
0.1056
0.1259
0.0558
-0.0162
-0.0533
0.0079
0.0049
0.1406
0.1663
0.0976
0.0720
-0.0168
-0.0429
-0.0841
GM
NM
0.2782
0.2872
0.2822
0.2823
0.2918
0.2867
0.6178
0.5967
0.5938
0.5897
0.5837
0.5894
0.0669
0.1102
0.0965
0.0884
0.0638
0.1051
0.3170
0.3308
0.3076
0.2846
0.2769
0.2990
0.5201
0.4808
0.4475
0.4041
0.4119
0.4230
(Appendix II)
PM
0.0443
0.0551
0.0389
0.0421
0.0485
0.0401
0.1194
0.0958
0.0934
0.0922
0.0911
0.1026
0.0107
0.0474
0.0281
0.0329
0.0225
0.0504
-0.0710
-0.0256
-0.0591
-0.0421
-0.0148
-0.0072
0.1065
0.0789
0.0846
0.0471
0.0244
-0.0818
0.0474
0.0616
0.0472
0.0497
0.0546
0.0465
0.1216
0.1000
0.0955
0.0855
0.0991
0.1086
0.0068
0.0490
0.0644
0.0699
0.0442
0.0704
0.0928
-0.0258
-0.0974
0.0336
0.0067
0.2047
0.2029
0.1243
0.1023
-0.0023
-0.0853
-0.2261
199
Year
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
ROA
0.0822
0.0337
-0.1326
0.1676
0.0396
0.0782
0.0793
0.0887
0.0748
0.0968
0.0762
0.0991
0.1142
0.1220
0.1013
0.0910
0.1275
0.1016
0.1469
0.1967
0.0902
0.0792
-3.6600
-25.0200
-21.1000
-11.6000
26.4800
-0.2500
ROE
0.1839
0.0744
-0.3976
0.4878
0.0906
0.1931
0.1272
0.1386
0.1145
0.1529
0.1211
0.1617
0.2213
0.2347
0.1886
0.1717
0.2556
0.2015
0.2827
0.3325
0.1407
0.1215
-6.7400
-46.3700
-51.3900
-41.0900
61.1800
-1.2300
GM
NM
0.1806
0.1887
0.1879
0.1756
0.1624
0.1616
0.0580
0.0667
0.0642
0.0595
0.0616
0.0596
0.2321
0.2279
0.2258
0.2256
0.1147
0.1191
0.1390
0.1523
0.1416
0.1446
0.0994
0.0628
0.1375
0.1741
0.1866
0.1995
(Appendix II)
PM
0.0404
0.0418
0.0396
0.0350
0.0191
0.0318
0.0288
0.0334
0.0238
0.0199
0.0140
0.0169
0.0422
0.0462
0.0362
0.0398
0.0385
0.0343
0.0548
0.0699
0.0395
0.0364
-0.0314
-0.1122
-0.0003
-0.0275
0.0054
0.0079
0.0471
0.0200
-0.0733
0.0776
0.0299
0.0479
0.0466
0.0582
0.0545
0.0753
0.0721
0.1203
0.0506
0.0499
0.0434
0.0431
0.0391
0.0359
0.0591
0.0775
0.0382
0.0342
-5.9600
-38.3600
-28.6700
-20.4800
41.5200
0.0600
200
year/M
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
NOPAT
16,909,924
19,381,676
20,944,826
22,156,259
23,197,632
22,949,784
60,414
62,182
45,623
59,609
70,623
73,133
1,642,108
1,330,796
978,508
1,751,268
1,240,847
2,179,896
736,045
716,867
657,594
661,898
474,750
451,125
312,000
337,125
340,875
349,125
299,250
201,750
WACC
Capital
0.053
0.061
0.054
0.038
0.031
0.041
0.068
0.164
0.011
0.012
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.009
0.004
0.006
0.067
0.065
0.061
0.053
0.014
0.035
0.035
0.042
0.038
0.043
0.040
0.021
37,264,680
41,400,015
43,075,148
51,101,774
54,185,278
55,164,712
990,088 982,905 968,829
983,477
995,164
1,000,510
30,678,477
32,710,347
34,979,677
44,523,024
39,038,954
44,909,528
7,048,000
6,644,000
6,509,500
5,351,000
3,997,000
3,704,500
3,411,000
3,135,500
3,076,500
2,988,500
2,771,000
3,241,000
(Appensix III)
EVA
14,921,649
16,873,709
18,620,980
20,190,026
21,537,616
20,664,238
6,639
