Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 70

CHAPTER: 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH STUDY


1.1 Background of the Research Topic: 1.1a: Branding:
A brand is a name, term, design symbol or any other feature that identifies a sellers product from a competitors product. Branding came about as a consequence of mass production to distinguish one "producer" from another - before branding, most consumer products were made in a customized fashion for the user - shoes by a cobbler, clothing by a dress maker, barrels by a carpenter - there was no need for logos or brands because it had no impact on the ability to sell - there was virtually no competitive market. A brand signals to the customer the source of the product and protects both the customer and producer from competitors who would attempt to provide products that appear to be identical. By developing strong & consistent images, well-regarded brands generate hidden assets or brand equity that gives them distinct advantages.

1.1b: Brand equity:


Brand equity is the set of brand assets and liabilities linked to the brand, its name, and symbol, that adds or subtracts value to a product or service for a firm/ or its customers.

Brand equity can be positive or negative. Positive brand equity is created by a history of effective promotion and consistently meeting or exceeding customer expectations. Negative brand equity is usually the result of bad management. Consumers see a particular brand name as a contract. A brand's name may reduce consumers' sense of uncertainty, allowing them to purchase uncertainty reduction, or trust, thus improving their sense of value. Promotion of a brand can address either price/costs, tangible brand attributes or intrinsic brand attributes (equities). Brand equity is communicated using consistent visual cues and consistent messages, allowing the consumer to quickly and efficiently distinguish between brands and their intrinsic product attributes. As a purchaser considers the tangible product features in concert with brand equity (and price), they arrive at a set of products in a category which they will consider for purchase (i.e. their consideration set). Thus, a brand's equity is dependent on effective communications to the target market(s) and brand equity can be improved to some extent with improved effectiveness of communications. A brand's equity therefore becomes part of the tradeoff a consumer considers as they first select their consideration set, and then decide which product or service to purchase. That is, purchasers actively trade off both the perceived tangible benefits and the perceived intrinsic benefits delivered by products in their consideration set, against price, to arrive at their value hierarchy, and ultimately their purchase decision. Brand equity is initially built by laying a foundation of brand awareness eventually forming positive brand images and is ultimately maximized by high levels of brand loyalty which is the strength of the Brand;

1.

Brand Awareness:

Consumers ability to identify the brand or the strength of a brands presence in the consumers mind. There are two aspects of brand awareness; a) Brand recognition; b) Brand recall a) Brand recognition relates to the consumers ability to confirm prior exposure to the brand when given as a cue. Brand recognition requires that consumers can correctly discriminate the as having been previously seen or heard. b) Brand recall relates to the consumers ability to retrieve the brand from memory when given the product category, the needs fulfilled by the category, or purchase or usage situation as a cue.

2: Brand image:
All brands are defined by a set of visual and non visual attributes which effectively describe the identity of the brand, and the way in which consumers relate to it. The values which make up a brand exist because they are based on the perceptions of customers, potential customers and other influencers (e.g. analysts and journalists) in the market. These collective evaluations make up the brands image. Brand image in itself does not provide an absolute measure of brand equity, but it does highlight what drives it. Information which assists in developing and influencing the image of a brand is, therefore, crucial to successful brand management. Elements of the Brand Image are; brand associations, brand values, brand position.

Brand image will reflect the consumers perceptions of a brands characteristics. Consumers make associations, based on their knowledge of brands, whether they are factual, rooted to their experience of the product, or emotional which are shaped by wider image perceptions. It is these descriptive features which characterize the brand. Consumers frequently select brands because the perceived characteristics of the brand are aligned with their own values. Identifying the values which matter to the consumer, and communicating appropriate messages to the market which influence the purchase decision is at the centre of successful branding activities. Some values are core to the purchase decision; others have a marginal or peripheral role. Knowing which values are core, and which are marginal, is therefore, fundamental to developing unique or distinct products and subsequently successfully promoting them. The perceived quality of a brand is an important measure insofar as it allows us to compare the brand with competitors. Consumer perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of brands are frequently made on the basis of knowledge of competitor brands. Understanding the way in which consumers perceive competitor brands is an important piece of information in determining brand image and shaping brand positioning strategies.

3: Brand Strength:
The understanding of brand image is an important dimension to brand equity, but it does not in itself provide a definitive measure of the strength of the brand. Understanding the strength of brands is an essential conjoint to that of brand image. Different dimensions of brand strength are brand profile, usage, performance, loyalty and brand premium.

Brand profile is determined through a series of measurements which evaluate brand awareness. There are different types and levels of awareness that consumers have for brands, ranging from being unaware to prompted recall of a brand name through to usage of a brand, and detailed knowledge of the brand, the company and its products. Brands can be said to have a high profile when they achieve high awareness levels on these measures. Brands which have high levels of customer loyalty will, by definition, enjoy favorable purchasing patterns. For example, customers may be more disposed to purchasing and repeat purchasing certain successful brands, or may purchase proportionately more of certain brands. Brand usage data is, therefore, an important indicator of the success of a brand. The ability to determine the relative importance of brand values in the purchase decision is critical to successful marketing of products. Core brand values are essential to the purchase decision and a brand must perform on these to justify contending as a qualified vendor. Knowing which values are core and which have a real influence on brand selection and then measuring performance on these values is one of the most important research tools we can deploy. An often quoted benefit of strong brands is the ability to charge premium prices and to secure higher price increases than the competition. Pricing and market share data will provide a reliable and simple indicator of premium pricing, but additionally researchers can collect survey data to show elasticity of demand or consumer attitudes towards pricing movements. The extent to which customers are loyal to a brand can be determined by a number of different attitudinal and behavioral measures, all of which provide either an indicator of how attached consumers are to a brand or their likelihood of wanting the brand in the future.

1.1c Brand equity research:


The importance of brands is undisputed and is reflected in the abundance of branding studies. In recent years marketers have attached increasing importance to the value of brands, both in terms of developing image and positioning strategies, but also in their quest for creating customer loyalty. Market research can be employed in a number of ways to assist in the development of brands and for tracking their value. Market researchers and marketers alike often refer to Brand equity. There are many aspects of brands which can be usefully measured by researchers, but in very broad terms, brand equity research provides a series of powerful measurements for assessing the health of brands. Understanding why consumers choose a particular brand and the extent to which consumers are loyal to a brand is crucial to successful branding strategies. Strong brands command higher levels of customer loyalty and because brand strength can be used to drive premium pricing, strong brands frequently enjoy higher levels of profit. Benefits of measuring or evaluating brand equity are; 1. Understanding what consumers believe, think, know and infer about a brand is critical to building and managing brand equity. 2. Measuring brand equity requires uncovering the associations

consumers have for a brand, determining the strength, favorability and uniqueness of those associations, and assessing the impact of brand knowledge on consumer response to marketing programs. 3. The purpose of a brand equity measurement system is to provide timely, accurate and actionable information that marketers can use in their tactical and strategic decision-making.

4. Brand valuation techniques can be used to model alternative newbusiness strategies. Which is the best market, brand extension, consumer segment or new product development strategy to maximize long-term brand value? 5. By connecting future business performance with current marketing thinking, brand valuation provides a bridge between marketing and finance people, allowing them to talk rationally about budget allocations and predict where the greatest returns are likely to be. 6. It can also be useful in managing portfolios of brands, and in allocating advertising budgets between brands, new launches, setting discount policies or overseas extensions. 7. Brand equity management systems involve the creation of a Brand Equity charter and Brand Equity Report, plus the development of senior management to oversee the implementation of these tools.

1.1d Brand Ariel


The focus of this research is on the brand Ariel which is a product of Procter and Gamble. Ariel was introduced in Pakistan in 1997. Ariel is a detergent that delivers against one of the key Pakistani consumer needs. Its advanced and break through formula gives spotless cleaning to both colored and white clothes.

1.2 Purpose of the study:


The Researchs main purpose is to know;

1) What are the perceptions and attitudes of the consumers in Peshawar regarding brand and brand equity? 2) What role a brand name plays when consumers buying in this specific product category i.e. washing powder? And the importance of the brand Ariel in consumer product selection. 3) The level of brand awareness consumers have about Ariel and whether it leads to any favorable consumer response. 4) Brand image of the Ariel in Peshawar i.e. how the customers perceive the brand Ariel and what are the associations in their mind and to what extent it affects the value of the brand Ariel. 5) How effective the marketing programs of Ariel are in creating positive image in the mind of customers/ consumers which leads to positive brand equity and what Ariel needs to do to improve its position (image) in the market. 6) To find out where Ariel is now relative to the competition which means that where Ariel ranks in the consumer's mind. 7) The extent to which consumers are loyal to the brand Ariel and whether they will switch to other brands due to any change (price, quality, size, etc) in the product Ariel.

