BRAND PERCEPTION WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO HYUNDAI

HEAVY EQUIPMENTS

INTRODUCTION
Perception
Perception is defined as a process through which individuals are exposed to
information, attend to the information, and comprehend the information (Mowen,
1995).Understanding perception and the factors determining how consumers view
products andservices is central to effective marketing (Berkman, Lindquist, and Sirgy,
1996).Schiffman and Kanuk (1994) stated about consumer perception saying " as
diverseindividuals, we all tend to see the world in our own special ways. "Reality" to
an individual is merely that individual's perception of what is "out there"- of what has
taken place. Individuals act and react on the basis of their perceptions, not on the basis
of objective reality. Thus, to the marketer, consumers' perceptions are much more
important than their knowledge of objective reality. For if one thinks about it, it's not
what actually is so, but what consumers think is so that affects their actions, their
buying habits, their leisure habits, and so forth. And because individuals make
decisions and take actions based on what they perceive to be reality, it is important
that marketers understand the
whole notion of perception and its related concepts so they can more readily
determine what factors influence consumer to buy."
Brands play a pivotal role in many companies marketing strategy. They represent
critical resources allowing companies to gain competitive advantage over their
competitors (Hunt, 2000; Srivastava, Shervani, & Fahey, 1998). Expenses for building
and nurturing brands often represent an important part of a firms overall marketing
budget. Consequently, marketing scholars and practitioners alike show strong interest
in concepts and mechanisms that can potentially increase the value of a companys
brand portfolio. Beyond financial aspects of measuring brand equity,
understanding the processes that lead customers to prefer one brand over others are at
the centre of academic research.
Customer preferences for a brand can be the result of various factors. Traditionally,
marketers have focused on providing functional benefits such as higher quality
or longer duration with branded goods or services. However, in many areas,

the functional benefits of offerings sold under different brands are homogeneous.
In order to protect their brands from an increasing vulnerability against competitors
(Ritson, 2003), marketers seek differentiation by various means. One path to
differentiation consists of the establishment of strong relational ties between a brand
and its target segments (Fournier, 1998). For example, certain brands build up
customer communities. These communities provide customers with the opportunity
of social integration in a network of like-minded consumers or of increasing the
proximity with the brand (McAlexander, Schouten & Knig, 2002; Muniz &
OGuinn, 2001). More generally, they focus on increasing customer preferences for
a brand by adding intangible benefits to the classical functional benefits in a brands
positioning.
One of the key concepts in this context is brand personality. Brand personality
represents a strategic tool allowing for the establishment of strong brands
(D.A. Aaker, 1996; Keller & Lehmann, 2003; Lombardi, 2007). The marketing
sub-discipline analysing customer brand personality perceptions draws upon
psychological research on the personality of human beings. A key outcome of
fundamental research in human psychology has been the identification of the Big
Five Personality Factors of human personality (Goldberg, 1992). Marketing research
attempts to identify comparable personality structures with regard to brands. The
rationale for studying brand personality is that a significant link exists between brand
personality and outcome variables such as preference (J.L. Aaker, 1999), usage (Sirgy,
1982), emotions (Biel, 1993), and trust and loyalty (Fournier, 1994).
J.L. Aaker (1997) identifies five dimensions by means of which brands can be
described. Since the publication of her seminal article, numerous authors have
drawn upon her approach and have used the measurement scales she provides.
According to J.L. Aaker (1997), a companys marketing management positions a
brand by determining its extent of sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication,
and ruggedness. We define a brands specific personality, positioned along Aakers
brand personality dimensions, as the brands personality constellation. The brand
personality constellation is an outcome of the brand positioning process. It is the one
combination of personality traits defined by the managers in charge of the brand and
that characterises a specific brand.
In management practice, we observe variance among brand personality
constellations. The number of brand personality constellations that can be designed
along Aakers five dimensions is vast. However, social scientists often observe that, in
reality, a limited number of empirically observable constellations exist, even though
no natural forces limit or reduce variety. These typical constellations are often
referred to as types or styles, for example consumer types, lifestyles, or
decisionmaking
styles. Academic research provides little insight into the extent to which

variance in the design of brand personalities exists.