99,081
45,623
59,609
59,466
61,309
1,537,098
1,234,991
877,642
1,336,572
1,083,863
1,898,152
262,960
283,744
261,216
377,718
416,810
320,411
193,931
206,399
222,824
219,808
187,871
134,704
201
year/M
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-05
Dec-04
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-05
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
NOPAT
703,926
936,269
1,266,420
1,448,579
912,970
897,329
5,915,829
6,366,035
6,758,741
7,314,673
8,106,505
8,425,845
1,156,493
711,210
1,590,984
1,489,036
1,095,667
949,560
1,458,750
1,338,000
1,153,500
1,294,875
980,250
924,000
645,066
770,754
776,329
799,988
832,806
891,884
WACC
Capital
0.021
0.034
0.058
0.045
0.020
0.016
0.055
0.059
0.052
0.050
0.056
0.052
0.024
0.005
0.373
0.047
0.022
0.048
0.126
0.070
0.045
0.045
0.032
0.014
0.149
0.219
0.030
0.033
0.040
0.050
14,540,515
15,057,376
15,960,206
14,391,128
14,430,293
16,365,438
10,862,892
11,724,491
12,577,655
13,670,487
14,919,673
15,509,460
10,895,000
11,159,898
3,968,258
13,164,574
8,981,889
12,647,081
9,173,000
9,809,000
11,227,000
14,357,500
14,012,000
13,363,000
3,275,088
3,488,672
3,681,596
4,066,364
4,294,408
4,614,178
(Appensix III)
EVA
402,402
431,632
339,371
807,839
630,455
634,620
5,317,606
5,679,898
6,104,675
6,632,349
7,270,724
7,616,929
898,993
650,460
111,571
874,917
898,942
346,847
305,263
648,812
647,500
644,223
534,035
734,711
157,694
5,463
667,476
664,312
659,719
660,783
202
year/M
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
NOPAT
548,663
610,916
664,747
787,157
945,536
1,017,421
567,405
626,113
612,314
631,440
632,736
643,570
90,521
589,560
717,439
936,819
1,481,470
1,893,563
356,682
225,659
150,756
299,032
275,405
564,926
310,367
281,723
239,498
152,268
94,421
66,896
WACC
Capital
0.385
0.360
0.077
0.090
0.093
0.099
0.089
0.063
0.048
0.045
0.054
0.058
0.013
0.109
0.105
0.051
0.046
0.058
0.170
0.009
0.009
0.016
0.011
0.070
0.168
0.050
0.034
0.004
0.007
0.004
1,341,550
1,592,554
1,991,329
2,216,543
2,555,714
2,850,561
1,944,284
2,113,093
2,152,419
2,105,920
2,076,648
1,994,093
8,139,695
8,000,080
9,120,585
11,537,092
13,952,293
14,657,751
4,809,576
4,966,878
5,120,892
4,529,111
4,520,207
5,110,234
2,106,823
2,283,631
2,404,331
2,293,024
3,226,895
2,976,195
(Appensix III)
EVA
32,064
38,343
512,067
587,649
706,833
735,132
394,833
493,740
508,951
537,356
521,376
528,117
15,153
280,346
237,576
348,159
835,528
1,039,400
461,640
179,909
103,506
224,529
226,655
206,251
44,172
166,964
156,712
144,018
73,421
55,646
203
year/M
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
NOPAT
4,314,591
4,140,950
3,408,803
4,712,217
3,506,795
3,203,887
3,205,947
3,614,189
3,440,306
4,176,283
3,879,074
4,641,443
2,070,179
2,344,340
2,176,091
1,803,953
529,250
562,664
619,328
717,345
558,679
563,915
1,411,499
167,234
1,419,000
1,232,319