1.3 Methodology of the research


Data and other information needed for the research will be gathered from both primary and secondary sources. Secondary data will be collected through internet, magazines, newspapers, journals. Primary data will be collected mostly by questionnaire so that to

cover maximum number of customers and more information can be collected in the limited time and resources. Questions will be mostly close ended and designed in away which do not bias the respondents answers. Both Quantitative and Qualitative techniques will be used to collect data for the research. These techniques will test brand awareness, brand image, low and high level brand associations, brand recall, and brand recognition. All of these tests reveal motivation as to why consumers purchase and remain loyal to the brand Ariel.

1.4 Scope & Limitation:


1) Limited Time limits the scope of the study and thats why this research focuses on the brand equity evaluation of Ariel only in Peshawar. 2) The research couldnt cover other aspects of the brand equity that are the market share and value and thus is only a customer based evaluation of the brand Ariel. 3) Because of the nature of the research the sampling control is critical. It is difficult to monitor the responses of each and every respondent of the sample. 4) The data or information collected from this sample can not be generalized to the whole population and can be an element of biasness in the research. 5) Sufficient information relating the topic is not available (secondary data).

Chapter: 2 Literature Review


This literature review is divided into two parts. Firstly, the conceptual framework for understanding the concept of brand equity from consumer perspective and then a brief review of the extant literature in the area of measurement of brand equity has been provided. The available methods of measuring brand equity can also be classified into two separate groups, consumer and financial related ones. Crimmins (1992) and Farquhar (1989) argue in favor of the financial perspective, where as Srivastava & Shocker (1991) argue in favour of the consumer perspective. The financial school of thought argues that reliance on objective, marketbased data that allows comparisons over time will be more useful. According to Lipman (1989) there is not even an agreement on the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. By far, the largest group of researchers is those who hold the consumer as the focal point for the meaning of brand equity. They, more than the others, recognize the fact that if a brand has no meaning (value) to the consumer, it offers no meaning (equity) to investors, manufacturers or retailers (CobbWalgren, Ruble, Donthu 1995). The consumer school of thought argues that it is the consumer who determines the brand equity and hence this type of measurement is more appropriate (Ashish Sinha; Peter T. L. Popkowski Leszczyc) and this research focuses on brand equity only from consumer perspective.

Brand equity cannot be measured in dollars and cents but rather it is a direct result of how consumers value a brand based on their experiences and perceptions (Spaeth, 1993). Researchers in this division (consumer perspective) deal with the psychological and behavioral tenets that go into the causality of consumer purchases. These researchers feel that, with the knowledge of what goes into purchase decisions, they or corporate marketing managers can then determine what value (equity) the consumers place on a particular brand. Researchers who work in this segment look at such things as brand loyalty, brand dominance, and brand image as components of brand equity (Farquhar, 1990; Chaudhuri, 1995 To measure Brand equity it must be broken down into its sub-components. The key components of these patterns are brand loyalty, awareness, image, and memory. The task researcher take on is the blending of one or more of the individual characteristics into a composite of how the consumer perceives overall brand equity. (Dr. Douglas Waldo, from the article; Can there be a Common Definition for Brand Equity) We conceptualize brand equity as a set of assets, namely brand associations, brand awareness, brand image, brand loyalty, perceived quality and organizational associations, that add or subtract value from a product or service (brand) Aaker 1991. According to Kevin Lane Keller (1993), high brand equity is the result of high brand knowledge. He defines customer-based brand equity as customers differential responses to marketing activities due to difference in brand knowledge.

The importance of (brand) knowledge in the memory to consumer decision making has well been documented. Understanding the content and structure of brand knowledge is important because they influence what comes to mind when consumer thinks about a brand (Alba, Hutchinson and Lynch 1991). According to Keller (1993) brand knowledge which is key to build brand equity, consists of two components: brand awareness and brand image. Brand awareness is the intensity of node or trace in consumers memory related to the brand (brand associations), which reflects the capability of a consumer to recognize the brand in various conditions whereas brand image relates to the perceptions about a brand reflected by these associations. Brand awareness consists of brand recognition and brand recall, according to Bettman 1979; brand recognition requires that consumer correctly discriminate the brand as having been seen or heard previously whereas brand recall requires that consumer correctly generate the brand from memory. The relative importance of brand recall and recognition depends upon on the extent to which consumers make decisions in the store (where they are potentially exposed to the brand) versus outside the store among other factors. Brand recognition may be more important to the extent that product decisions are made in the store (Percy and Rossiter (1987)). The brand name (or brand mark or logo) plays an important role in the cognitive structure underlying brand equity because it serves as the central node around which these brand associations form an associative memory network

The graphic expression of brand can strengthen recognition and the value consumers place on products. The presentation of color, image, symbol, and typography sets the expectations through expression. ( John Recker and Jerry Kathman.) Design elements, in essence, are a collection of sensory input. The simple fact is that people are influenced by the stimuli around them. What is seen, heard, felt, and experienced encodes precepts that influence impressions, expectations, and ultimately, behavior.(Lutz, !991) Brand awareness plays an important role in consumer decision making for three major reasons. First, it is important that consumer think of the brand when they think about the product category. Second, brand awareness can affect decisions about brands in the consideration set, even if there are essentially no other brand associations. Finally, brand awareness affects consumer decision making by influencing the formation and strength of brand associations in the brand image. (Kevin Lane Keller) The key to attaining the goal that is positive brand equity appears to be the building of a lasting positive image in the consumers mind (Pokorny, 1995; Krishman, 1996; & Keller, 1993). All brands are defined by a set of visual and non visual attributes which effectively describe the identity of the brand, and the way in which consumers relate to it. The values which make up a brand exist because they are based on the perceptions of customers, potential customers and other influencers in the market. These collective evaluations make up the brands image. (Benchmarks approach)

A necessary condition for the creation of a brand image is that a brand node is been established in the memory, and the nature of that brand node should affect how easily different kind of information can become attached to the brand in memory. (Herzog and Newman) According to Krishnan (1996), consumers knowledge of a brand is the result of the memory of various associations he or she has with a particular brand. By linking the various brand associations the consumer has, a complex memory structure for that brand results. The more associations, the richer the memory becomes and it would lead to high brand knowledge so one should consider different kind of associations that a customer can have in his mind (relating the brand) while evaluating consumers perceptions towards brand equity. The favorability, strength, and the uniqueness of brand associations are the dimensions distinguishing brand knowledge that plays an important role in determining the differential response that makes up the brand equity, especially in high involvement decision setting. (Dobni, 1990) Keller (1998), brand associations are informational nodes linked to the brand node in memory that contains the meaning of the brand for consumers. These associations include perceptions of brand quality and attitudes towards the brand. According to Aaker, there are at least nine brand associations that a consumer can have in his mind. The associations convey either the concept, or the meaning of the product in terms of how it fulfills a customers need and provide them a value. He identifies the following as the possible ways in which associations create value to the customer: helping to process / retrieve

information about a brand; generating a reason to buy, and creating positive attitudes / feelings which lead to positive brand equity Brand associations take different forms. One way to distinguish among brand associations is by their level of abstractions that is by how much information is summarized or subsumed in the association. Along this dimension, brand association can be classified into three major categories of increasing scope; attributes, benefits and attitude. (Johnson1984, Alba and Hutchinson 1987, Chattopadhyay 1988) Attributes can be categorized in a variety of ways. Here attributes are distinguished according to how directly they relate to product or services performance. Products related are related to the product physical composition or service requirements and non product related which are the external aspects of the product or service that relates to its purchase or consumption (Myers and Shocker 1981). Benefits are the personal value consumers attach to the product or service attributes, that is what consumers think the product or service can do for them. Benefits can be further distinguished into three categories according to underlying motivations to which they relate (Park, Jaworski, and Maclinnis 1986): 1) Functional benefits 2) experiential benefits 3) Symbolic benefits. Functional benefits are the more intrinsic advantages of product or service consumption and usually correspond to the product-related attributes. These benefits often are linked to fairly basic motivations, such as physiological and safety needs (maslow1970), and involves a desire for problem removal or avoidance (Fennel 1978).

