African Journal of Business Management Vol. 6(17), pp.

5692-5701, 2 May, 2012

Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM
DOI: 10.5897/AJBM11.788
ISSN 1993-8233 (c)2012 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

The mediatory impact of brand loyalty and brand image

on brand equity
Hossien Emari1*, Ali Jafari2 and Mehdi Mogaddam2
1
Department of Management, Faculty of Human Science, Islamic Azad University, Bonab Branch, Bonab, 55518/134,
Iran.
2
Islamic Azad University, Bonab Branch, East Azerbaijan, Iran.
Accepted 28 December, 2011

This study examines the underlying dimensions of brand equity in the chocolate industry. For this
purpose, researchers developed a model to identify which factors are influential in building brand
equity. The second purpose was to assess brand loyalty and brand images… … mediating effect between
brand attitude, brand personality, brand association with brand equity. The study employed structural
equation modeling to investigate the causal relationships between the dimensions of brand equity and
brand equity itself. It specifically measures the way in which consumers’ perceptions of the dimensions
of brand equity affect the overall brand equity evaluations. Data were collected from a sample of
consumers of chocolate industry in Iran. The results of this empirical study indicate that brand loyalty
and brand image are important components of brand equity in this industry. Moreover, the role of brand
loyalty and brand image as mediating factors in the intention of brand equity are supported. The
principal contribution of the present research is that it provides empirical evidence of the
multidimensionality of consumer based brand equity, supporting Aaker´s and Keller´s
conceptualization of brand equity. The present research also enriched brand equity building by
incorporating the brand personality and brand image, as recommended by previous researchers.
Moreover, creating the brand equity index in chocolate industry of Iran particularly is novel.

Key words: Brand equity, brand personality, brand loyalty, brand image, structural equation modeling, Iran.

INTRODUCTION

One of the most popular and potentially important endure crisis situations, higher profit margins, more
marketing concepts which have been extensively licensing and brand extension opportunities (Kim et al.,
discussed by both academicians and practitioners over 2005). Furthermore, according to Pappu et al. (2005),
the past decade is brand equity (Atligan et al., 2005). high brand equity levels are known to lead to higher
This is because successful brands can allow marketers to consumer preferences and purchase intentions.
gain competitive advantage (Kim et al., 2008). A brand is Brand building is considered the best way of doing
any label that carries meaning and associations. A great business because of the constant changes in the
brand does more: it lends coloration and resonance to a marketing environment. Successful brand building could
product or service (Kotler, 2003a). strengthen a producer’s competitive position to withstand
A strong brand provides a series of benefits to a firm, the increasing power of retailers. Brand building can also
such as greater customer loyalty and higher resiliency to bring advantages such as defending against competitors
favorable customer response to price change, and and building market share (Pappu et al., 2005).
Much research focuses on developing brand equity
measurement tools (Bong et al., 1999; Yoo and Donthu,
2001; Pappu et al., 2005), little empirical research
*Corresponding author. E-mail: emari_hossien@yahoo.com. attempts to understand or measure the process of brand
Tel: +98 4127238893. Fax: +98 4127230393. equity formation over time. Moreover, not many studies
 Emari et al. 5693