In addition to the variety of brand personality constellations we observe
empirically, there is a second field of variance. Strategic marketing defines brand
personalities, and marketing instruments express a brands personality. Customers
interpret the signals a brand sends out to them and develop individual and subjective
perceptions of the brands personality. Because each customer may perceive the
same brand personality signals in different ways, we can expect a certain amount
of variance among customer perceptions for one and the same brand. From a brand
management perspective, the challenge is to achieve a low level of variance among
customers perceptions of a brand.
In extant research about brand personalities, the underlying assumption is that
there is a high level of homogeneity among customer perceptions of one brand,
that is, all customers have a fairly unique perception of one brands personality.
1064 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 28
Only Freling and Forbes (2005) evoke a possible diversity of brand personality
perceptions based on their qualitative research. However, no quantitative analysis
exists that confirms their statement. In this research, we question whether the amount
of variance in customer brand personality perceptions is truly low. Empirically,
we examine whether all customers perceive an identical brand personality or if
different customers perceive the same brands personality differently. This is a crucial
question because many companies strongly invest in advertising campaigns aimed at
creating or reinforcing a specific brand personality (Batra, Myers, & Aaker, 1996).
Against this background, understanding the process of translation from the brand
personality a company intends to create (intended brand personality constellation)
to the brand personalities customers perceive (Plummer, 2000) is of high importance
when evaluating the effectiveness of brand personality building.
The aim of this paper is to explore the amount of variance in customer brand
personality perception. For this purpose, we use a taxonomic approach. A taxonomy
is an empirical tool for classifying observations into groups. It allows verifying,
in our context, whether customer perceptions of a given brand personality are
homogeneous or heterogeneous. If a brands management succeeds in its task of
creating a clear and distinct brand personality, then the level of variance between
customers brand personality perceptions should be relatively low. If different
customers attribute different personality traits to the same brand, then brand
management may need to reconsider the marketing mix deployed in order to transmit
the brand personality.
More precisely, we use cluster analysis for the taxonomic exploration of brand
personality perceptions. Results are based on data from an empirical survey among
571 customers. Each participant described one out of seven consumer goods brands
from three product categories (food, skin care, and sporting goods) on a reduced

set of items from J.L. Aakers (1997) scale. Four typical constellations of brand
personality perceptions emerge from our analyses. Examining the distribution of
respondents brand personality perceptions across clusters allows for an analysis of
the homogeneity or heterogeneity in brand personality perceptions.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. First, we review the extant
literature on brand personality research and on the use of taxonomies in marketing.
Next, we present the research design and the empirical findings of this study. Finally,
we discuss theoretical and managerial implications, as well as limitations of the
present study and provide avenues for future research.
Brand perception
A number of studies focus on creating frameworks to understand the key components
of brand perceptions, including Keller (1993), Aaker (1991) and Plummer (1985)
(Simms and Trott, 2006). Brand perception is consumers ability to identify the brand
under different
Sadeghi et al. 12027
conditions, as reflected by their brand recognition or recall performance. Brand recall
refers to consumers ability to retrieve the brand from the memory. Brand building has
been around for centuries as a means to distinguish the goods of one producer from
those of another. The earliest signs of branding in Europe were the medieval guilds
requirement that craftspeople put trademarks on their products to protect themselves
and consumers against inferior quality.
In the fine arts, branding began with artists signing their works. Brands today play a
number of important roles that improve consumers lives and enhance the financial
value of firms (Wonglorsaichon and Sathainrapabayut, 2008).