Experiential benefits relate to what it feels like to use the product or service and also usually correspond to the product-related attributes. These benefits satisfy experiential needs such as sensory pleasure, variety, and cognitive stimulation. (Rossiter and Percy1987) Symbolic benefits are the more extrinsic advantage of product or service composition. They usually correspond to non product-related attributes and relate to underlying needs for social approval or personal expression and outer-directed self-esteem. Hence, consumers may value the prestige, exclusivity or fashionability of a brand because of how it relates to the self concept. Symbolic benefits should be especially relevant for socially visible badge products. (Solomon 1983). Sheth et al (1991) have argued that brand equity is influenced by factors other than functional attributes, such as social, conditional, emotional and epistemic values. Social value is the utility derived by a consumer through the brand being associated with a certain social group; conditional value is the utility derived from brand usage in a specific situation; epistemic value is the utility derived from trying a new brand out of curiosity; and emotional value is the utility derived from the ability of brand usage to arouse particular feelings. Brands are essentially intangible and built on perceptions, understanding attitudes and imagery is critical to evaluating brand equity. ( LRW) Brand attitudes can be related to beliefs about product- related attributes and the functional and experiential benefits, consistent with work on perceived quality (Ziethaml 1988) Keller (1993) believes that by building favorable brand associations, the consumer will develop a positive attitude toward the brand. The more needs

the brand satisfies, the more positive the attitude, the more positive the brand knowledge imprint. As the strength of the memory imprint increases, the greater likelihood the information (knowledge) will become accessible to the consumer when he or she actively thinks about a product. Ajzen and Fishbein (1975 &1980) proposed a model based on multiattributes formulation in which brand attitudes are a function of the associated attributes and benefits that are salient for the brand. This expectancy-value model views attitudes as multiplicative function of (1) the salient beliefs a consumer has about the product or service(i.e. the extent to which consumer think the brand has some attributes or benefits) and 2) the evaluative judgment of those beliefs( i.e. how good or bad it is that the brand has those attributes or benefits). Brand attributes can also be relate to beliefs about non-product related attributes and symbolic benefits consistent with functional theory of attitudes(Katz 1960,Lutz 1991), which maintains that attitudes can serve a value expressive function allowing individuals to express their self concepts. (Rossister and Percy 1987), Because it is difficult to specify correctly all of the relevant attributes and benefits, researchers building multiattributes models of consumer preference have included general component of attitude toward the brand that is not captured by attributes or benefit values of the brand ( park 1991;Srinivasan 1979). Brand associations can be divided into product-related type (such as product attribute) and non-product related type (such as price, package, image of users, and usage association). It can also be divided by the types of interests the brand brings to the consumers: functional, experiential, and symbol. The favorableness, strength, and uniqueness of various brand associations

together form the brand image, which constitutes the foundation of competitive advantage for the brand. Brand image is perceptions for brand, reflecting the brand associations stored in consumers memory (Keller 1993). Making up brand image is; type of, favorability of, strength of, and uniqueness of brand associations. There are other attitudinal and behavioral characteristics that contribute to the make up of all subcategories of the model. Associations differ according to how favorably they are evaluated. The success of a marketing program is reflected in the creation of favorable brand associations-- that is, consumer believe that the brand has attributes and benefits that satisfy their needs and wants such that a positive overall brand attitude is formed.(Ajzen 1980). Consumers are unlikely to view an attribute or benefit as very good or bad if they do not also consider it to be very important. Hence it is very difficult to create a favorable association for an unimportant attribute. (Fishbien 1980) Not all associations for a brand, however, will be relevant and valued in a purchase or consumption decisions, consumers often have an association in the memory from the brand to product or package color. Though this association may facilitate brand recognition or awareness or lead to inferences about product quality but it may not be always considered a meaningful factor in purchase decision (Day, Shocker, and Srivastava) Different customers will perceive a brand differently. Although two individuals may be subject to the same stimuli under apparently the same conditions, the way they recognize them, select them, organize them, and interpret them is a

highly individual process based on each persons own needs, values, and expectations.( Schiffrnan & Kanuk et al in1996, p.161) Association can characterize also by the strength of connection to the brand node. According to Craik and Lockhart 1972, the strength of association depends on how the information enters consumer memory (encoding) and how it is maintained as part of the brand image (storage). Strength is a function of both the amount or quantity of processing the information receives at encoding (i.e., how much a person thinks about the information) and the nature or quality of processing the information receives at encoding (i.e., the manner in which the person thinks about the information) According to the levels- or depth-of-processing approach (Craik and Lockhart 1972; Craik and Tulving 1975; Lockhart, Craik, and Jacoby 1976), more the meaning of information is attended to during encoding, the stronger the resulting association in the memory will be. Thus when a consumer actively thinks about and elaborates on the significance of product or service information, stronger associations are created in memory. This strength, in turn, increases both the likelihood that information will be accessible and the ease with which it can be recalled by spreading activation. Cognitive psychologists believe memory is extremely durable, so that once information becomes stored in memory its strength of association decays very slowly (Loftus and Loftus 1980).Though available and potentially retrievable in memory, information may not be accessible and retrieved without strongly associated reminders or retrieval cues(Tuvling and Psolka 1971). A particular association for a brand that salient and come to mind depend on the context in which the brand is considered. The larger the number of cues

linked to a piece of information, however, greater the likelihood that the information can be recalled (Isen 1992). Brand associations may or may not be shared with other competing brands. The essence of brand positioning is that the brand has a substantial competitive advantage or unique selling proposition that gives consumer a compelling reason for buying that particular brand These differences may be communicated explicitly by making direct comparisons competitors or may be based on highlighted implicitly without stating a competitive point of reference. Furthermore, they may be based on product-related or non-product-related attributes or functional, experiential, or image benefits (Aaker 1982; Ries and Trout 1979; Wind 1982). The presence of strongly held, favorably valuated associations that are unique to the brand and imply superiority over other brands is critical to brands success. Yet, unless the brand has no competitors, the brand will most likely share some associations with other brands. Shared association can help to establish category membership (Maclnnis and Nakamoto 1991) and define the scope of competition with other products and services (Sujan and Bettman 1989). Johnson 1984, Park and smith 1989) suggested that even if a brand does not face direct competition in its product category, and thus does not share product-related attributes with other brands, it can still share more abstract associations and face indirect competition in a more broadly defined product category. Thus, though a railroad may not compete directly with another railroad, it still competes indirectly with other forms of transportation, such as airlines, cars, and buses.

Certain attributes or benefits may be considered prototypical and essential to all brands in the category, and a specific brand may be considered an exemplar that is most representative of the product or service category (Coher, and Basu 1987; Nedungadi and Hutchinson 1985; Rosch and Mervis 1975) For example, the consumers might expect a running shoe to provide support and comfort, be built enough to last through repeated warnings, and so on, and they may believe that Nike or some other leading brand best represents a running shoe. Similarly, consumer might expect a bank to offer a variety of checking and saving accounts, provide branch and electronic delivery services, and so on, and they may consider Bank of America or some other market leader to be the best example of a bank. (Ward and Loken 1986). Because the brand is linked to the product category, some product category associations may become linked to brand, either in terms of specific beliefs or overall attitudes. Product category attitudes can be particularly important determinants of consumer response. In most cases, some product category associations that are linked to the brand are shared with other brands in the category. (Rosch and Mervis 1975). Strength of the brand associations with the product category is an important determinant of brand awareness (Hutchinson 1985, Ward and Loken 1986). Although brand associations play an important role in the development of brand equity, consumers need to be aware of a product before they can form any brand associations. A brand needs to be in the awareness set before it can be included in the consideration set. Hence, a consumer needs to be aware of a brand before it can be considered. Brand awareness can be viewed to be an important component of brand equity that can be measured on a continuum provided by Aaker (1991).