have investigated structural relationships among the by consumers. The premise of customer-based brand
factors that influence brand equity. equity models is that the power of a brand lies in what
That is, the purposes of the study presented here, as customers have seen, read, heard, learned, thought and
well as to identify which factors are influential in building felt about the brand over time. In other words, the power
brand equity. The study is presented in the following of a brand lies in the minds of existing or potential
manner: First, we draw from the research literature to customers and what they have experienced directly and
identify the brand equity factors that influence the building indirectly about the brand (Kotler and Keller, 2006). Thus,
of successful brands in chocolate industry. Second, we a customer-based definition of brand equity is given by
construct a research model that explains the relationships Keller (2003) as “the differential effect that brand
of those factors to brand equity. Third, we generate knowledge has on consumer response to the marketing
research hypotheses and empirically test them. Finally, of that brand”. While there are several other definitions of
this research discusses the practical and theoretical brand equity from different perspectives, one of the most
implications of the results. generally accepted and the most comprehensive is “a set
of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name
and symbol, that add to or subtract from the value
Theoretical model and hypotheses provided by a product or service to a firm and/or to that
firm’s customers” (Aaker, 1991). According to Patricia
The issue of brand equity has emerged as one of the (2000), brand equity is the sum total of all the different
most crucial topics for marketing management in the values that people attach to the brand name.
1990s (Kim et al., 2005). The emergence of brand equity Kotler (2003b) defined brand equity as “the
has raised the importance of marketing strategies and customers… subjective and intangible assessment of the
provided focus for managers and researchers (Boo et al., brand, above and beyond its objectively perceived value.
2009). A powerful brand has high brand equity. Brands The sub drivers of brand equity are customer brand
have higher brand equity to the extent that they have awareness, customer attitude toward brand, and
higher brand loyalty, name awareness, perceived quality, customer perception of brand ethics”. Based on Kotler
strong brand associations and other assets such as and Armstrong (2006), brand equity is the positive
patents, trademarks and channel relationships. A brand differential effect that knowing the brand name has on
with strong brand equity is a valuable asset (Kotler et al., customer response to the product or service.
1999). Brand equity is the added value endowed to Brand equity consists of several dimensions: brand
products and services. This value may be reflected in loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality of brand,
how consumers think, feel, and act with respect to the brand image and brand associations. These dimensions
brand, as well as the prices, market share, and may be used to explore the findings of marketing and
profitability that the brand commands for the firm. Brand consumer behavior research in relation to brand equity
equity is an important intangible asset that has (Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Kim et al., 2008). Thus, we
psychological and financial value to the firm (Kotler et al., develop a brand equity model that capitalizes on these
2007). dimensions.
The content and meaning of brand equity have been Based on a review of the literature, this study
debated in a number of different ways and for a number developed a framework linking brand loyalty and brand
of different purposes, but so far no common viewpoint image to brand equity (Figure 1). This framework has
has emerged. It can be discussed from the perspective of three main features. First, it examines the main effects of
the manufacturer, retailer, or the consumer. While brand loyalty and brand image on brand equity. Second,
manufacturers and retailers are interested in the strategic it examines the effect of brand attitude, brand personality
implications of the brand equity, investors are more and brand association on brand equity. Third, this
sympathetic for a financially defined concept (Atilgan et framework assesses brand loyalty and brand images…
al., 2005). mediating effect between brand attitude, brand
Proponents of the financial perspective define brand personality, brand association with brand equity. We use
equity as the total value of a brand which is a separable this framework to develop our hypotheses as described
asset – when it is sold, or included in a balance sheet subsequently.
(Feldwick, 1996). Alternative definitions adopting the This study describes brand attitude as a consumer’s
same perspective consider brand equity as the current overall positive or negative evaluation of a given brand
financial value of the flow of future profits attached to the (Chang and Chieng, 2006). Moreover, according to the
brand itself (the potential future contribution linked to the study of Kim et al. (2008), brand loyalty differs from brand
name in the current distribution context) (Kopferer, 2008). attitude and habit, although the latter can indicate brand
The customer-based brand equity definitions approach loyalty. Brand attitude is a consumer's feelings or
the subject from the perspective of the consumer – behavior toward a brand. Brand loyalty can be a separate
whether it is an individual or an organization. They construct from brand attitude, but that multi loyalty, or
contend that for a brand to have value, it must be valued loyalty toward more than one brand, involves attitudes
5694 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Brand attitude
H1
H2

Brand loyalty H8

H3
Brand association H4
Brand equity
H5 H9
Brand image
H6

H7
Brand personality

Figure 1. The hypotheses model.

that can be more comprehensive. A high level of brand has been considered as a construct was affected by the
loyalty indicates a tendency to buy only a signal brand in other three dimensions: awareness, associations and
a product category, not a multi loyalty purchase intention. perceived quality. From the suggested relationships in
Additionally, Chaudhuri (1995) proposed a conceptual the literature (Taylor et al., 2007: 249; Bravo et al., 2007;
model and demonstrated that the brand attitude construct Atilgan et al., 2005), brand association is particularly
is an affective antecedent of brand equity. Similarly, important in brand loyalty formation.
Chaudhuri showed that brand loyalty mediates brand According the research of Taylor et al. (2007), brand
attitude and brand equity. From the above definitions and image is defined as perceptions about the brand as
suggested relationships in the literature. Brand attitude is reflected by the brand associations held in consumer
particularly important in brand loyalty and brand equity memory. Thus, there is positive relationship between
formation. These are summarized in the following brand association and brand image. Consequently, the
hypotheses: following hypotheses are proposed:

H1: Brand attitude has a significant positive direct effect H3: Brand association has a significant positive direct
on brand equity. effect on brand loyalty.

H1a: Brand loyalty has a positive moderating influence on H4: Brand association has a significant positive direct
the relationship between brand attitude and brand equity. effect on brand equity.

H2: Brand attitude has a significant positive direct effect H4a: Brand loyalty has a positive moderating influence on
on brand loyalty. the relationship between brand association and brand
equity.
This study defines brand associations (product and
organization associations) as the information linked to the H4b: Brand image has a positive moderating influence on
node in memory. This information yields an association in the relationship between brand association and brand
the mind of the consumer (Chang and Chieng, 2006). equity.
Higher brand awareness in the consumer’s mind, along
with strong, unique, positive associations, leads the H5: Brand association has a significant positive direct
consumer to increase his preference for the brand (Bravo effect on brand image.
et al., 2007).
The results of the preceding empirical studies have Aaker (1997) defined brand personality as “the set of
demonstrated, on the whole, effects of some of the human characteristics associated with a brand”. So, in
dimensions on overall brand equity (Bravo et al., 2007; contrast to psychologists, Aaker defines personality in
Bamert et al., 2005; Yasin et al., 2007; Atilgan et al., terms of characteristics instead of traits and meticulously
2005). Consequently, this study proposes positive developed a 44-item brand personality scale that
relation between brand association and brand equity. encompasses five broad dimensions: sincerity,
Based on the study of Bravo et al. (2007), brand equity excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness.
dimensions are closely interrelated. Nevertheless, loyalty The scale has served as a brand personality measure in
 Emari et al. 5695

