1

Brand= Equity= in= the= Bath= Foams= Category= in=

Greece: A descriptive approach

www.grossolatos.com

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement of

the degree of Master of Business Administration of the

University of Strathclyde

THE UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

George Rossolatos

2005

2

ABSTRACT

This dissertation explores the key aspects of consumer-based brand equity in

the Bath Foams category in Greece. By using a descriptive approach an

attempt is made to carve the equity territory of the major brands in the

concerned market.

A combination of secondary and primary research methods are recruited in

order to determine the category’s key value drivers in brand equity terms,

discern key brands’ relative positioning, examine the relationship between

market performance and brand equity and unearth consumers’ associations

with regard to key brands.

The research findings are an attestation of the importance of brand equity in

the Bath Foams category, based on relevant literature, and the effect of the lack

of equity for certain brands on consumer perceptions.

Finally, by drawing on the findings pertaining to the equity status of the

category’s leading brand, Dove, an attempt is made to demonstrate the effect a

“multiple brand personalities” syndrome may have on brands, in particular

Palmolive, in terms of unclear consumer associations and the inability to attain

differential positioning. This comparative outlook points to the importance of a

coherent brand equity platform across all brand communications and new

product development endeavours.

3

Contents

1. Introduction/Chapters Overview ………………………………………… 7

2. Industry Overview………………………………… …………………… 10

2.1 Introduction 11

2.2 Size, growth and distribution channels of the Bath Foams category 11

2.3 Market structure and key brand players 11

2.4 New product development and media spending in the Bath 12

Foams category

2.5 Conclusion 13

3. Literature Review……………………………………………………….. 14

3.1 Introduction 15

3.2 What is a brand and why is it relevant to brand management? 15

3.3 The emergence of the concept of brand equity 16

3.4 The three categories of brand-equity measures 20

3.4.1 The financial approach 21

3.4.2 Brand extensions 24

3.4.3 Consumer based brand equity 26

3.5 Conceptual Framework: Brand Equity Pyramid in the Bath 31

Foams category

3.6 Consumer-based Brand Equity and market performance 34

3.7 Measuring consumer-based brand equity 35

3.8 Conclusion 39

4. Methodology……………………………………………………………… 41

4.1 Introduction 42

4.2 Purpose of the study/Research objectives 42

4.3 Research approach 42

4.3.1 Overview of research methodology 42

4.3.2 Quantitative research 43

4.3.3 Qualitative research 43

4.4 Research design 44

4.4.1 Quantitative method 44

4.4.2 Qualitative method 45

4.4.2.1 In-depth interviews discussion guide 47

4

4.5 Fieldwork 50

4.6 Methods of analysis 50

4.7 Limitations of the research methods 56

4.8 Conclusion 58

5. Analysis of Findings……………………………………………………… 59

5.1 Introduction 60

5.2 Objective 1 Main Findings: Determining the key equity dimensions in

the Brand Equity Pyramid 60

5.3 Objective 2 Main Findings: Determining the relationship between

brand equity and market performance 62

5.4 Objective 3 Main Findings: Discerning whether there is

sufficient differentiation among the key brand players 66

5.5 Objective 4 Main Findings: Descriptive overview of the

primary and secondary brand associations of key brand players 67

5.6 Conclusion 81

6. Conclusions and Recommendations for further research……………..82

6.1 Introduction 83

6.2 Integrated Marketing Communications as a way of building and

sustaining brand differentiation, competitive advantage and brand

equity in the Bath Foams category 83

6.3 New product development as a way of building and sustaining

brand differentiation, competitive advantage and brand equity in

the Bath Foams category 87

6.4 Limitations of the research 88

6.5 Recommendations for further research 89

6.6 Conclusion 90

Appendices………………………………………………………………..…91

Appendix I-Bibliography 92

Appendix II- Profile of Qualitative Research informants 97

Appendix III-Moodboard Technique output (collages) 101

Appendix IV- Brand Maps 112

5

List of Figures

Figure 1- Keller’s Brand Knowledge Structure 28

Figure 2- Keller’s and Davey’s Brand Equity Pyramid 30

Figure 3- Rendition of Keller’s and Davey’s Brand Equity Pyramid in the 31

Bath Foams market

Figure 4- Brand Dynamics Pyramid 38

Figure 5- The Wheel of Integrated Marketing Communications 85

List of Tables