According to Houston, Childers, and Heckler (1987), the favorability and strength of a brand association can be affected by other brand associations in memory like congruence that is the extent to which a brand association shares content and meaning with other brand association. In general, information that is consistent in meaning with existing brand associations should be more easily learned and remembered than unrelated information through the unexpectedness of information inconsistently in meaning with the brand sometimes can lead to more elaborate processing and stronger associations than even consistent information (Houston, Childers, and Heckler 1987; Myers-Levy 1989; Wyer and Srull 1989) The congruence among brand associations determines the cohesiveness of the brand image i.e. the extent to which the brand image is characterized by associations or subsets of associations that share meaning. The cohesiveness of the brand image may determine consumer more holistic or gestalt reactions to the brand. (Rosch 1975) A diffuse brand image, where there is little congruence among brand associations for consumers, can present several potential problems for marketers. First, consumers may be confused as to the meaning of the brand and, because they dont have as much information to which new information can easily related, new associations may be weaker and possibly less favorable. Moreover, any one association shares little meaning with other associations, brand association may be more easily changed by competitive actions. Finally, another problem with a diffuse brand image is greater likelihood that consumers will discount or overlook some potentially relevant brand associations in making brand decisions. (Heckler, Keller and Houston 1992)

According to

Keller (1987) and Burke and Srull (1988), competitive overlap

with other brands associated with the product category does not have a down side, however, in terms of possible consumer confusion. Number of competing brands advertising in a product category can affect consumers ability to recall communication effects for a brand by creating interference in memory. Keller (1991) also showed that though these interference effects can produce lower brand evaluations, they can be overcome through the use of ad retrieval cues i.e. distinctive ad execution information that is present when a consume actually makes brand evaluation(e.g. at the point of purchase). The effect of positive brand evaluations on brand equity is moderated by their accessibility in memory. Highly accessible evaluations influence perception and subsequent equity development in the direction of existing evaluations (e.g., Fazio, 1986). These brand associations underlie the consumers differential preference for a brand and subsequent behavior toward the brand. According to Chattopadhyay and Alba 1988), the level of abstraction and qualitative nature of brand associations should affect their favorability, strength, and uniqueness. For example, image-related associations (benefits and especially attitudes), in contrast, tend to be inherently more evaluative because of the embedded meaning they contain. Because of this evaluative nature, abstract associations tend to be more durable and accessible in memory then underlying attribute information. In fact, brand attitudes may be stored and retrieved in memory separately from the underlying attribute information (Lynch, Mamorstein, and Weigold 1988).

One important reason for considering brand attitudes to be a brand association is that they can vary in strength (Farquhar 1989). Attitude strength has been measured by the reaction time needed to evaluative queries about the attitude object. Individuals, who can evaluate an attitude object quickly are assumed to have highly accessible attitude. Research has shown that attitude formed from direct behavior or experience is more accessible then attitude based on information or indirect forms of behavior (Fazio and Zanna 1981). Highly accessible brand attitudes are more likely to be activated spontaneously upon exposure to the brand and guide subsequent brand choices (Berger and Mitchell 1989, Fazio) Pokorny (1995) feels that brand image is the result of the personality of both the brand itself and the company producing the brand. He is able to measure how positive or negative these measures are by objective descriptors, attributes or characteristics consumers apply to the company. (p. 59) His measures, are the adjectives the consumer uses to describe of the brand and company. It doesnt matter where these images come from. They can arise from your product design, your technology, your packaging, your sales reps, your ads, your spokesmen, your target audience, your product applications. But theyre as real and as liberating or delimiting as your own personalities. Susan Schwartz McDonald. In essence, favorable brand associations, including product-related, nonproduct-related, cognitive, and affective associations lead to positive brand attitude which in turn leads to positive brand evaluations or perceptions that can include affective dimensions. (Powell, and Williams 1989)

Once the positive image is imprinted into the consumers attitude toward the brand, the next step is to build loyalty to that particular brand (Blackston, 1995 and Dyson, Farr, and Hollis, 1996). The extent to which customers are loyal to a brand can be determined by a number of different attitudinal and behavioral measures, all of which provide either an indicator of how attached consumers are to a brand or their likelihood of wanting the brand in the future. Keller (1993) and Krishnan (1996) go a couple steps further in their models of brand image. Both feel the backbone to building brand loyalty is by first establishing a strong brand knowledge base. It can be used as a springboard for long-term brand loyalty marketing strategies. Keller classified different dimensions of brand image in to a pyramid, in which each lower level element provides higher level element, which means brand attachment (loyalty) stems from rational and emotional brand evaluations which derive from functional and emotional brand associations and for customer needs brand awareness. Blackston; (1995) views loyal customers as the best a company can have and can be an asset (brand equity) for it. He theorizes loyal customers are, willing to pay more for the brand, less likely to brand switch as prices are raised, and also less likely to brand abandon when competitors utilize price promotions. These attributes are in addition to their willingness to purchase more of the companys brand than anyone else is. According to Peter T. L. Popkowski Brand loyalty is the idiosyncratic or unique component of brand equity controlling for the effects of other common sub-components. He contends that though brands can alter their position on common attributes, such as brand personality and organizational

associations, the idiosyncratic component of brand equity is unique to a particular brand. As this source of brand equity cannot be mimicked by other brands it is a source of competitive advantage or core competence. The larger the extent of idiosyncratic component of brand equity the greater the core competence of a particular brand. Dyson, Farr and Hollis (1996) use their Brand Dynamics Pyramid to know and measure the consumer loyalty. The five stages of the pyramid are presence relevance, performance, advantage and bonding. As the consumer moves from one stage to another, he or she becomes more involved and familiar with the brand. To begin with, a brand must have a presence in the market place. It must posses and unaided brand name awareness. Next, the brand has to have relevance to the needs and wants of the consumer. It must be able to fulfill some of the consumers core needs. The brands performance must live up to the claims of its producers as well as beat any standards set by competition. In the fourth stage, the brand must exhibit a quantifiable advantage over its competitors. It must be unique enough to differentiate from others in its class. If the brand reaches the final stage, there will be a bonding between it and its end user base. The bonding is the result of a continuation of attributes that promote loyalty to that particular brand now and into the future as well. Accessing where a brand is on the pyramid, the brand manager can then develop an appropriate marketing strategy that maintains or increases consumer loyalty. According to Pokornys (1995) theory consumers are always seeking value in the products and services they buy. Furthermore, they are loyal to those products they perceive as providing superior added value. Therefore, companies must be constantly developing strategies that continue to create value in the minds of its customers. A second component to his theory of brand image is the attitude of consumers towards the brand. He uses

subjective verb expressions of the consumers impression of the brand to measure attitude. When customers engage in brand loyalty, they tend to reduce information acquisition efforts which, in turn, simplify the decision process. R. Kenneth Teas and Terry H. Grape tine,Demystifying Brand Equity. Blackstons (1995) device for increasing brand loyalty is advertising. He suggests moving from persuasion measures to those that promote feel better about using/ buying/owning (p. RC4) attributes. Nurturing these attributes helps to develop brand loyalty which determines brand choice and creates repetitive brand purchasing behavior. (p. RC2). The Consumer perceptions of brand values come from many sources, but essentially it is based on ideas-- rational or emotionalthat the brand apart from competitive brands. What kind of marketing activities implant these ideas about a brands uniqueness in the mind? Advertising is the most common. (Cobb-Walgren, Cathy J) Brand Recall is also affected by advertising which can make positive brand evaluations and attitudes readily accessible in memory. This is crucial to the development of brand equity because favorable brand attitudes will guide consumer perceptions and behavior if those attitudes can be instantly evoked. (Farquhar, 1989). All aspects of brand image are relevant in determining consumer response to advertising and promotion. Advertising response and decay patterns are a function of consumers attitude and behavior toward the brand .They maintain that consumers who are positively predisposed toward a brand may require fewer ad exposures to meet communication objectives. Similarly, one could

argue that strong attributes or benefit associations for brand require less reinforcement through marketing communications. (Ray 1982, Rossiter and Percy 1987). Fundamentally, high levels of brand awareness and a positive brand image should increase the probability of brand choice, as well as produce greater consumer (and retailer) loyalty and decrease vulnerability to competitive marketing actions. Thus, the view of brand loyalty adopted is that it occurs when favorable beliefs and attitude for the brand are manifested in repeat buying behavior. Some of these beliefs may reflect the objective reality of the product, in which case no underlying customer-based brand equity may be present, but in other cases they may reject favorable, strong and unique associations that go beyond the objective reality of the product (Park 1991). A familiar brand with a positive brand image can also yield licensing opportunities (i.e. the brand name is used by another firm on one of its products) and support brand extension (i.e. a firm uses an existing brand name to introduce a new product or service) two more important growth strategies for firms in recent years (Miller and Ginter) High level of brand awareness and a positive image also have specific implications for the pricing, distribution and promotion activities related to the brand. First, a positive image should enable the brand to command larger margins and have more inelastic responses to price increases. The most important aspect of the brand image that affects consumer responses to price is probably overall brand attitude. Consumers with a strong, favorable brand attitude should be more willing to pay premium prices for the brand (Starr and Rubinson 1978). Similarly, a positive image should result in increased consumer search (Simonson, Huber, and Payne 1988) and a willingness to seek out distribution channels for the product or service. Finally, high levels of

brand awareness and a positive brand image can increase marketing communication effectiveness. According to Keller there are two basic approaches to measure brand equity; (brand equity from consumers perceptive) indirect and direct approaches, indirect approaches could asses potential sources of customer based brand equity (brand knowledge) that requires measuring brand awareness and the characteristics and the relationships among brand associations, how these are associated with each other. Whereas direct approaches could assess the actual impact of brand knowledge on the on consumers response to different elements of the firms marketing program which is useful in determining the nature of the differential response. The techniques used to achieve this objective can be grouped into two categories structured (quantitative) and unstructured (qualitative) techniques (Keller). According to Aaker (1991), structured approaches involve scaling brands upon a set of dimensions. He argues that scaling approaches (quantitative) are more objective and reliable than qualitative approaches since they are less vulnerable to subjective interpretation. Many of the methods used such as the projective techniques (qualitative) tend to be more subjective and employ small samples (Aaker, 1991). Even those that are regarded as being objective and reliable than qualitative approaches i.e., scaling methods face tile problem of validity. Brand awareness can be assessed effectively through a variety of aided and unaided memory measures that can be applied to test brand recall and recognition. For example, brand recognition measures may use the actual brand name or some perceptually degraded version of the brand name (Alba and Hutchinson 1987).