4,013,250
1,271,250
WACC
Capital
0.054
0.035
0.005
0.171
0.052
0.182
0.010
0.057
0.057
0.039
0.032
0.044
0.814
0.072
0.080
0.084
0.256
0.104
0.100
0.075
0.069
0.069
0.004
0.005
0.008
0.011
0.336
0.005
13,476,212
13,435,853
9,217,664
11,141,834
11,372,726
5,653,849
27,810,916
27,579,918
32,330,075
40,051,587
44,331,099
47,919,590
4,548,238 4,930,786
4,831,455
4,072,270
1,336,666
1,453,219
1,544,771
1,687,460
1,602,905
1,773,887
22,322,000
18,837,000
17,767,000
16,374,000
13,250,000 12,163,000
(Appensix III)
EVA
3,587,473
3,672,586
3,364,553
2,805,169
2,921,003
2,177,081
2,927,013
2,046,438
1,584,688
2,604,354
2,439,243
2,520,384
1,633,785
1,991,244
1,789,287
1,463,347
187,534
410,894
464,191
590,293
447,913
441,828
1,317,749
64,484
1,269,750
1,049,319
445,279
1,208,250
204
year/M
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Stock value
56.75
58.91
71.99
85.76
93.82
78.65
17.04
14
17.04
26.33
23.99
22.9
16.26
17.98
17.04
28.3
34.4
27.82
10.97
10.31
9.98
11.39
10.58
8.19
23.12
26.5
27.31
27.76
26.59
23.57
Circuurrency
915
915
915
915
915
1,040
73
73
73
73
73
73
987
987
1,036
1,077
1,120
1,177
373
381
372
364
248
248
208
208
208
208
208
208
Equity
14,372,000
15,173,000
15,983,000
16,254,000
16,448,000
18,921,000
794,000
823,000
809,000
822,000
830,000
835,000
17,224
18,283
20,862
24,278
20,646
24,277
4,471,000
4,403,000
4,297,000
4,362,000
3,003,000
3,319,000
1,795,000
1,914,000
1,898,000
1,966,000
1,900,000
1,868,000
(Appendix IV)
MVA
37,554,250
38,729,650
49,887,850
62,216,400
69,397,300
62,875,000
449,920
199,000
434,920
1,100,090
921,270
836,700
16,031,396
17,727,977
17,632,578
30,454,822
38,507,354
32,719,863
379,190
474,890
584,440
216,040
379,160
1,287,880
3,013,960
3,598,000
3,782,480
3,808,080
3,630,720
3,034,560
205
year/M
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Stock value
12.76
13.01
14.88
24.48
24.32
36.62
55.4
51.97
50.67
51.4
51.19
56.54
12.64
8.57
8.2
17.75
15.36
13.07
19.18
22.3
20.71
20
17.96
15.57
12.87
17.17
22.8
26.7
21.36
26.06
Circuurrency
788
788
779
727
711
711
197
108
218
223
223
223
541
541
541
541
548
548
387
397
446
448
473
481
113
118
150
150
159
170
Equity
6,926,000
7,058,000
8,651,000
8,285,000
7,359,000
8,921,000
3,032,000
3,299,000
3,445,000
3,588,000
3,725,000
3,876,000
6,651,000
5,984,000
7,031,000
7,393,000
4,994,000
7,778,000
5,434,000
5,562,000
5,840,000
6,111,000
5,346,000
6,035,000
1,514,000
1,746,000
2,203,000
2,316,000
2,500,000
2,728,000
(Appendix IV)
MVA
3,128,880
3,193,880
2,940,520
9,511,960
9,932,520
17,115,820
7,881,800
2,313,760
7,601,060
7,874,200
7,690,370
8,732,420
187,240
1,347,630
2,594,800
2,209,750
3,423,280
615,640
1,988,660
3,291,100
3,396,660
2,849,000
3,149,080
1,454,170
59,690
280,060
1,217,000
1,689,000
896,240
1,702,200
206
year/M
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Stock value