Table 1 – Share of market of key brands in the Bath Foams market 12

Table 2- Interbrand’s brand valuation process 24

Table 3- Bath Foams Brand Equity Pyramid Building blocks and attributes 33

Table 4- Performance of key brands in the Bath Foams Category against

Brand Equity Pyramid building blocks 60

Table 5- Correlation coefficients ( r ) between awareness/brand salience

and Brand Equity building blocks in the Bath Foams category 61

Table 6- Market performance variables by key brand player in the Bath

Foams market 62

Table 7- Correlation between Average Brand Equity and Market share 63

Table 8- Correlation between Average Brand Equity and Volume Sales 63

Table 9- Correlation between Average Brand Equity and Value Sales 63

Table 10- Share of market/Share of voice of key brands in 2004 64

Table 11- Share of market/Weighted distribution of key brands in 2004 64

Table12- Output of Double-centered normalization (DCN) 66

6

CHAPTER 1: Introduction / Chapters Overview

7

Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the dissertation chapters’ contents. The

dissertation starts with an exposition of the Bath Foam category’s structure that

constitutes the frame of reference for the brands explored in the following

chapters. It continues with the literature review of the main perspectives on

brand equity and the review of the methodological framework and methods of

data collection and analysis. The research outcomes are then displayed in the

Main Findings chapter and further discussed in the Conclusions and

Recommendations for future research chapter.

Chapter=2- Industry Overview

This chapter illustrates the Bath Foams category main characteristics,

alongside a profiling of each of the main brands. It includes an overview of

growth trends, purchasers’ attitudes towards the category and the relative

market shares of key brand players.

Chapter=3- Literature Review

The main perspectives that have been used by academics and practitioners

alike for conceptualizing brand equity are laid out. Consumer based brand

equity is explored at greater length, with a focus on K.L.Keller’s Brand

Knowledge Structure and Brand Equity Pyramid, which constitutes the basis

for portraying the Brand Equity Pyramid for the Bath Foams market.

Chapter=4- Methodology

This chapter presents the purpose of the study and the main research

objectives, along with the methodological framework, and the respective

methods of data collection and analysis of brand equity in the Bath Foams

market.

Chapter=5-=Main=Findings

The Main Findings chapter provides an outline of the primary and secondary

research findings. The exposition of the data takes place according to the

research objectives and against the background of the selected methods of

analysis.

Chapter=6- Conclusions and recommendations for future research

8

Finally, reflections on the main findings, focusing on Dove and Palmolive

brands are presented as concluding remarks, with an emphasis on the role of

brand communications and new product development as sources of consumer

based brand equity.

Conclusion

This chapter provided a summary of the main contents that make up the fabric

of this dissertation, which will be further explored in the following chapters.

9

CHAPTER 2: Industry Overview

10

==2.1=Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the Bath Foams category characteristics1.

It starts with a description of the category’s size in terms of value and volume

sales, growth, main distribution channels, structure and proceeds with an

exposition of the market players and key brands’ market shares. Then, allusion

is made to the key segments of the category and competitors’ activity in terms

of new product development and media spending levels.

2.2 Size,= growth= and= distribution= channels= of= the= Bath= Foams=

category

The Bath Foams category constitutes a significant part of the overall Body care

market that includes all products that relate to body treatment, such as Body

Lotions, Deodorants, Soaps, Liquid Hand Soaps and Anti cellulite Creams.

In Greece, category related consumer spending amounted to 44.000.000 €

value sales and 5.610.000 liters volume sales in 2004. During the last year, the

bath foams market grew slightly by 1%, while during the last 4 years the

market increased on average by 2% per year.

The main distribution channels through which the category is sold are the

following:

• Supermarkets/ Hypermarkets (80% of the category’s sales)

• Pharmacies/ Drugstore (10% of the category’s sales)

• Department Stores (such as Hondos, Beauty Shop) that absorb the rest

10% of the category’s sales.