Figure 2. The brand personality dimensions (Geuens et al., 2009).

many studies and its factor structure proved to be robust three essential features: (1) Physical attributes (for
in several of them (Chang and Chieng, 2006; Sweeney example, green in color); (2) functional characteristics (for
and Brandon, 2006). However, Aaker's scale has recently example, cleans teeth more effectively); and (3)
been criticized on several grounds. Geuens et al. (2009) characterization (for example, youthful). This latter
summarized these criticisms in bellow format: a first characterization process was termed brand personality. It
criticism pertains to the loose definition of brand is well known that the introduction of brand extensions
personality, which embraces several other characteristics can have positive or negative effects on a core brand’s
(such as age, gender etc.) besides personality. This image and subsequent equity. Based on the aforestated
induces a construct validity problem and leaves definitions and suggested relationships in the literature,
researchers and practitioners uncertain of what they have the following hypotheses are formulated:
actually measured: the perceived brand personality (a
sender aspect) or perceived user characteristics (receiver H6: Brand personality has a significant positive direct
aspects). effect on brand image.
A second criticism concerns the non generalizability of
the factor structure for analyses at the respondent level H7: Brand personality has a significant positive direct
(for a specific brand or within a specific product effect on brand equity.
category).
A third criticism relates to the non replace ability of the H7a: Brand image has a positive moderating influence on
five factors cross-culturally researchers found that only the relationship between brand personality and brand
three of the five factors applied in Spain (namely, equity.
sincerity, excitement and sophistication). Peacefulness
replaced ruggedness and passion replaced competence. Today, firms invest substantial resources to develop
In Japan four of the five factors emerged, whereas names with a favorable image. Among other advantages,
peacefulness again replaced ruggedness. This a positive image facilitates business expansion through
shortcoming led several researchers to construct a brand extensions. Thus, product introductions with the
country-specific brand personality scale. same brand name are able to leverage the brand image,
Based on the above discussions, Geuens et al. (2009) brand awareness and, on the whole, brand equity
were to return to the basics of brand personality and obtained in the established markets (Salinas and Perez,
develop a new scale based on a rigorous definition of 2009).
brand personality that excludes all non-personality items According the work of Boo et al. (2009), brand image
(Figure 2). This study defines brand personality based on has been considered as the reasoned or emotional
Geuens´s model. perceptions consumers attach to specific brands. Brand
Valette et al. (2009) relates brand personality image has also been identified as an important source of
dimensions directly to brand equity. Rekom et al. (2006) brand equity (Boo et al., 2009). Thus, the following
argued that brand personality might be crucial to hypothesis was formulated:
understanding brand choice. Indeed, at a time in which
consumers consider product quality as a given and H9: Brand image has a significant positive direct effect on
competitors can easily copy product characteristics, a brand equity.
strong brand identity and personality are invaluable to
build brand equity. Aaker (1991) defines brand loyalty as a situation which
According the work of Diamantopoulos (2005), brand reflects how likely a customer will be to switch to another
personality is an essential component of brand image brand, especially when that brand makes a change,
that helps create brand equity. Brand image consisted of either in price or in product features. Moreover,
5696 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Chaudhuri (1995) defines brand loyalty as “a consumer’s embrace other aspects besides brand personality; Geuens et al.
preference to buy a single brand name in a product class; (2009) developed a new brand personality measure consisting of
personality items only. The new scale consists of five factors that
it is a result of the perceived quality of the brand and not
show an affinity with the big five human personality dimensions.
its price.” According the work of Kim et al. (2008), brand Unlike existing scales, this new measure proved to be reliable for
loyalty is a deeply held commitment to re-buy or re- between-brand between-category comparisons, for between-brand
patronize a preferred product/service consistently in the within-category comparisons, and for between-respondent
future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same comparisons. Moreover, the scale showed high test–retest reliability
brand set purchasing, despite situational influences and and cross-cultural validity (in the US and nine other European
countries).
marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching Specifically, a series of focus groups studied the Geuens et al.
behavior.” (2009) measure, and recommended that activity dimension is
Keller (2003), on the other hand, examines brand suitable for chocolate context. The focus group comprised teams of
loyalty under the term “brand resonance” which refers to chocolate industry marketers and customers in Iran. Consequently,
the nature of customer-brand relationship and the extent this study only employed the activity dimension to measure brand