25.4
25.28
23.75
22.49
27.17
23.11
20.55
23.11
27.73
29.68
28.45
30.99
8.69
9.53
13.5
33.38
35.37
32.8
7.26
5.35
5.18
10.24
8.02
11.96
18.5
18.2
20.95
22.1
6.4
17.85
Circuurrency
25
39
55
64.7
66
73
88
88
88
91
90.6
90.6
402
402
402
421
4433
471
294
294
294
294
294
294
90
93
131
147
169
174
Equity
407,000
662,000
902,000
1,107,000
1,190,000
1,284,000
1,112,000
1,112,000
1,144,000
1,195,000
1,216,000
1,319,000
4,687,000
5,164,000
5,976,000
8,191,000
8,703,000
9,487,000
2,370,000
2,609,000
2,696,000
2,419,000
2,488,000
2,853,000
1,332,000
1,661,000
1,897,000
2,163,000
2,113,000
1,934,000
(Appendix IV)
MVA
228,000
323,920
404,250
348,103
614,088
403,030
696,400
921,680
1,296,240
1,505,880
1,361,570
1,488,694
1,193,620
1,332,940
549,000
5,861,980
148,092,210
5,961,800
235,560
1,036,100
1,173,080
591,560
130,120
663,240
333,000
31,600
847,450
1,085,700
1,031,400
1,171,900
207
year/M
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Stock value
44.42
45.69
40.3
37.62
30.64
27.22
51.87
44.13
35.08
61.75
63.83
55.07
37.94
59.56
44.2
35.79
25.1
25.63
38.12
66.59
35.21
23.28
10.56
5.72
4.7
6.99
5.51
5.12
Circuurrency
221
128
321
246.6
246.6
242
745
1328
1204
1084
1022
920
128.4
130.3
132.2
99.2
61
66.8
68
72
73
80
1,340
1,340
876
876
876
876
Equity
6,066,000
6,146,000
3,633,000
5,939,000
6,276,000
2,622,000
19,443,000
21,622,000
23,147,000
26,590,000
27,803,000
31,923,000
2,395,000
2,507,000
2,478,000
2,090,000
899,000
949,000
1,090,000
1,232,000
1,076,000
1,203,000
1,369,000
9,889,000
1,940,000
4,472,000
7,703,000
7,748,000
(Appendix IV)
MVA
3,750,820
297,680
9,303,300
3,338,092
1,279,824
3,970,684
19,200,150
36,982,640
19,089,320
40,347,000
37,431,260
18,741,400
2,476,496
5,253,668
3,365,240
1,460,368
632,100
763,084
1,502,160
3,562,480
1,487,288
659,400
12,781,400
2,224,200
2,177,200
1,651,240
2,876,240
3,262,880
208
APPENDIX V
1. Have you being living in Taiwan for the past year?
Yes
No
No
2. Have you shopping in convenience stores in the past three months? Yes
3. A.
Age
B. Gender
Female
Male
Department Store
NT$100-200
CVS
NT300
Family Mart
NT$200-300
Supermarket
High Life
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
nor Agree
machine..)
products.
6. Long opening hours.
209
product information.
offered.
18. Has a membership system that offers great
rewards.
210
image.
25. Will above perceived value make you willing to
pay a higher price to stores products or
services?
26. Will above perceived value quality make you
willing to repeat purchasing stores products or
services?
I expected.
29. The service and products were exactly what I
needed.
30. Will above customers satisfaction make you
willing to pay a higher price to stores products or
services?
31. Will above customers satisfaction make you
willing to pay a higher price to stores products or
services?
advice.