2.3 Market=structure=and=key=brand=players

As regards structure, the Bath Foams market is rather fragmented, considering

that the leading brand’s value share (Johnson’s and Johnson’s) is 14%,

followed by Dove and Palmolive with 11% market share. However, Johnson

and Johnson’s largest proportion of market share stems from the baby and

1 All data contained in this chapter stem from AC Nielsen’s Body Care category report (Greece) 2004

11

family segments. In terms of market performance in the female Bath Foams

segment, Dove is the leading brand.

Table=1=– Share of market of key brands in the Bath Foams market

2004J&J 13,8%DOVE 11,0%PALMOLIVE 10,8%BADEDAS 7,8%LUX 7,3%SANEX 5,1%FA 4,9%NIVEA 2,8%ALL OTHERS 36,5%

Share of market

Source: AC Nielsen ScanTrack database 2004

The main companies and respective brands that compete in the Bath Foams

market are the following:

• Unilever with Dove, Lux and Axe brands

• Procter & Gamble with Camay and Noxzema brands

• Henkel with Fa brand

• Colgate Palmolive with Palmolive brand

• Sare Lee with Badedas, Sanex, Proderm, Inco and Fissan brands

• Johnson & Johnson with Johnson & Johnson brand

• BDF with Nivea brand

As regards market segmentation, the female segment has the highest

contribution in the category’s sales, with Dove and Palmolive being the major

competitors. Finally, certain brands, such as Axe and Gillette target solely the

male segment. The majority of the above mentioned brands (Dove, Axe, Fa,

Palmolive, Sanex, Johnson & Johnson, Nivea) also compete in other body care

categories (e.g Deodorants, Liquid Hand Soaps).

2.4 New= product= development= and= media= spending= in= the= Bath=

Foams category

The Bath Foams market is characterized by intense new product development

(more than 15 new products/line extensions are introduced every year) on

12

behalf of all competitors in their effort to enhance their competitive position in

the market. New products’ elements include new fragrances, end benefits

(advanced moisture, relaxation, sensuality, exfoliation etc.) and pack

aesthetics. With an increased interest in personal treatment, consumers appear

to be keen on trying new products and adopting those that offer innovative

attributes or enhancement of existing offerings. In addition, consumers appear

to be repertoire purchasers, being influenced by media communication and

value-adding promotions2.

With regard to media support, the category is highly advertised, considering

that the media to sales ratio is more than 15%, with reported media

expenditures of around 6.000.000 $ in 2004. Various communicative vehicles

are used to communicate the category by the majority of competitors, such as

television, radio, the internet, magazines, outdoor.

2.5 Conclusion

This chapter provided the frame of reference for this dissertation in terms of

market structure and characteristics. Insofar as the market is characterized by a

proliferation of new products and fragmentation, the sustainability of

distinctive product propositions in terms of brand equity is an issue that merits

exploration, as the next chapter will attempt to illustrate.

2 These behavioral characteristics stem from company funded Usage & Attitudes studies.

13

CHAPTER 3: Literature Review

14

=3.1=Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the main perspectives whereby brand

equity has been conceptualized. It opens up with a brief definition of “brand”,

which constitutes the very foundation of brand equity and proceeds with an

exposition of the concept of brand equity, how it emerged and why it is useful

to a wide range of business-related professions, including accountants and

marketers.

Pursuant to the definition of brand equity, the chapter hinges upon the three

broad perspectives that have been used so far by academics and practitioners

alike in the process of conceptualizing and putting brand equity in practice.

Since the main area of practice with which the authors are concerned is

marketing, particular emphasis is laid on the consumer-based brand equity

perspective. K.L.Keller’s Brand Knowledge Structure and Brand Equity

Pyramid are drawn upon in greater detail.

3.2 What is a brand and why is it relevant to brand management?

According to the American Marketing Association, a brand is “a name, term,

sign, symbol or design or a combination of them intended to identify the goods

and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from

those of competition” (quoted in Keller, 1998, p.2).