Brand recall measures may use different sets of cues such as progressively narrowly defined product category labels. Besides correctness, the ease of recall and recognition performance can be assessed with more subtle measures such as response latencies to provide a fuller picture of memory performance with respect to the brand. Brand recall can also be coded in terms of the order of recall to capture the extent to which the name is top of mind and thus strongly associated with product category in memory. Fazio 1987). The simplest way to profile associations involve free association tasks whereby consumers are asked what comes to their mind when they think of a brand without any more specific probe or cue than perhaps the associated product category. The primary purpose is to identify the range of possible brand associations in the consumers minds, but they may also provide some rough indication of the relative strength, favorability, and the uniqueness of the brand associations (Keller, Kevin Lane). According to Levy, there are three types of projective techniques; association technique, where a consumer is given a stimulus or cue relating a brand and asked with the first thing that comes in his mind; construction technique, where respondent is require to construct a response in the from of a story, dialogue, picture or description in a less structure form than completion techniques; expressive techniques where respondents see a verbal or visual and asked to relate their feelings and attitude to different people. Ajzen and Fishbien (1980); give a detailed description of how beliefs and evaluation of attributes and benefits can be scaled and how attributes can be measured through structured format, providing an illustrative example in a consumer setting, response time measures of attitude have been used as a proxy for attitude strength.

Jennifer Aaker, Projective techniques employed in the measurement of brand associations are meant to address problems aforementioned since they allow the respondent to project oneself into a context, which bypasses the inhibitions, or limitations of more direct questioning. Here Customers are given an incomplete stimulus and then asked to complete it or make a sense of it. There are three types of projective techniques; association technique, where a consumer is given a stimulus or cue relating a brand and asked with the first thing that comes in his mind; construction technique, where respondent is require to construct a response in the from of a story, dialogue, picture or description in a less structure form than completion techniques; expressive techniques where respondents see a verbal or visual and asked to relate their feelings and attitude to different people (Keller,1998) Reilly and Schweihs 1999; identified the attributes that affect the brand equity. There are five main aspects that need to be considered when calculating a brand equity, what additional price premium the product can command over a generic; how much additional market share can be gained; what cost savings can result from an ability to exercise increased control over the channel; what additional revenue can be gained through licensing and brand extensions; and the additional marketing costs that need to be incurred in providing the point of differentiation as a competitive strategy. Blind test is also used to asses a brands value. Two groups of customer rate the target brand and its competitor. One group sees only branded products and other see unbranded products. Alternatively, targeted product is than branded with actual brand or with competitive brand and results are then compared to find out the value that brand. (Allison and Ulh 1964)

Blind tests could be used to examine consumer response to other elements of the marketing mix such as proposed pricing, promotion and channels of distribution changes (Jacoby, Olson, and Haddock). Mind Tree is a method for extracting cognitive structure trees and selection structure trees that indicate how consumers discriminate among brands and products in the marketplace and what criteria consumers use in brand and product selection. This analysis method supports the formulation of communication strategies and category management from the point of view of the consumer. Conjoint analysis is a measurement technique used to know how people make choices between products or services or a combination of product and service. Researcher describes different brands in a product category consistently in terms of their attributes and levels in order to see which brand is more important for the customer. By providing different choices, researcher can work out numerically how valuable each of the levels is relative to the others around it this value is known as the utility of the level. There are technical issues that need to be considered. In particular, the design of attributes is a crucial step in a conjoint project as choices between poorly defined levels can render the exercise meaningless. (Green and Srinivasan (1978; 1990) These four measures form the basis of two equations: 1. 2. Differentiation x Relevance = Brand Strength (or vitality) Esteem x Familiarity = Brand Stature

Rangaswamy, Burke and Olivia (1990) use conjoint analysis to explore how brand names interact with physical attributes or features to affect the extendibility of brand names new categories.

A variant of the conjoint methodology was developed by Srinivasan (1979) who estimates brand equity by comparing actual consumer choice behavior with that implied by utilities obtained through conjoint analysis. Kamakura and Russell (1989; 1992) estimate segment level brand equity using scanner data that employs the consumers purchase histories from the supermarket scanner data to estimate the brand equity through residual approach. This method uses real consumer choice against survey based subjective methods. Cobb-Walgren, Ruble and Donthu (1995) measure brand equity employing the perceptual components of Aaker's (1991) definition of brand equity. They operationalize brand equity as a set of perceptual components such as brand awareness, brand associations and perceived quality. Prominent among brand valuation models, which are based on consumer perceptions, is the Young & Rubicam Brand Asset valuator (Y&R model). The Y&R model determines the value of a brand based on two major dimensions, viz. Brand strength and brand stature. Research Data is collected to measure the distinctiveness of the brand in the market (strength) and meaningfulness and appropriateness of the brand to the consumer (stature). The analysis of data demonstrates that brands are built on a very specific progression along four consumer dimensions which are differentiation, relevance, esteem and familiarity, and documents the evolving relationship a brand has with consumers. Aakers Brand Equity Ten utilizes five categories of measures to assess brand equity .These categories are Loyalty Measures, Perceived Quality or Leadership Measures, Customer-oriented associations or differentiation measures, Awareness measures and Market behavior measures. All these

measures represent the customer loyalty dimension of brand equity. They can be utilized to develop a brand equity measurement instrument, depending on the type of product or market, and the purpose of the instrument. Jennifer Aakers brand personality list gives a set of adjective that can be used to describe the personality of a brand much like the personality of an individual. She distinguishes five facets of brand personality; sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. Two or more adjectives measure each facet. Respondents are asked to what extend each adjective describes the brand. Comparison Task is another technique used to uncover brand associations and perceptions. Consumers are asked to convey their impression by comparing brands to people, countries, animals, activities, occupations, nationalities and even other brands. Respondents are then asked follow-up questions as why they made that comparison. These techniques uncover those inferences or associations which reflect these choices and can be useful to know the user or usage imagery for the brand and other nonproduct-related associations. A Brand-Price-Trade-Off is another simplest method for assessing the relative impact of the brand. Several brands are shown at once and the customer chooses the preferred option. Prices are adjusted and the customer chooses again. Its aim is to assess the relative value of the brand. BPTO is of most use in consumer type markets where there is little to choose functionally between the products, essentially the products are substitutes for one another. (Green and Wind 1975)

Dollermetric method gives an idea of the potential not the actual premium price for each consumer that is how much extra the consumer would be willing to pay for the brand. Hedonic Regression are the extension of the Dollermetric approach, to run the regression the researcher need to know the actual prices of the products in a given product categories and their attribute. This method helps to estimate the impact of each attribute and compute a predictable price. The difference between the predicted and actual price is the price premium of the brand and measure of the brands equity and the predicated price (Ulrich and Taylor) Burke; has created a brand equity index comprised of three components to measure brand equity, best described as a molecule. In the brand equity "molecule," three smaller components - like atoms - are so tightly interrelated that they form the larger substance. In this case, the three "atoms" interacting with and affecting each other are customer loyalty, image and value. The brand equity molecule is the overarching device of retaining and attracting customers. Image and value perceptions pull in new customers while loyalty and value retain current customers. Laddering methods by Reynold and Gutman are a useful measure to elicit the higher order benefits and values offered by a brand beyond its product-, user-, usage-related attributes. It works by asking consumers to explain why the first elicited associations (a brands attribute) are important for them (thus eliciting its benefits) and then why these benefits are important (thus eliciting the terminal values). AGB Taylor Nelson; Brand Vision, a predictive measure of brand equity is based on the Conversion Model, originally a religious model which profiled