personality. Thus, according to the activity dimension of Geuens et
to which customers feel that they are “in sync” with the
al. (2009) three items were developed to measure brand personality
brand. Customers, with true brand resonance, have a in this research.
high degree of loyalty, actively seek means to interact Although, a qualitative study using free association can grasp the
with the brand and share their experiences with others. substantial meaning of the brand, this study examined the causal
In fact, brand loyalty is the main driver of brand equity effect of the brand knowledge construct by utilizing the direct
because it is considered to be the path that leads to method. The brand association construct was assessed by four
items developed for this study based on the work of Chang and
certain marketing advantages and outcomes (for Chieng (2006). All responses about questions utilized an
example, reduced marketing costs, price premiums, appropriate Likert scale from 1 to 5.
market share and greater trade leverage), which have Separate interviews with the managers and marketers at the time
been closely associated with brand equity (Delgado et al., of the data collection suggested that rating a brand image would be
2005; Yasin et al., 2007; Bamert et al., 2005; Atligan et more appropriate than measuring the company’s overall or product
al., 2005; Bravo et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2008). image in chocolate industry of Iran.
This study defines brand image as a subjective, perceptual
phenomenon of brand that is reflected by a network of associations
H8: Brand loyalty has a significant positive direct effect on in the memory of the consumers. Four items based on the work of
brand equity. Roth, in 1995, were developed for this study. These items contain
two factors: functional/ sensory and social image (Chang and
Chieng, 2006). Each item was measured using a Likert scale from 1
METHODS to 5.
Measures for attitudinal brand loyalty were also adapted from the
literature. For example, respondents were asked to rate the
The study collected data from chocolate consumers in Iran. After
statement “Brand X would be my first choice” on a scale of 1 to 5.
the pilot test, the sample is selected in the following manner: First,
This measure had been empirically tested and employed in earlier
five cities were randomly selected Iran. Second, chocolate
studies (Atligan et al., 2005; Bravo et al., 2007). Each item had the
consumers are selected by implementing judgment sampling
verbal anchors “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree” for the 1
method for collecting data. Out of 500 questionnaires disbursed to
and 5 scale points (Pappu et al., 2006).
consumers, 432 responses came back. Among the returned
A four-item Likert scale was used to measure the brand equity
questionnaires, 15 were not complete enough to be used for further
construct. This measure had been empirically tested and employed
analysis. Thus, 417 questionnaires were ultimately used for the
in earlier studies (Delgado et al., 2005; Bravo et al., 2007; Yasin et
study. This relatively high response rate of almost 83% was
al., 2007). The four items measure the difference in consumer
attained with help from the managers of chocolate companies in
choice between the focal branded product and an unbranded
Iran. The sample consisted of 277 male (0.644) and 140 female
product given the same level of product features. In line with our
(0.446) respondents. In terms of education level, more than half of
view of brand equity as a relational market-based asset, this
the respondents (0.658) had a college degree and 84 had a high
definition explicitly relies on brand knowledge structures in the
school degree (0.243). This research project was conducted in
minds of consumers as the foundation of brand equity (Delgado et
2010.
al., 2005).
Six items were developed to measure brand attitude construct
from the work of Chang and Chieng (2006). These items include
Instruments product, service, and store atmosphere attitude. These items were
measured using Likert scale from 1 to 5. Confirmatory factor
The review of the literature and two focus group interviews held analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) procedures
with the customers of the chocolate industry provided the basis for were used to test hypotheses in this research. All procedures were
the generation of the items used to measure each of the constructs based on the analysis of covariance structures using the LISREL
under study. Six constructs needs to measure in this research, 8.5 program. The name LISREL is an acronym for "Linear
including, brand attitude, brand association, brand personality, Structural Relations". The qualifier "linear" is restrictive for the
brand loyalty, brand image and brand equity. The questionnaires current version of the LISREL program, but the name LISREL has
were designed in English for different industries, and then were become synonymous with "structural equation modeling" or SEM
translated (back translation) into Farsi by two Iranian translators. (Stephen and Mathilda, 2008).
Ultimately, all questionnaires were reworded to better suit the The structural equation model (or multivariable analysis, by using
chocolate industry context and were evaluated during the pre-test. latent variable) is a comprehensive statistical approach which is
In response to criticism of brand personality measures that used to test hypotheses concerning the relations between observed
 Emari et al. 5697