Objectives
1. Identify the customers' perception toward the selected restaurants.
1.1 Determine perception upon demographic segmentation such as gender, education
and income toward dinning consumers.
2. Identify the influence factors for consumers to dine in the selected restaurants

2.1. Determine the influence factors for consumers choosing the selected restaurants
due price sensitivity, variety of menu items, service, cleanliness, flavor of cuisine and
location
3. Identify the motivation of the consumers to the selected restaurants
3.1 Determine the motivation by trying to find out feeling, attitudes, and emotions
concerning the selected restaurants.

Literature Review
Schiffinan and Kanuk (1994) stated about consumer perception saying " as
diverse individuals, we all tend to see the world in our own special ways. "Reality" to
an
individual is merely that individual's perception of what is "out there"- of what has
taken
place. Individuals act and react on the basis of their perceptions, not on the basis of
objective reality. Thus, to the marketer, consumers' perceptions are much more
important
than their knowledge of objective reality. For if one thinks about it, it's not what
actually
is so, but what consumers think is so that affects their actions, their buying habits,
their
leisure habits, and so forth. And because individuals make decisions and take actions
based on what they perceive to be reality, it is important that marketers understand the
2
whole notion of perception and its related concepts so they can more readily
determine
what factors influence consumer to buy."
Zeithaml (1988) pointed out that perceived value is very subjective and distinct and it
is different from one customer to another. After consolidating four consumers'
expressions of value , she defined perceived value as a customers overall assessment
of the utility of a product based on the perception of what is received and what is
given. A customer might evaluate the value dimension of the same product differently
at different occasions. To illustrate; a customer may regard price as the most important

criteria at the time of making decision to purchase a product. Subsequently, when

he/she is faced with any problem with regards to the product, he/she might consider
that customer service is the most important factor that will affect his/her
satisfaction/dissatisfaction.
In service marketing, the value concept appears quite frequently, but any clear
definition cannot be found until we turn to the literature on pricing. Monroe (1991)
defined customer -perceived value as the ratio between perceived benefits and
perceived sacrifice. The perceived sacrifice was not solely referred to the purchase
price but also includes all other possible costs that the customer might face in the
purchasing process. Consider an example in which a customer intends to obtain a
telephone service. Besides having to pay for the first month rental plus a deposit, he
must also consider the cost of transportation, internal wiring, waiting time, repairs and
maintenance, risk of failure and/or poor performance. The perceived benefits are a
combination of physical attributes, service attributes and technical support available in
relation to the particular use of the product, as well as the purchase price and other
indicators of perceived quality. Thus, perceived value is the results or benefits
customers receive in relation to total costs (which include the price paid plus other
costs associated with the purchase). In simple terms, value is the difference between
perceived benefits and costs. However, what constitutes value appears to be highly
personal, idiosyncratic, and may vary widely from one customer to another
(Holbrook, 1994; Zenithal, 1988). Research evidence suggests that customer who
perceive that they received value for money are more satisfied than customer who do
not perceive they received "value for money" (Zeithaml, 1988). Perceived value is the
results or benefits customers receive in relation to total costs (which include the price
paid plus other costs associated with the purchase). In simple terms, value is the
difference between perceived benefits and costs. However, what constitutes value
appears to be highly personal, idiosyncratic, and may vary widely from one customer
to another (Holbrook, 1994; Zeithaml, 1988). Research evidence suggests that