consumers associations with a particular faith, from totally committed to totally uncommitted. The model is used to consider consumers psychological attitudes to brands and to assess where the brand sits in terms of commitment profile, with consumers shifting from less to more committed groups. This helps to indicate which consumers are most likely to switch brand loyalty. It is a useful tool to help predict future demand. The ultimate purpose of Brand Vision is to predict future buying behavior by tracking consumer perceptions, before buying behavior actually changes. Brand Power Index (BPI) This particular model comprehensively analyzes brand power according to the four indices of (1) brand image Power, (2) Product Performance, (3) Ability to Trigger Repeaters and (4) Possibility of Potential Trial. It allows us to ascertain current issues related to the brand in question as well as future potential customers. Bran Dynamics operates on a similar principle to Brand Vision, both measures seeking to assist brand owners by tracking brand perceptions as a means of predicting and anticipating brand building and brand maintenance activity. These are all single proprietary measures of brand potential or strength. Like brand valuation they give an interesting perspective but not the whole picture. The model divides customers into five levels of attachment Presence, Relevance, Performance, Advantage and Bonding. Presence customers have only a basic awareness of the brand while Bonded customers are intensely loyal, allocating a high proportion of their category expenditure to the brand and often acting as advocates of the brand. It shows loyalty distribution of a brands customer base and the dimensions on which to focus in order to be able to migrate customers to higher levels of loyalty (Millward Brown).

(UNCL)Unconscious clustering is an innovative method of scientifically eliciting brand images unconsciously accumulated by consumers. Fuzzy algorithms are used to process vague, elusive brand images. UNCL is applied to support the formulation of brand image strategy by analyzing the true strengths and weaknesses of brands. (David Hague & Jonathan Knowles) LRW has developed a list of techniques used to measure brand equity, it includes measuring penetration (brand awareness, advertising awareness, trial and usage); profiling the customers by demographics, psychographics, lifestyles, and usage patterns; and determining brand loyalty in terms of usage, purchase intent and overall satisfaction. Consumers are faced with a series of stimulated purchase choices between different combinations of brands and Prices. The purpose is to evaluate the importance of those attributes in the overall brand image, and determine how effectively the brand delivers on them. More over what is the value of the brand as measured by its impact on margins? What brand/price trade-offs are consumers willing to make? How much of a premium price does the brand command? Zaltman and Higie (1993) proposed a technique called ZMET (The Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique). According to them, more than eighty percent of all the human communication is non-verbal. This technique use qualitative methods to elicit the metaphors, constructions and mental models hat drive the customers thinking and his behavior. Sensitive Differentiation Method (SDM) is a method for eliciting from the deep psyche of consumers minute differences in perceptions about competing brands, similar advertising copy, images, or settings and of analyzing those differences from a psychological perspective.

The Copernican Brand Equity Measurement and Management System utilizes a seven-factor model to calculate a single brand equity number for each brand in each category. The first step is to measure each of the seven factors (brand permeation, quality, distinctiveness, value, personality, potential and competitive inoculation) by using 3 to 5 questions where respondents can see and rate brand logos, then weight each item by its contribution to overall brand behavior and performance to produce one inclusive assessment of brand equity for every brand studied. Finally, take the brand equity and standardized it from 0 to 100 within a category to express share of equity. Brand equity of a product across product categories is measured by weighting equity scores in each category a brand competes in by the dollar size of the category (Copernicus Marketing Consulting and Research). Equitrend is another measure of brand equity based directly on consumer perceptions. It focuses on salience, the number of respondents with an opinion about the brand, perceived quality, the average quality rating among those who have an opinion about the brand, and user satisfaction, the average quality rating among those consumers who use the brand most often. The three measures are combined to give an absolute brand equity score. Premium pricing, low price elasticity and higher usage can apparently all be correlated to high Equitrend scores. Total Research also claims to have identified a relationship between its brand equity scores and the stock market returns of the brand owning companies concerned.
(David Haigh)

CHAPTER: 3 PRIMARY DATA

Primary data collection is necessary when a researcher cannot find the data needed in secondary sources. There are several methods for collecting primary data e.g. observation, focus group, personal or telephone interviews or surveys and self administered questionnaire. Questionnaire is a systemic gathering of information from the respondents for the understanding and predicting some aspect of perceptions and behaviors of the population of interest. A set of 20 questions relevant to the topic is designed for this research. Method of sample survey is used in the collection of primary data. The sample size is of 150 respondents. Cluster sampling procedure was used in which the population (Peshawar) is divided in to subgroups or clusters on the basic of different areas of the city. Areas selected are; City, Saddar, Town and Hayatabad. The main focus of the research is on the housewives because this product (washing detergents) is usually used by the female households.

The questionnaire will provide primary data on brand awareness, attitudes, image, beliefs, post and intended behaviors, knowledge and other descriptive items. Details of the questionnaire are as follows; In the first question respondents were asked to recall any three brands of washing detergents. This question is meant to know that, which brands are there in consumers consideration set and whether Ariel brand is included in it or not. Results given in table3.1 Washing Detergents Ariel Surf Excel Wheel Bonus Express Brite Total Tide Others 1st Recall 51% 22% 11% 9% 4% 0% 0% 4% 2nd Recall 27% 28% 12% 8% 9% 5% 5% 0% 3rd Recall 15% 19% 21% 14% 14% 12% 2% 3%

Table: 3.1 Almost 50% of the respondents recalled Ariel at the first place. Other Brands which are recalled are Surf excel bonus, wheel, express, etc. shown in fig 3.1.
BRAND RECALL
Express 4%

Wheel 11% Surf excel 22%

Bonus 9%

Other 3% Ariel 51%

Ariel

Surf excel

Wheel

Bonus

Express

Other

Figure 3.1 In the second question respondents were asked that how much they prefer a branded washing detergents over unbranded ones. They were asked to rate their attitude on a six point scale. Most of the respondent was on the most preference side of the given scale. Respondents ratings are given in table 3.2.

Branded Versus Unbranded Products Ratings 1 % age 5

2 3 4 5 6 Table: 3.2

8 13 16 19 38

The third question from the respondents was that whether they have heard of Ariel brand and from which source did they hear it first from? This is meant to check which is the major source of information (brand awareness or knowledge) for the consumers. In this case 73% respondents said that they heard about the brand from advertisement and rest of them mentioned other sources like relatives and friends, shown in fig 3.2

Source of Brand Awareness


6% 9% Ads 12% Relatives Friends Other source 73%

Figure 3.2

To reduce the chances of biasness in the questionnaire question 4 is added, in order to give an impression (in the beginning) to the respondents that the questionnaire is not about the brand Ariel only. Otherwise the answers of following questions would have been obvious. The question was about Surf Excel which is another brand in the same product category. Respondents were asked whether they have used the brand or not. 79% of the respondents said Yes and the remaining 21% said No. (See figure 3.3)

No 21%

Surf Excel
Yes No
Yes 79%

Figure: 3.3 Question 5 and 6 was about two different marketing programs of the Brand Ariel. One is Maa TV Program which is currently not on-air and another is Help the needy Campaign which runs every year in the month of Ramazan. These questions are meant to check brand awareness,

whether respondents know which brand is sponsoring these programs, shown in table 3.4.

Marketing Programs Ariel Surf Excel Safeguard Sufi Soap Dont know

Maa TV Program 82% 12% 4% 2% 6% Table: 3.3

Help the Needy Campaign 61% 12% 6% 3% 18%

82% of the responded knew that Maa TV program was sponsored by Ariel, similarly 61% of the respondents selected Ariel for Help the needy campaign. Question number seven is meant to check that how effective these marketing programs are creating positive image in the mind of customers and what brand perception in their mind. (Figure 3.4)
60% 50% 40% 0.31 30% 20% 10% 0% Marketing Benefits of the needy Other reason Dont know 0.06 0.15 0.48

Purpose Of the Campaign

Purpose Marketing Benefit of needy Other reason Dont know

% age 48% 31% 6% 15%

Table: 3.5 Table 3.4 Fig: 3.4 In the eighth question respondents were asked what is it that Ariel focusing in its advertisements, the options are whiteness, cleanliness, tidiness and softness. Majority of the respondents selected cleanliness and whiteness, shown in figure 3.5

Ariel's Focus in Advertisement


Tidiness 10% Softness 5% Cleanlines s 49% Dont Know 4% Whiteness Whiteness 32% Cleanliness Softness Tidiness Dont Know

Fig: 3.5

In the ninth question respondents were asked that why blue and green speckles are added in the product. This question is meant to check

whether consumers are aware of the Brands attributes; results shown in figure 3.6 and table 3.6.