and latent variables (Rezaiean et al., 2010). Since there are two magnitude of the path between the brand loyalty and the
approaches available in the structural equation modeling approach, brand equity is larger than the individual path between
it would be necessary to address each approach and the one that
brand attitude and brand equity, then the role of brand
the study employs (Emari et al., 2011). In this research, all
responses about questions utilized an appropriate Likert scale and loyalty as a mediating factor would be supported. The
a path analysis with latent variables-the common factor of the sets results show that the path between brand loyalty and
of item-scores was used. brand equity (H8: β1 = 0.43 and Tvalue = 12.62) is larger
Factor analysis is one of the multi-variable analytical techniques than other path. Thus, the role of brand loyalty as a
frequently used in various fields of study particularly in social mediating factor is confirmed (H1a and H4a are supported).
sciences in search of the interrelations between variables (Esengun
et al., 2006). Factor analysis is a set of techniques for determining
The path coefficients depicted in Table 3 show that
the extent to which variables that are related can be grouped brand association are related positively to both brand
together so that they can be treated as one combined variable of loyalty (H3: γ21 = 0.6 and Tvalue = 15.36) and brand equity
factor rather than as a series of separate variables (Abdullah and (H4: γ22 = 0.14 and Tvalue = 3.41) and, therefore H3 and H4
Asngari, 2011). are confirmed. In addition, the path between the brand
loyalty and the brand equity is larger than the individual
path between brand association and brand equity then,
RESULTS the role of brand loyalty as a mediating factor between
brand association and brand equity is supported (H4a is
Analysis of scale properties supported).
Inspection of coefficients indicates that, as expected,
Before assessing the research model it was necessary to both brand association (H5: γ23 = 0.29 and Tvalue = 6.93)
establish the validity and reliability of the modified items and brand personality (H6: γ31 = 0.27 and Tvalue = 4.74)
and the new items developed for this study (Kang and have significant positive impact on brand equity, thus,
James, 2004). The general concept of validity was confirming H5 and H6. Moreover, both brand image (H9:
traditionally defined as the degree to which at test β2 = 0.22 and Tvalue = 6.13) and brand personality (H3:
measures what it claims, or purports, to be measuring. γ32=0.1 and Tvalue = 2.17) positively influence on brand
Validity traditionally subdivided in to three categories: equity.
content criterion-related and construct validity (Givi et al., The findings of this research reveal that the path
2010: 206). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was between brand image and brand equity is larger than the
utilized to verify the construct validity of scales. In order individual paths between brand association, brand
to have a valid construct, the items comprising a personality and brand equity. Thus, the role of brand
construct must be one dimensional. image as a mediating factor betwixt brand association,
The psychometric properties of each construct were brand personality and brand equity is confirmed (H4b and
evaluated in separate confirmatory factor models. The H7a are supported).
model fit for each CFA was evaluated using the normal fit To evaluate the fit of CFAs, several goodness-of-fit
index (NFI), non normal fit index (NNFI), the root mean indicators were used to assess the model’s goodness of
square error of approximation (RMSEA) and χ2/df values fit including the ratio of χ2 to degrees-of-freedom (df),
were also reported as references for model fit (Table 1). goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of- fit
index (AGFI), comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean
square residual (RMR). As shown in Table 4, all
Structural equation model individual measurement model indices exceed their
respective common acceptance levels recommended by
Covariances between constructs were computed and previous researchers, thus demonstrating that the
used as input for confirmatory factor analysis. Co measurement model posited relatively a good fit with the
variances, means and standard deviations of the data collected. Values>0.9 for CFI, GFI, and AGFI indices
aggregated measures are presented in Table 2. All the indicate a good fit to the data (Gokturk and Mueller,
estimated co variances were statistically significant (ρ< 2010).
0.05). Also, the results of the LISREL estimation of the
structural model are summarized and reported in Table 3.
The path coefficients depicted in Table 3, all of the path DISCUSSION
estimates are significant (p ≤ 0.05).
According to results, brand attitude has not a This study examines the direct and indirect effects of
considerable positive effect (H1: γ11=0.0019 and Tvalue = brand equity dimensions on the development and
0.065) on brand equity, and therefore H1 is not confirmed, building of brand equity of various products in chocolate
but it has a significant positive influence on brand loyalty industry. Following Cohen recommendations in 1988
(H2: γ12=0.09 and Tvalue = 2.38), which confirms H2. (Kassim and Abdulla, 2006), standardized path
It is necessary to compare the paths leading to brand coefficient with absolute values of less than 0.10 may
equity to understand the mediatory role of brand loyalty indicate “small” effect; values of around 0.30 a “medium”
between brand attitude and brand equity. That is, if the effect; and “large” effects may be suggested by
5698 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Table 1. Reliability and validity test.