211
212
month/year
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
PD
17,932,674
20,939,876
22,706,406
23,380,883
23,652,970
24,234,879
49,613
46,574
42,346
41,725
46,477
51,032
427,237
478,104
16,049
652,777
721,896
775,745
847,912
792,725
816,372
762,426
LD
0.8782
0.8785
0.8801
0.8940
0.9204
0.9745
0.8887
0.9316
0.9250
0.9046
0.9073
0.9452
0.9660
0.9685
0.9619
0.9353
0.9188
0.9191
0.8968
0.8553
0.7959
0.7386
ED
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1
1
2.75
1.08
1
1
1.57
1
1
1
PD/r(R=10%)
1,630,243,091
1,903,625,091
2,064,218,727
2,125,534,818
2,150,270,000
2,203,170,818
4,510,273
4,234,000
3,849,636
3,793,182
4,225,182
4,639,273
38,839,727
43,464,000
1,459,000
59,343,364
65,626,909
70,522,273
77,082,909
72,065,909
74,215,636
69,311,455
BV=PD/r*LD*ED
1,431,679,482
1,672,334,642
1,816,718,902
1,900,228,127
1,979,108,508
2,146,989,962
4,008,279
3,944,394
3,560,914
3,431,312
3,833,507
4,385,041
37,519,177
42,094,884
3,859,383
59,944,156
60,298,004
64,817,021
108,530,886
61,637,972
59,068,225
51,193,440
(Appendix VI)
BV
1,431,679,482
1,672,334,642
1,816,718,902
1,900,228,127
1,979,108,508
2,146,989,962
4,008,279
3,944,394
3,560,914
3,431,312
3,833,507
4,385,041
37,519,177
42,094,884
3,859,383
59,944,156
60,298,004
64,817,021
108,530,886
61,637,972
59,068,225
51,193,440
213
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
714,209
703,272
106,816
512,143
466,169
453,434
410,083
382,948
1,098,250
802,955
611,725
646,722
650,876
534,040
4,584,595
5,546,829
6,759,762
7,455,737
8,477,888
8,759,608
2,112,735
2,188,081
2,282,958
0.7092
0.7008
0.9437
0.9695
0.9631
0.9530
0.9218
0.9120
0.4974
0.6193
0.7703
0.7662
0.9029
0.9390
0.6520
0.7125
0.8812
0.8984
0.8895
0.8924
0.9449
0.9635
0.9733
1.46
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
64,928,091
63,933,818
9,710,545
46,558,455
42,379,000
41,221,273
37,280,273
34,813,455
99,840,909
72,995,909
55,611,364
58,792,909
59,170,545
48,549,091
416,781,364
504,257,182
614,523,818
677,794,273
770,717,091
796,328,000
192,066,818
198,916,455
207,541,636
(Appendix VI)
67,228,623
44,804,820
9,163,842
45,138,422
40,815,215
39,283,873
34,364,955
31,749,871
49,660,868
45,206,367
42,837,433
45,047,127
53,425,085
45,587,596
271,741,449
359,283,242
541,518,389
608,930,375
685,552,852
710,643,107
181,483,937
191,656,004
202,000,275
67,228,623
44,804,820
9,163,842
45,138,422
40,815,215
39,283,873
34,364,955
31,749,871
49,660,868
45,206,367
42,837,433
45,047,127
53,425,085
45,587,596
271,741,449
359,283,242
541,518,389
608,930,375
685,552,852
710,643,107
181,483,937
191,656,004
201,000,275
214
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
2,460,044
2,398,104
1,990,536
1,748,239
1,760,672
1,623,003
1,518,246
1,384,811
1,146,212
587,653
726,007
819,576
861,103
893,833
874,204
480,463
564,934
662,486
816,686
957,631
1,098,034
595,143
353,183
0.9666
0.9619
0.9340
0.8214
0.8851
0.9462
0.9369
0.8978
0.8186
0.9002
0.9334
0.9273
0.9255
0.9466
0.9682
0.8324
0.8538
0.8662
0.8621
0.8135
0.7885
0.5345
0.6096
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
223,640,364
218,009,455
180,957,818
158,930,818
160,061,091
147,545,727
138,022,364
125,891,909
104,201,091
53,423,000
66,000,636
74,506,909
78,282,091
81,257,545
79,473,091
43,678,455
51,357,636
60,226,000
74,244,182
87,057,364
99,821,273