Brand Attributes
A B C D E F

9% 8%

19%

11% 12%

41%

Fig: 3.6 A B C D E F 11% 12% 41% 8% 9% 19% To make the powder attractive As a fabric softener and smoother To remove tough stains and give whiteness to your clothes To match products color with its package To protect colors of the cloth Dont know

Table: 3.6 In question ten, respondents are asked what you would do if Ariel is not available in the shop, buy another brand or go to another shop to buy it. This question is meant to test favorability and brand loyalty. 29% said that they will go to another shop to buy it and 71% said that they will go for another brand. Out of these 71 percent, 45% mentioned Surf excel as a substitute brand for Ariel, 20% wheel, 19% bonus, 12% Brite and remaining respondents mentioned other brands e.g. Tide, Express, shown in figure 3.7.

Substitute Brands
Surf Excel Bonus Brite Wheel Other

Wheel, 20%

Other, 4% Surf Excel, 45%

Figure 3.7 Brands Surf % 45 20 19 12 4

Brite, 12% Bonus, 19%

Wheel Bonus Brite others

In the 11th question respondents were given some feature of the brand Ariel and then asked to select those features which they think are most and least unique in it. This question is meant to test uniqueness of brand associations. The most unique feature which most of the respondents selected is Ariels ability to remove tough stains that is 35%, the least unique feature is ease of availability which is 31%. Other most and least unique features are given in the figure 3.8.

Unique Features of Ariel


35% 35% 31% 30% 27% 25% 22% 20% 20% 20% 17% 15% 10% 13%

10%

5%

5%

0%

Most Unique 10% 22% 35% 20% 13%

Least Unique 20% 31% 27% 17% 5%

Reasonable price Ease of availability Remove tough stains Successful marketing campaign Other

Features

Fig: 3.8

In question twelve, respondents were asked that which of following feature do they believe are really present in Ariel. The options are; removes stains, remove tough stains better than other powders or soaps, makes

cloths softer, protects color or other. This question is meant to test strength of brand associations in their mind.35% of the respondents selected that it removes stain better than other detergents as the feature that is most found in Ariel. The feature that is least found according to the sample is its ability to remove stains. Results are shown in the figure 3.9.

Features Present in Ariel


35%

35% 33%

30% Stains removing 25% Removes Stains better than others Makes cloth softer Whiter cloths

20%

19% 17% 14%

20%

19%

15%

13%

12% 8% 6% 4%

Protects colors Other

10%

5%

0%

Least Features

Most

Figure: 3.9

In the 13 question, respondents were asked that what the parent company of Ariel is. This question is to know the brand associations (relating the parent company). 59% of respondents knew that Procter and Gamble is the parent company. 18% of them didnt know about it. Some of them selected other companies, shown in figure: 3.10

Parent Company of Ariel


18% 4% 0%
P&G Unilever Nestle' Reckitt Benckiser Dont know

19% 59%

Figure: 3.10 In the question 14 respondents are asked that would they still buy purchase Ariel if price per unit goes up. This question is to check the brand loyalty and preference. More than 50% respondents said that they will continue to by Ariel even the price goes up by 5 to 10 Rupees and 18 percent of the respondents said that they will continue to buy if its price increases at all. (Fig: 3.11)

Consumers' Switching Tendency


11% 15% 3% 18% 53%
5 to 10 Rs 10 to 15 Rs 15 to 20 Rs Stop buying Continue Buying

Figure 3.11 Question 15 and 16 are linked with each other. In question 15 respondents are asked if they have watched Ariels advertisement where Tariq Aziz claims that Ariel gives better cleaning to your clothes than ordinary soap or other (expensive) washing powders. 79% of the respondents said Yes that they did watch the advertisement and the remaining 21% of the respondents said No, shown in figure 3.12

Tariq Aziz Advertisement


21% Yes No 79%

Figure 3.12

In question 16 respondents are asked do they really believe in what Ariel claims in its advertisement. This question is used to check the brand performance of Ariel. 77% of the respondents said yes that it does give a better cleaning than other detergent and 33% said No that it is not so; shown in figure 3.13
Ariel's claim in advertisment
30%

Yes No
70%

Figure 3.13 In question 17 respondents were given some options and then asked which kind of packaging you would like for Ariel; the options given to them are; Plastic Bag, paper bag, plastic container with lid, paper box. 76 percent of the respondents liked plastic container with lid. 25 % want to have Ariel in plastic bag. Some of the respondents also selected the remaining two options; results are shown in figure 3.14.

Ariel Packaging
67%

Plastic Bag
Paper Bag Paper Box Plastic container with lid

6%

25% 2%

Figure 3.14 Question 18 is; does Ariel damage your hands? 69% of the respondents said No and 31% said that yes it does damage hands (figure 3.15).

No 37%

Yes No Yes 63%

Figure 3.15

In the 19th question respondents are asked what the purpose of introducing different packages of Ariel is. The options given in the questionnaire are;

A = To provide variety in price range B = To provide variety in the product C = To cater different needs of different consumers D = To attract customers E = Dont know 37% of the respondent said that the purpose of doing so is to provide variety in price range, 29% of the respondent said to cater different needs of different consumers,21% said to attract customers, 7% said to provide variety in the product. The remaining 6% didnt know the purpose, shown in the figure 3.16.
Different Size Packages
6% 21% 37% A B C D 29% 7% E

Figure 3.16 In the last question respondents are asked to rate Ariel in terms of Quality and Price on the given scale of six points. (1 being low and 6 being high in case of quality and in case of the price starting from 1, being reasonable up to 7 being highly expensive).

This question is meant to check the brand perceptions or brand value; results shown in table 3.8

Ratings 1 2 3 4 5 6

Quality 0% 0% 4% 16% 49% 31%

Price 8% 8% 15% 26% 20% 23%

Table: 3.8

CHAPTER: 4

ANALYSIS
Measuring brand equity requires, uncovering the associations consumers have for a brand, determining the strength, favorability and uniqueness of those associations, and assessing the impact of brand knowledge on consumer response to marketing programs. No single approach can give all the answers to a correct valuation because of the qualitative nature of the research. The starting point is to understand the purpose of the valuation and then compare it with the results that we got form the customers through questionnaire. In this section all the responses of the customers (already summarized in the previous chapter) are analyzed to assess different components of brand equity (i.e. brand associations, brand awareness, brand image, brand loyalty, perceived quality and organizational associations) and have tried to evaluate the differential effect that these components have on the consumers overall response (i.e. favorability) towards the brand Ariel. Moreover the effectiveness of the Ariels marketing programs been assessed and also the gaps between the indented (company) and actual (customer) perceptions regarding the brand (Ariel) have been identified. The first dimension (or the component of the brand equity) in the research is the brand awareness. Research has shown that most of the respondents recalled Ariel, which means that the brand is in their consideration set, which is the outcome of high brand awareness. However, we can not conclude here that if respondents recalled the brand it would necessarily lead them to buy it but we can say that Ariel can be a choice among the brands that are considered for purchase. (Results summarized in table 4.1). Detergent Ariel Others 1st Recall 51% 49% 2nd Recall 27% 73% 3rd Recall 15% 85%

Table 4.1 Brand associations play an important role in the development of brand equity. Assessing brand association gives an insightful picture of how a brand is perceived by consumers. In the research different brand associations were assessed which are related to products attributes, benefits and attitude. Respondents were asked to give the most unique feature and the feature that is actually there in the Ariel. Research has shown that people consider Ariel as a detergent which removes tough stains and better than other detergents which are available in market (Peshawar). These attributes or feature affect the customers overall attitude towards the brand which is important in the evaluation of the brand equity. According to their ratings (shown in table 4.2) on the scale, Ariel is a high quality product but also an expensive one (not affordable for all consumer categories) so it can lead to an unfavorable attitude, especially if the customer is price conscious.