2
Scales Alpha χ /df NNFI RMSEA NFI
Brand attitude
1. Chocolate Flavor
2. Chocolate Varieties
3. Service attitude 0.76 3 0.93 0.03 0.93
4. Knowledge
5. In-store decoration
6. Comfort (Chang and Chieng, 2006: 941).

Brand association
1. Stability of chocolate quality
2. Freshness of raw materials
0.83 2 0.90 0.02 0.89
3. Chocolate flavor
4. Chocolate brewing method
(Chang and Chieng, 2006: 941)

Brand personality
1. Responsiveness (down to earth, stable, responsible)
2. Activity (active, dynamic, innovative)
3. Aggressiveness (Aggressive, bold) 0.69 2 0.91 0.01 0.95
4. Simplicity (ordering, simple)
5. Emotionality (romantic, sentimental)
(Geuens et al., 2009: 103)

Brand loyalty
1. I consider myself loyal only to this purchased brand
0.67 3 0.89 0.04 0.97
2. This purchased brand would be my first choice (Pappu et
al., 2006: 716)

Brand image
1. My purchased brand focuses on chocolate quality
2. My purchased brand satisfies my desire to eat chocolate
0.72 2 0.95 0.08 0.90
3. My purchased brand meets my sensory enjoyment
3. My purchased brand offers me a sense of group belonging
(Chang and Chieng, 2006: 941)

Brand equity
1. It makes sense to buy this purchased brand instead of any
other brand, even if they are the same
0.87 2 0.92 0.02 0.92
2. Even if another brand has the same features as this
purchased brand, I would prefer to buy this brand (Delgado et
al., 2005: 191)

coefficients with absolute value of 0.50 or more. industry of Iran. The aforementioned findings are in
The results of this research show that the brand equity conformity with past researches that have also found
of chocolate products is directly made up of two brand personality, brand association and brand image
dimensions, namely brand loyalty and brand image. related to brand equity. The results proceeded from study
These two dimensions have a medium direct impact on of Bong et al. (1999) indicated that, brand image has
brand equity as hypothesized. Other dimensions have a positive effect on brand equity, and brand association has
very small and venial direct impact on brand equity that positively influence on brand image. The research of
disregarded in building of brand equity in chocolate Chang and Chieng (2006) revealed that, both brand
 Emari et al. 5699

Table 2. Co variances, means and standard deviations of constructs

Construct Mean Standard deviation Covariance matrix

Brand attitude 0.00 1.00 1.00
Brand association 0.00 1.00 0.38 1.00
Brand personality 3.62 0.75 0.25 0.44 0.56
Brand loyalty 0.00 1.00 0.32 0.64 0.36 1.00
Brand image 3.80 0.85 0.29 0.41 0.28 0.54 0.73
Brand equity 3.47 0.92 0.28 0.55 0.33 0.67 0.48 0.81

Table 3. Results of the structural model.

Standardized Significant Hypotheses

Hypotheses
beta(t) level support
H1: brand attitude to brand equity 0.0019(0.065) 0.02 No
H2: brand attitude to brand loyalty 0.09(2.38) 0.04 Yes
H3: brand association to brand loyalty 0.60(15.36) 0.04 Yes
H4: brand association to brand equity 0.14(3.41) 0.04 Yes
H5: brand association to brand image 0.29(6.93) 0.05 Yes
H6: brand personality to brand image 0.27(4.75) 0.05 Yes
H7: brand personality to brand equity 0.10(2.17) 0.04 Yes
H8: brand loyalty to brand equity 0.43(12.62) 0.03 Yes
H9: brand image to brand equity 0.22(6.13) 0.03 Yes
Note: Significant p ≤ 0.05.

Table 4. Goodness of fit statistics.

Fit indices Recommended value Structural model

CFI > 0.9 0.90
RMR <<< 0.074
GFI > 0.9 0.93
AGFI > 0.8 0.48
χ2/ df < 3.00 3.00

association and brand personality have positive effect on brand loyalty was much closer to the concept of brand
brand image in the two samples of Shanghai (China) and equity than brand associations. So, Bravo et al. (1999)
Taipie (Taiwan). confirmed the mediatory role of brand loyalty between
Results derived from research of Valette et al. (2009), brand association and brand equity.
confirmed the relative impact of brand personality and As mentioned earlier, the second focus of this study is
consumer promotions on brand equity. The positive effect to examine the indirect relationship between brand
of brand association on brand equity do not support attitude, brand association and brand personality with
previous studies of Bravo et al. (2007) and Atligan et al. brand equity, which is mediated by the brand loyalty and
(2005), but supports the study of Yasin et al. (2007) who brand image. From the previous section, it is found that
investigated the relationship. relationships exist between brand attitude and brand
The results obtained from study of Bravo, Andres and association with brand loyalty and between brand
Salinas show that the effect of the brand association on association and brand personality with brand image.
brand equity is not significant and, concerning the effect The results from the current study confirm the role of
of loyalty on brand equity, did obtain positive and brand loyalty and brand image as a mediating factor in
significant results. Moreover, in their research, brand the building of brand equity. But, only brand association
association had a positive effect on brand loyalty but, has large indirect relationship with brand equity. This
5700 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