customers who perceive that they received "value for money" are more satisfied than
customers who do not perceive they received value for money" (Zeithaml, 1988).
Based on this review and with regards to perceived price and perceived value
constructs. However, Anderson, Fornell & Lehman (1996), while studying the
relationship between customer satisfaction, market share and profitability, proposed
that value will has a direct impact on how satisfied customers are with suppliers.
Similarly, Fornell, Johnson, Anderson, Cha & Bryant (1996) have used the construct
perceived value as the perceived level of service quality relative to the price paid.
They also suggested that perceived value is one of the customer satisfaction
determinants and the antecedents of perceived value are perceived quality and
customer satisfaction. To provide competitive service value to customers, a company
must have a thorough understanding on the customers need and the activities that
constitute the customers value chain. The customer value chain represents the
sequence of activities performed by the individual customer with various members in
which the product or service is appropriate. For example, a telephone service may be
considered as a basic input for the customers value chain for local and long-distance
communication device. Perhaps, some of the customer regards the telephone service
as a facsimile medium or an alternative to Internet access. Therefore, if a company
knows the actual customer needs, they will be able to deliver the correct value plus the
benefits that would be comprehended with its initial product offering.

There is no clear definition for the term "brand". As Jean-Noel Kapferer (2008) says, a
brand is one of the hottest points of disagreement between experts. Each expert
comes up with his or her own definition, or nuance to the definition.
For example, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong (2008) defines a brand as a name,
term, sign symbol or a combination of these, that identifies the maker or seller of the
product. But a brand is much more than just a name and logo.

J.-N. Kapferer (2008) writes that a good name helps. One that is easily
pronounceable around the world and spontaneously evokes desirable associations. But
what really makes a name become a brand is the fact that this name commands trust,
respect, passion and even engagement. So in Kapferers opinion, a brand is not just a
simple name it is a name with the power to influence the market (2008). 3

Keller places a brands definition as a set of mental associations, held by the

consumer, which add to the perceived value of a product or service (2008). But a
brand is not only about the consumers side. Although Ogylvy said that "products are
built in factories, brands are built in the mind", today it is critical to take into account
the producers side, the brands creator.
David Aaker operates with two terms: brand image and brand identity. Brand image
is how a brand is perceived, brand identity is how the brand would like to be
perceived (2002). So brand identity is about the producers side as brand image
consumers.
Kapferer writes that a brand is a shared desirable and exclusive idea embodied in
products, services, places and/or expectations (2008). For example, Kilian is a
perfume as an art or German chocolate Ritter Sport which is chocolate with a
difference with famous its slogan Quadratisch. Praktisch. Gut. Its crucial that a
brand's image and identity coincide with each other.
Brand deals with the perceived quality. The perceived quality is an important element
in David Aakers brand equity model. According to Aaker, perceived quality is even
more pivotal than the actual quality for brands. He describes the perceived quality as
the customers perception of the overall quality or superiority of a product or service
with respect to its intended purpose, relative to its alternative (1991). The perceived
quality concept is rather complex. Actual quality and perceived quality is not the
same. Achieving actual high quality, according to Aaker, is not enough. The high
actual quality should be translated into high perceived quality. Consumers should
believe in the product or service.
The perceived quality has a connection with the country of the brands origin. Aaker,
Keller and Kapferer all mention the role of the country of origins affects on perceived
quality. For example, a label Made in Italy has a positive effect on a consumers
decisions about fashion brands, and Made in France has a similar affect for
perfume, wine and also apparel.
Factors affecting a brands perception can vary in different countries and are usually
connected with global trends influencing the consumers behavior. The global trends
used

in

the

paper

are

studied

by

global

agencies

Trendwatching

(www.trendwatching.com) and TNS Russia (http://www.tns-global.ru). Also, some

current tendencies affecting a consumers decisions and marketing activities have
been derived from the Harvard Business Review Magazine ("The 10 Trends You Have
to Watch". Harvard Business Review, July-August 2009).