The key concept in the above definition is differentiation. Hence, a brand is

primarily what makes otherwise undifferentiated commodities look different to

the eyes of consumers and more importantly, being perceived as such. This

constitutes the integrated definition of a brand, as “a mechanism for achieving

competitive advantage through differentiation” (Wood, 2000, p.667). Insofar

as differentiation is a key source of sustainable competitive advantage, the

importance of branding can hardly be overlooked by today’s businesses. “The

strongest brands are those brands that have developed unique, meaningful

differences that set them apart in the mind of the consumer” (Biel, 1997).

“Brands, especially strong ones, have a number of different types of

associations and marketers must account for all of them in making marketing

decisions” (Keller, 1998, p.5).

15

Hence, insofar as branding is concerned with sustaining differences among

otherwise similar products and given that these differences are substantiated in

the form of the associations that consumers make about them, the management

of a brand should be concerned with systematically managing brand

associations. As Kapferer (1999, p.25) notes, “the value of a brand comes from

its ability to gain an exclusive, positive and prominent meaning in the minds of

a large number of consumers”. Pursuant to the definition of “brand”, the

concept of brand equity is explored in the ensuing sections.

3.3 The emergence of the concept of brand-equity

“The origins of measuring brand equity as a corporate asset lie in the takeover

battles of the 1970s, where a ledger value was found useful as a way of

recording intangible assets on the balance sheet” (Morgan, 1993).

“In a wave of mergers and acquisitions, triggered by attempts to take up

advantageous positions in the single European market, market transactions

pushed prices way above what could have been expected” (Kapferer,1999,

p.15).

Flat growth rates and the increasing concern with cost cutting initiatives and

aggressive market share acquisition paved the way for new ways of corporate

thinking, while the need for leveraging brands for enhancing profits emerged

to the forefront. “As support for this alternative, studies of consumer brands in

different markets found that successful brand extensions spent less on

advertising than comparable new products” (Pitta & Katsanis, 1995, p. 51). As

these rather extensive methods of reducing costs reached their apex, profit

boosting mechanisms were actively sought by businesses. One of the

mechanisms that were put forward was the application of financial measures to

corporate assets, both tangible and intangible. In this context, marketing

managers and researchers alike sought to attach a monetary value to brands

(Dyson, Farr, and Hollis, 1996). Prior to that critical turn, the concept of brand

image was peripheral; it was seen by many advertisers and researchers as of

little relevance to the real task of brand communications, that is to

communicate brand messages, induce brand switching or retaining the current

consumer franchise and increase sales. The emergence of the brand equity

concept was inextricably linked to the recognition of brands as primary agents

of cash generation.

16

Feldwick (1996) suggests that brand equity has three different aspects, that is

the value of a brand as a separable asset when sold or included in a balance

sheet, the string of associations, beliefs and feelings consumers have about the

brand and the strength of consumers' associations about a brand. In a nutshell,

the three main dimensions of brand equity, according to Feldwick, consist in

brand value, brand strength and brand image.

Despite the proliferation of research papers and models that have been

constructed in order to tackle this complex topic, there is no one widely

accepted definition of brand equity (Keller, 1999; Ehrenberg, 1997). The term

means different things to different companies and brands. However, there are

several common characteristics of the many definitions that are used today.

The following definitions are an attestation of the fact that brand equity is

multi-dimensional.

• The Marketing Science Institute (1998) defines brand equity as, "The set of

associations and behaviours on the part of the brand's customers, channel

members, and parent corporations that permit the brand to earn greater volume

or greater margins than it could without the brand name and that gives the

brand a strong, sustainable, and differentiated advantage over competitors"

(quoted in Srivastava & Shocker, 1991, p.5).

• According to David A. Aaker (1991), brand equity is "a set of brand assets and

liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol that add to or subtract from

the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or that firm's

customers."

• Keller (1998, p.44) stresses that “researchers studying brand equity at

least…acknowledge that brand equity provides a common denominator for

interpreting marketing strategies and assessing the value of a brand”.