indirect relationship indicates that brand association is accepting and living the brand’s value proposition.
related to brand equity through the brand loyalty. In this 3) Chocolate companies need to develop a more
linkage, brand loyalty fully mediates the relationship while comprehensive brand building plan to create positive
brand image act as partial mediator. Figure 1 illustrates customer experiences at every touch point (events,
these relationships. seminars, news, telephone, e-mail, person- to-person
Chaudhuri proposes a model which suggested that contact).
both direct and indirect paths from brand attitude and 4) Chocolate companies need to define the brand’s basic
brand equity were significant when market share was essence to be delivered wherever it is sold. Local
used as brand equity outcome, and in the case of price executions can be varied as long as they deliver the feel
as brand equity outcome, brand attitude did not influence of the brand.
price directly but did influence price only indirectly 5) Chocolate companies must use the brand value
through brand loyalty (Chaudhuri, 1995). proposition as the key driver of the company’s strategy,
operations, services, and product development.
6) Chocolate companies must measure their brand-
Conclusion building effectiveness by a more comprehensive set of
measures including customer perceived value, customer
The aforementioned findings, indicates that the two
satisfaction, share of wallet, Customer retention and
dimensions of brand equity actually form the brand
Customer advocacy.
assets in which the evaluation of the brand’s added value
or equity is based upon. The formation of brand equity,
therefore, is rooted in these dimensions. In other words,
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
the extent of brand loyalty and brand image as well as
the distinctiveness of the brands of chocolate products
indicates the existence of brand equity. In terms of the The authors would like to thank the reviewers for the
effect size, brand loyalty seems to contribute the most (β1 constructive comments and illustrative suggestions.
= 0.43) to the formation of brand equity. This is in line
with the works of Yoo and Donthu (2001) and Yasin et al.
(2007) that found brand loyalty as the key construct in REFERENCES
explaining brand equity.
Aaker DA (1991). “Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press, New York,
One implication of these findings for managers is to NY.
assess brand loyalty as part of an assessment of Aaker J (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. J. Mark. Res., 34(3):
development and building of brand equity. In addition, the 347-356.
importance of brand loyalty in the relationship of brand Abdullah L, Asngari H (2011). Factor Analysis In Describing Consumer
Preferences For A Soft Drink Product In Malaysia. J. Appl. Sci.,
association with brand equity concept was the most 11(1): 139-144. ISSN: 1812-5654. DOI: 10.3923/jas.2011.139.141.
important finding in this study and should encourage Atligan E, Aksoy S, Akinci S (2005). Determinants of the Brand Equity a
researchers explicitly to consider this construct in future Verification Approach In The Beverage Industry In Turkey. Market.
models of brand equity and its outcomes Intell. Plan., 23(3): 237-248. DOI 10.1108/02634500510597283.
Bamert T, Wehrli H (2005). Service Quality as An Important Dimension
Viewing the results of the study suggest that brand Of Brand Equity In Swiss Service Industries. Manag. Serv. Qual.,
loyalty has the greatest contribution to the development 15(2): 132-141. DOI: 10.1108/09604520510585325.
of brand equity. This implies that companies of chocolate Bong W, Marshall R, Keller K (1999). Measuring Brand Power:
industry should put greater emphasis in creating brand Validating a Model for Optimizing Brand Equity. J. Prod. Brand
Manag., 8(3): 170-184.
loyalty for their products. To ensure loyal customers, Boo S, Busser J, Baloglu S (2009). A Model of Customer-Based Brand
producers and retailers need to build long-term Equity And Its Application To Multiple Destinations. Tourism
relationship with their customers, offer and maintain high Manage., 30: 219-231. ISSN: 1061-0421. DOI:
quality products, and provide good services. 10.1016/j.tourman.2008.06.003.
Bravo R, Andre E, Salinas (2007). Family as A Source of Consumer-
Furthermore, the model proposed in this research Based Brand Equity. J. Prod. Brand Manag., 16(3): 188-199. ISSN
makes a theoretical contribution but can also be used as 1061-0421, DOI: 10.1108/10610420710751564.
a practical managerial tool. Finally, companies have to Chang P, Chieng M (2006). Building Consumer Brand Relationship: A
use the recommendations stated below to build their Cross-Cultural Experiential View. Psychol. Mark., 23(11): 927-959.
DOI: 10.1002/mar.20140.
brands in the new economy. Chaudhuri A (1995). Brand Equity Or Double Jeopardy?. J. Prod. Brand
Manag., 4(1): 26-32. © MCB University Press.
1) Chocolate companies should clarify the corporation’s Delgado E, Munuera L (2005). Does Brand Trust Matter to Brand
basic values and build the strong corporate brand. Equity? . J. Prod. Brand Manag., 14(3): 187-196.
Diamantopoulos A, Grime G (2005). The Impact of Brand Extensions on
Because, put their name on a product or service creates Brand Personality: Experimental Evidence. Eur. J. Mark., 32(1): 129-
an image of quality and value. 149.
2) Chocolate companies should use brand managers to Emari H, Iranzadeh S, Bakhshayesh S (2011). Determining the
carry out the tactical work. But the brand’s ultimate Dimensions of Service Quality in Banking Industry: Examining
Gronrooss Model n Iran. Trends Appl. Sci. Res., 6(1): 53-60. ISSN:
success will depend on everyone in the company 1819-3579. DOI:10.3923/tasr.2011.53.60.
 Emari et al. 5701