Questionnaire
Attractive quality elements
1. How satisfied are you for the companys response to frequent client updates?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very unsatisfied
2. How does additional features provided free of cost by the company affect
customer satisfaction?
a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

d.Very unsatisfied

3. How do you evaluate the companys additional charges on content management

services?
a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

d.Very unsatisfied

4. How do you evaluate optimization services offered by the company after the
launch of the application and website?
a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

d.Very unsatisfied

5. How do you consider the companys suggestions in choosing the most suitable
platform for your website or application development?
a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

d.Very unsatisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

One-dimensional quality elements

6. How do you feel about the device compatibility of the developed website or
application ?
a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

d.Very unsatisfied

7. How do you evaluate the design attractiveness of the companys products?

a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

d.Very unsatisfied

8. How do you perceive the Speed of loading of application or website developed

by the company?
a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

d.Very unsatisfied

9. How satisfactory do you receive prompt responses from the companys

executives ?
a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

d.Very unsatisfied

10.How do you evaluate transaction security as a factor in e-commerce

applications developed by the company?
a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

d.Very unsatisfied

Must-be quality elements

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

11.How do you consider the companys upto date technology influence customer
satisfaction?
a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

d.Very unsatisfied

12.How do you consider companys possible delays in project completion?

a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very unsatisfied
13.Do you find any relationship between the companys service influence the
website or application traffic?
a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

d.Very unsatisfied

14.How do you perceive quality of service professionals influence your

relationship with the company?
a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

d.Very unsatisfied

15.How do you evaluate the companys database security is related to customer

satisfaction?
a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

d.Very unsatisfied

Indifferent quality elements

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

16.How do you consider corporate image as a factor for choosing companies for a
project?
a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

d.Very unsatisfied

17.How do you consider after launch Content management service facility as an

indicator of quality on your web pages?
a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

d.Very unsatisfied

18.How do you consider the free initial Search Engine Optimization programs
offered by the company?
a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

d.Very unsatisfied

19.Do you consider the coding quality significant in developing an application

influene customer satisfaction?
a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

d.Very unsatisfied

20.How do you consider the content development services done by representatives

of the company on nominal cost?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied
d.Very unsatisfied

Reverse quality elements

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

21.How will the adherence to contractual statements will affect customer

satisfaction?
a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

d.Very unsatisfied

22.How do you rate relationship between price and customer satisfaction?

a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

d.Very unsatisfied

23.How do you consider over adherence to quality standards more important than
client requirements?
a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

d.Very unsatisfied

24.Do you consider it very expensive to provide all the content for the website as
the company policy doesnt permit copying of content from Internet sources?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied
c. Neutral
d. Somewhat
unsatisfied
d.Very unsatisfied
25. How do you evaluate purchasing credentials for shipping and payment by the
client?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very unsatisfied
Questionable elements
26.How do you consider it when the email responses from the company include
any technical Jargons?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied
unsatisfied

d.Very unsatisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

27.Do you find it satisfactory when the company demands clients to choose the
coding platform?
a. Very satisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

unsatisfied
d.Very unsatisfied
28.Do you find it satisfactory to provide the shipping gateway and payment
credentials for ecommerce applications?
a. Very satisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

unsatisfied
d.Very unsatisfied
29.Does the client find it satisfactory to maintain communications from the
company through email only?
a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

d.Very unsatisfied

30.How does the client evaluate relationship between effectiveness of software

testing and customer satisfaction?
a. Very satisfied
unsatisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat

d.Very unsatisfied

Customer Loyalty
31.Do you consider customer satisfaction has direct influence on customer loyalty?
a. Strongly agree b. Agree c. Neither agree nor disagree d. Disagree e. Strongly
disagree
32.Does the after launch services influence customer loyalty?
a. Strongly agree b. Agree c. Neither agree nor disagree d. Disagree e. Strongly
disagree

33.How do you consider customer loyalty has influence on frequent client

communications by representatives of the company?
a. Strongly agree b. Agree c. Neither agree nor disagree d. Disagree e. Strongly
disagree
34.Does the customer loyalty is influenced by the timely completion of project?
a. Strongly agree b. Agree c. Neither agree nor disagree d. Disagree e. Strongly
disagree
35.Does price have any relationship with customer loyalty?
a. Strongly agree b. Agree c. Neither agree nor disagree d. Disagree e. Strongly
disagree