There are several stake-holders concerned with brand equity, encompassing the

firm, the consumer, the trade, the financial market . However, the consumer is

indubitably the most critical component in defining brand equity. While brand

equity has come to stand for a financial concept associated with the valuation

17

placed on a brand, it is useful to recognise that the equity of a brand is driven

by brand image, a consumer (or customer) concept. (Biel 1991).

The benefits potentially stemming from building and managing effectively and

efficiently the equity of a brand have been widely explored by various

researchers. According to Keller (1998), brand equity may lead to greater

loyalty, less vulnerability to competitive market actions and market crises,

larger margins, more inelastic consumer response to price increases, more

elastic response to price decreases, greater trade cooperation and support,

increased market communication effectiveness, possible licensing

opportunities, additional brand extension opportunities. Morgan (2000) adds

that a brand with a strong equity might imply the incremental cash flow from

branding vs non-branding. Complementary to the benefits of brand equity to

the producer, De Chernatony (2001, p.31) stresses that “there are significant

benefits to the consumer, such as identification, which simplifies the brand

choice decision making process, efficient risk assessment as the brand offers a

guarantee of consistent product quality and a representation framework,

satisfying hedonistic needs of embodying social status”.

According to Biel (1997), two sets of attributes distinguish strong from weak

brands, what he calls ‘output’ and ‘input’ response items. Output items reflect

consumer reaction to strong versus weak brands, and include elements such as

relative perceived quality. Input elements include characteristics, such as

length of time in business. Stronger brands are more likely to be seen as

unique, they enjoy higher perceived quality relative to their competitors and

they are more likely to evoke vivid, rich imagery among consumers. Input

factors that differentiate strong brands included a sense of history; that stronger

brands have a higher likelihood of withstanding the 'test of time'. In addition,

as Morgan (2000) points out, strong brands are normally differentiated,

carrying clear perceptions, which allow them to maintain points of

differentiation against competition. The author draws another key distinction

regarding brand attributes, between those that pertain to functionality and

performance and the softer, more emotional and intangible issues related to

branding. Softer attributes are claimed to lead to the ‘affinity’ that consumers

have for the pure branded side of the product. The above distinction echoes the

classic distinction between tangible and intangible brand elements, which has

been employed extensively by both accountants and marketers over the years

18

(also rendered as product and non-product related attributes by Keller (1998)

or the ‘softer side’ of branding by Biel (1991, 1997), as will be further

discussed in the context of the consumer-based brand equity perspective).

Brand equity is built primarily via the employment of consistent aesthetic cues

and consistent messages (Keller, 1998), thus allowing consumers to distinguish

among brands and their product attributes. As consumers compare and contrast

the tangible product features in alliance with price and intangible elements

(such as projected user/usage image), they arrive at a set of products in a

category, which they consider for purchase, called the salient set. Therefore, a

brand’s equity is dependent on effective communications to the target

market(s), while it may be improved to some extent in tandem with

communications effectiveness. “The challenge of marketing communications

is to communicate the right message, in the right way, to the right people, in

the right place, at the right time” (Pickton & Broderick, 2003, p.13).

As regards the process of building brand equity on behalf of the consumer, it is

often described as a tradeoff exercise among various factors (Morgan, 1993) in

which consumers enter when they consider their salient set prior to making a

purchase decision. In particular, consumers actively trade off both the

perceived tangible benefits and the perceived intangible benefits delivered by

products in their salient set, against price, to arrive at a value hierarchy, which

forms the basis for the purchase decision. The above constitute a brief

overview of the conceptual model of the Brand Price Trade Off research

technique, which was developed by Morgan (1993) in order to explore brand

equity (which evolved into the much more complex research tool,

EquityEngine, see Morgan & Carter, 1998). Since then, a variety of models

have been coined by both academics (eg. Keller, Kapferer, Aaker, De

Chernatony) and practitioners (eg. Research International, Millward Brown,

JWT, Young & Rubicam, Brand Finance, Interbrand, EquiTrend) alike for

operationalizing the concept of brand equity.