Esengun K, Gunduz O, Akay M, Cicek A (2006). Assessment of Local Pappu R, Quester P, Cooksey R (2005). Consumer-Based Brand
Governments… Efforts In Challenging To Environmental Problems Equity: Improving The Measurement – Empirical Evidence. J. Prod.
Using Factor Analysis: A Case Study To Turkey. Asian Network for Brand Manag., 14(3): 143-154. ISSN: 1061-0421.
Scientific Information. J. Appl. Sci., 6(5): 1052-1058. ISSN: 1812- DOI:10.1108/10610420510601012.
5654. Pappu R, Quester P, Cooksey R (2006). Consumer-Based Brand Equity
Feldwick P (1996). Do we really need brand equity?. J. Brand Manag., and Country-Of-Origin Relationships Some Empirical Evidence. Eur.
4(1): 9-28. J. Market., 40(5/6): 696-717. DOI: 10.1108/03090560610657903.
Geuens M, Weijters B, Wulf K (2009). A New Measure of Brand Patricia N (2000). Complete Idiot's Guide to Brand Management. USA:
Personality. Int. J. Res. Mark., 26: 97-107. Alpha Books, a Pearson Education Company. pp. 1-14. ISBN: 0-
DOI:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2008.12.002. 7865-4477-5.
Givi H, Ebrahimi A, Nasrabadi M, Safari H (2010). Providing Rekom, J., Jacobs, G., and Verlegh, P., (2006), “Measuring and
Competitiveness Assessment Model for State and Private Banks of Managing The Essence Of A Brand Personality , Market. Lett., 17:
Iran. Asian Network For Scientific Information. Int. J. Appl. Econom. 181-192.
Financ., 4(4): 202-219. ISSN: 1991-0886. Rezaiean A, Givi M, Givi H, Nasrabadi M (2010). The Relationship
Gokturk S, Mueller R (2010). Multidimensionality of Teacher between Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship
Participation In School Decision Making. J. Appl. Sci., Asian Network Behavior: The Mediating Role of Organizational Commitment,
For Scientific Information. 10(14): 1421-1427. ISSN: 1812-5654. Satisfaction and Trust. Res. J. Bus. Manag., 4(2): 112-120. ISSN:
Kang G, James J (2004). Service Quality Dimensions: An Examination 1819-1932.
of Gronrooss Service Quality Model. Manag. Serv. Qual., 14(4): 266- Salinas E, Perez J (2009). Modeling the brand extensions' influence on
277. DOI: 10.1108/09604520410546806. brand image. J. Bus. Res., 62: 50-60.
Kassim M, Abdulla M (2006). The Influence of Attraction On Internet DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.006.
Banking; An Extension To The Trust-Relationship Commitment Stephen D, Mathilda D (2008). Interactive LISREL: Users Guide. pp. 36-
Model. Int. J. Bank., 24(6): 424-442. DOI: 44. ISSN: 964-6389-39-7.
10.1108/02652320610701744. Sweeney J, Brandon C (2006). Brand Personality: Exploring the
Keller L (2003). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Potential to Move from Factor Analytical to Circumflex Models. J.
Managing Brand Equity. 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs NJ. Bus. Res., 23(8): 639-663. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20122.
a b
Kim K , Kim K , Kim D, Kim J, Kang S (2008). Brand Equity in Hospital Taylor S, Hunter G, Lindberg D (2007). Understanding (Customer-
Marketing. J. Bus. Res., 61: 75-82. Based) Brand Equity in Financial Services. J. Serv. Mark., 21(4): 241-
DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.05.010. 252. ISSN: 0887-6045, DOI: 10.1108/08876040710758540.
Kopferer J (2008). The New Strategic Brand Management. Kong Page. Valette P, Guizani H, Merunka D (2009). The Impact of Brand
Philadelphia and London: 9-12. ISBN: 9780749450854. Personality and Sales Promotions on Brand Equity. J. Bus. Res., 1:
Kotler P (2003a). Marketing Insight From A To Z: 80 Concepts Every 5. DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.09.015.
Manager Needs To Know. John Wiley and Sons INC. pp. 8-12. ISBN: Yasin N, Noor N, Mohamad O (2007). Does Image Of Country Of Origin
0-471-26867-4. Matter To Brand Equity?. J. Prod. Brand Manag., 16(1): 38-48.
Kotler P (2003b). A Framework for Marketing Management. Printice ISSN: 1061-0421. DOI: 10.1108/10610420710731142.
Hall. Second edition. p. 47. ISBN: 0-13-120427-0. Yoo B, Donthu N (2001). Developing and Validating A Multi
Kotler P, Armstrong G (2006). Principle of Marketing. Pearson Dimensional Consumer-Based Brand Equity Scale. J. Bus. Res., 52:
Education. Eleventh Adition. pp. 277-279. ISBN: 81-7758-107-4 1-14. PII: S0148-2963(99)00098-3.
Kotler P, Armstrong G, Saunders J, Wong V, (1999). Principle of
Marketing. Copyright © Prentice Hall Europe 1999. Second European
Edition. p. 527. ISBN 0-13-262254-8.
Kotler P, Keller K (2006). Marketing Management. Printice Hall Twelfth
Edition. p. 412. ISBN: 0-13-145757-8.
Kotler P, Keller K (2007). Marketing Management. Pearson Educ., pp.
256-260. ISBN: 81-317-0200-6.
Kotler P, Keller K, Koshy A, Jha M (2007). Marketing Management: A
South Asian Perspective. Pearson Education. Twelfth Edition. p. 340.
ISBN: 81-317-0200-6.