Ratings

Quality

Price

1 2 3 4 5 6

0% 0% 4% 16% 49% 31%

8% 8% 15% 26% 20% 23% Table: 4.2

The Consumer perceptions of brand values come from many sources, but essentially it is based on ideas, which may be rational or emotional and are implanted in their mind by a companys different marketing programs. These marketing programs can make positive brand evaluations and attitudes. Initially, Ariel had two marketing programs which did help the brand in creating positive association and image in the mind of the customers. Despite of the fact that Ariels Maa program is not on air currently, 82% people still know about it and have positive associations with it. Research has also shown that Ariels Help the Needy campaign was also a successful marketing program but still respondent think that the program was only meant for the marketing purpose and not for helping the needy ones, some way it did have created some negative perceptions in the mind of customer, which is negatively affecting the overall evaluation of the brand equity. By putting Ariel in direct competition with other brands, Ariels Maa and Help the Needy campaign was also a key tactic in the brands positioning and one of the reasons that Ariel has been so successful to the product. is that it concentrated on building a powerful brand by associating emotional values

Respondents also have a positive response towards Ariel recent advertisement in which Tariq Aziz is focusing on the product attributes and claims that it gives better cleaning than other products, 79% of the respondents is satisfied with claim of the Advertisement. Research has also shown that more than 50% respondents associate Ariel with tidiness and cleanliness which is not the brand association that the company intends to focus on, which is whiteness. Moreover, some respondents (31%) have a negative perception that Ariel damages ones hands after washing so it can be a threat to Ariels positive brand equity. Another important component of the brand equity is brand loyalty, to assess this component respondents were asked two questions. In a question they were asked what if Ariel brand is not available in the shop and if the price increases by given units. Research has shown that 29% of the respondent would go to another shop for the brand and 50% of the respondent said that they will continue to buy Ariel even the price goes up by 5 to 10 Rupees thus giving a premium price range for the company. On overall the respondents had favorable attitude towards the brand and have high brand loyalty. Research also revealed that only 41% of the respondents knew that the purpose of adding blue and green speckles in the product is to remove tough stains and give whiteness to your clothes and the rest of the respondents did not about the benefits that this feature. One interesting observation in the research was related to the organizational associations. One question was to check whether respondents know about the parent company of the brand Ariel or not. It was noted that respondents who knew about the parent company have rated (or evaluated) positively or favorably the brand Ariel and discounted the negative information relating the brand. So we can say here that

consumers observe the performance or brand equity of the parent company (P&G) and then relate the performance or brand equity of the product (Ariel) with it, thus resulting in overall positive brand equity. Research has also shown that consumer consider Ariel a bit expensive but still a high quality product. The high quality perception may be because of presence of the unique features present in it or consumers may infer the (high) quality of product on the basis of (high) price. One important fact is that a consumer repeatedly exposed to advertisements and favorable word-of-mouth for a brand may develop a strong preference for the brand but may not be a prospective user for other reasons (e.g. high price and other functional attributes or usage imagery).

RECOMMENDATIONS

Ariel marketing programs have been very successful in the past so it should also continue to sponsor such programs in future which will definitely help it to create and retain positive image in the mind of customers. Research has shown that Ariel is perceived to have (a bit) high price but also of high quality so Ariel should continue to with this strategy because consumers usually associate high price with good quality. Beside, it should highlight those unique aspects in its advertisements that create value in the minds of customers and could justify its high price. Ariel can also use the name of its parents company in its advertisement in order to maximize its brand equity, as from the research it is clear that consumers associate a brand positively with the companys good image thus increasing its overall (positive) brand equity. There should be a separate hand wash product that contains ingredients which go smooth on hands and also give the same results that we get from machine wash. Changes in the formulation of products is required (to remove or replace dangerous chemicals e.g. high level of bleach) which is too strong for the clothes and damages the hands after wash. After doing so it l should communicate to the consumers (to overcome their negative perceptions) about its new product through its ads by comparing its old product with the new one which is milder on both their clothes and hands, thus giving them a relative advantage.

Ariel should focus on whiteness and brightness in its advertisements (e.g. change its slogan which communicate the objective quality) and show

that how it is different from the other competitive detergents available in the market in terms of quality and other features. Ariel can also change its packaging, e.g. it can introduce its product in plastic container with a lid which will be convenient to use (also avoids the wastage of powder) and can easily be refilled by plastic bags already available in the market. Ariel should focus in its advertisement on its product related features i.e. it should effectively highlight to its consumers the purpose of adding green and blue speckles in the product and how it removes tough stains and give whiteness to the clothes.

Questionnaire
Respondents Name.. Gender. Age........

Occupation Income level

Q: 1) Name any three brands of washing detergent that comes in your mind? 1) . 2). 3)

Q: 2) While buying in this product category (washing powder), how much do you prefer a branded detergent over an ordinary unbranded detergent?

Least Most Preferred Preferred

Q: 3) Have you ever heard of Brand Ariel? 1) No a) From a friend c) A relative 2) Yes, then from where? b) An advertisement. d) Any other source

Q: 4) Have u ever used Surf Excel? 1) Yes 2) No

Q: 5) Maa T.V program hosted by Saniya Saeed , reminds you of a brand name. 1: Safe Guard 2: Ariel 3: Sufi Soap 4: Surf Excel

Q: 6) Help the needy campaign was sponsored by which brand? 1: Surf Excel 2: Safe Guard 3: Sufi Soap 4: Ariel

Q: 7) Do you really think that it was for the benefit of the needy people or was just for the marketing purpose (sales) of the product? 1) Marketing purpose 3) Any other reason 2) Benefit of needy people 4) dont know

Q: 8) What is it that Ariel focusing in its advertisements? 1) Whiteness 2) Softness 3) Cleanliness 4) Tidiness

Q: 9) What is the purpose of adding Blue and Green speckles in Ariel washing powder? 1) To make the powder attractive 2) As a fabric softener and smoother 3) To remove tough stains and give whiteness to your clothes 4) To match products color with its package. 5) To protect colors of the cloth 6) Dont have any idea

Q: 10) Which of the following features/attributes do you believe are unique in Ariel as compared to competitors brands? (Write 1 in front of the feature that is most unique and 5 for the feature that is least unique) 1) Reasonable price

2) Ease of availability 3) Ability to remove tough stains 4) Aggressive and successful marketing campaign 5) Other

Q: 11) Which of the following features do you believe are present in Ariel? (Write 1 in front of the feature that is found the most in Ariel and 5 for the feature found the least) 1) Removes Stains 2) Removes tough stains better than other powders and soaps 3) Makes clothes softer 4) Makes white clothes whiter 5) Protects colors 6) Other

Q: 12) If Ariel is not available in the shop what would you do? 1) Purchase another brand (Yes / No)

(If yes, identify brand) 2) Go to another shop to purchase Ariel

Q: 13) Would you still purchase Ariel if price per unit goes up by; 1) Rs. 5 10 2) Rs. 10 15 3) Rs. 15 20 4) Will stop purchasing Ariel if price increased at all 5) Will continue to use Ariel regardless of price increase Q: 14) What is the parent company (manufacturer) of the brand Ariel? 1) Procter and Gamble 2) Lever Brothers 3) Nestle

4) Reckitt Benckiser

5) Dont know

Q: 14) Have you watched Ariels advertisement where Tariq Aziz claims that Ariel gives better cleaning to your clothes than ordinary soap or other (expensive) washing powders? 1) Yes 2) No

Q: 15 Do you really believe in what Ariel claims in that ad? 1) Yes 2) No

Q: 17) Does Ariel damage your hands? (Causes allergies or skin irritation) 1) Yes 2) No

Q: 18) You would like to have Ariel in 1) Plastic Bag 2) Paper bag 3) Paper box 4) Plastic container with lid 5) Anything you suggest

Q: 19) What is the purpose of introducing packages of different sizes? 1) To provide variety in the product 2) To provide variety in price range 3) To cater different needs of different consumers 4) To attract customers Q: 20) How do you rate Ariel in terms of;

a) Quality Low High 1 2 3 4 5 6

b) Price 1 2 3 4 5 6 Reasonable Expensive

..Thank You

REFERENCES
Books
Kevin Lane Keller (1998) Strategic Brand Management: Building, measuring and managing brand equity (Prentice Hall Inc, New Jersey) Schiffman, L.G and Kanuk, L. L. (1996) Consumer Behavior (New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India) Cateora, P and Graham, J (1999) International Marketing (New York: McGraw Hill) Aaker, D.A (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the value of a Brand Name (New York: the Free Press) Philip Kotler (1994) Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Controlling (Prentice Hall Inc, New Jersey)

Websites
www.benchmarkresearch.com, Introduction of brand equity research

Kevin Lane Keller (1998) Strategic Brand Management: Building, measuring and managing brand equity (Prentice Hall Inc, New Jersey) Kotler, P and Armstrong, G (1996), Principles of Marketing (New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India) Aaker, D.A (1996), Building Strong Brands(New York: The Free Press) Cateora, P (1996) International Marketing (New York: McGraw Hill) Schiffman, L.G and Kanuk, L. L. (1996) Consumer Behavior (New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India) Stanton, W. J. Etzel, \l.J and Walker. BJ (1994) Fundamentals of Marketing (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.)