54,103,909
32,107,545
(Appendix VI)
216,170,775
209,703,294
169,014,602
130,545,774
141,670,072
139,607,767
129,313,152
113,025,756
85,299,013
48,091,385
61,604,994
69,090,257
72,450,075
76,918,393
76,945,847
36,357,946
43,849,150
52,167,761
64,005,909
70,821,165
78,709,074
28,918,539
19,572,760
216,170,775
109,703,294
169,014,602
130,545,774
141,670,072
139,607,767
129,313,152
113,025,756
85,299,013
48,091,385
611,604,994
69,090,257
72,450,075
76,918,393
76,945,847
36,357,946
43,849,150
52,167,761
64,005,909
70,821,165
78,709,074
28,918,539
19,572,760
215
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
334,088
518,668
674,239
835,935
4,027
4,775
4,320
4,831
5,831
5,874
277,040
280,254
248,512
263,678
284,620
283,999
325,331
364,075
326,592
260,155
153,174
84,975
6,627
0.6842
0.6303
0.6187
0.9815
0.8869
0.9179
0.9396
0.9293
0.8170
0.8208
0.9375
0.9154
0.9342
0.9270
0.8971
0.8941
0.5597
0.4706
0.5407
0.6908
0.8414
0.7729
0.4767
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
30,371,636
47,151,636
61,294,455
75,994,091
366,091
434,091
392,727
439,182
530,091
534,000
25,185,455
25,477,636
22,592,000
23,970,727
25,874,545
25,818,091
29,575,545
33,097,727
29,690,182
23,650,455
13,924,909
7,725,000
602,455
(Appendix VI)
20,780,274
29,719,676
37,922,879
74,588,200
324,686
398,452
369,007
408,132
433,084
438,307
23,611,364
23,322,228
21,105,446
22,220,864
23,212,055
23,083,955
16,553,433
15,575,790
16,053,481
16,337,734
11,716,419
5,970,653
287,190
20,780,274
29,719,676
37,922,879
74,588,200
324,686
398,452
369,007
408,132
433,084
438,307
23,611,364
23,322,228
21,105,446
22,220,864
23,212,055
23,083,955
16,553,433
15,575,790
16,053,481
16,337,734
11,716,419
5,970,653
287,190
216
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
Dec-04
Dec-05
698,141
1,254,689
2,052,869
2,492,914
2,699,832
16,207,664
11,875,931
7,624,955
4,763,204
2,104,801
130,763
3,682,574
3,504,717
2,598,949
1,884,949
934,194
844,503
637,886
566,027
473,578
427,356
2,019,855
1,247,583
0.5993
0.7437
0.8830
0.9518
0.9347
0.8574
0.8880
0.9164
0.9017
0.9048
0.8999
0.7778
0.8442
0.9046
0.9219
0.7228
0.8293
0.9205
0.9448
0.9214
0.9193
0.8025
0.8171
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
63,467,364
114,062,636
186,624,455
226,628,545
245,439,273
1,473,424,000
1,079,630,091
693,177,727
433,018,545
191,345,545
11,887,545
334,779,455
318,610,636
236,268,091
171,359,000
84,926,727
76,773,000
57,989,636
51,457,000
43,052,545
38,850,545
183,623,182
113,416,636
(Appendix VI)
38,035,991
84,828,383
164,789,393
215,705,050
229,412,088
1,263,313,738
958,711,521
635,228,069
390,452,822
173,129,450
10,697,602
260,391,460
268,971,099
213,728,115
157,975,862
61,385,038
63,667,849
53,379,460
48,616,574
39,668,615
35,715,306
147,357,603
92,672,734
38,035,991
84,828,383
164,789,393
214,705,050
229,412,088
1,263,313,738
958,711,521
635,228,069
390,452,822
173,129,450
10,697,602
260,391,460
268,971,099
213,728,115
157,975,862
61,385,038
63,667,849
53,379,460
48,616,574
39,668,615
35,715,306
147,357,603
92,672,734
217
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Dec-09
1,024,467
726,836
681,337
749,003
0.8476
0.7906
0.7377
0.7079
1
1
1
1
93,133,364
66,076,000
61,939,727
68,091,182
(Appendix VI)
78,939,839
52,239,686
45,692,937
48,201,748
78,939,839
52,239,686
45,692,937
48,201,748
218