Brands that have high perceived value have a greater likelihood of being

included in a consumer’s salient set. If a brand’s combined tangible and

intangible values are consistently higher than any other brand in the category,

that brand will have the highest customer loyalty in terms of purchase,

repurchase, and recommendation. Competing brands can only improve their

19

loyalty against the brand equity leader by lowering price in the short term,

improving their product’s tangible features in the mid term, or improving their

brand’s intrinsic values, or equity, in the long term. “Although price reductions

are more commonly employed to improve perceived value, in reality they are

often more expensive than adding value through various brand building

marketing activities” (Keller, 1998, p.187).

Hence, the emergence of the concept of brand equity came in recognition of

the value of brands as assets and the importance of managing them efficiently

and effectively with view to maintaining the long term viability of a company.

The focus of this chapter will now turn to an overview of the three main

perspectives, whereby brand equity has been conceptualized.

3.4 The three categories of brand-equity measures

The delineation of methods for measuring and managing brand equity is a

challenging task to marketing managers, advertisers, marketing researchers and

accountants, as the resulting value of a brand may be leveraged in order to

increase the likelihood of brand selection and ultimately lead to brand loyalty.

This challenge is even more demanding for fragmented and repertoire driven

markets, such as Bath Foams.

Recent literature addressing brand equity indicates that there are several

different approaches to measurement, largely falling under two major

categories, that is those concerned with the financial aspects of brand valuation

and those concerned with the consumer behavior aspects of brands (Pitta &

Katsanis, 1995). The consumer behavior category is further split into those

focusing on brand equity as a springboard for brand extensions (eg. Pitta &

Katsanis, 1995, De Chernatony & Martinez, 2004, Martinez & Pina, 2003) and

those focusing on the generic consumer effects of brand equity (eg. Aaker,

1991, 1997, Keller, 1998, 2001).

Brand equity can be addressed at either the corporate level or the category

level and can also be addressed using internal data or external data. The

different strands of thought tend not to dispute the others’ definitions, but

rather they recognize them while postulating their own versions. Authors (i.e.

20

Keller) often use the definitions of others as a springboard for their work,

while formulating their own definitions of brand equity.

In the subsequent sections the three different perspectives for conceptualizing

and measuring brand equity are displayed, that is the financial, the brand

extensions and the consumer-based brand equity perspective, with a focus on

the third one.

3.4.1 Financial Perspective

Exponents of the financial perspective of brand equity (Simon and Sullivan,

1993, Davis and Douglass, 1995) stress that without putting a monetary value

to each brand, companies are unable to quantify the total value of their assets.

The importance behind the need for this knowledge comes into play when a

company is incumbent on acquisition or attempts to counteract an aggressive

take over bid. Without a clear understanding of the value of each brand, the

worth of a company may be undervalued, which may lead to a financial loss

for the company’s stockholders (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, and Donthu, 1995;

Mahajan, Rao, and Srivastava, 1994).

The financial approach to defining brand equity is largely concerned with

assigning a measurable value to every brand a company owns or produces. The

researchers and marketing managers who use the financial approach propound

that a brand is a viable asset (Davis and Douglass, 1995). Therefore, a value

must be assigned to it, while brand equity by definition is an intangible asset.

The key challenge rests with determining this value. The methods utilized so

far include the value of brand names (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, and Donthu,

1995), and the cause and effect of advertising on brand loyalty and its

relationship to equity (Blackston, 1995; Oakenfull and Gelb, 1996). These

same mechanisms are used in the second area of financial evaluation, mergers

and acquisitions. Under or over valuations can create huge losses or excessive

profits for companies.

Kapferer (1997) reports that there are two major strands of thought for brand

valuation, the one relying on historical costs and the other on projected future

cash flows. “The financial value of the brand is the difference between the

21

extra revenue generated by the brand and the asociated costs for the next few

years, which are discounted back today” (Keller, 1998, p.32).

While there are many methods for conducting this measurement, some of

which are described below, it is important to note that there is a significant

difference between an "objective" valuation created for balance sheet purposes,

and the actual price that a brand may get when sold. “A certain amount of

uncertainty and heterogeneity, which are against the rules of caution, would be

created if these were included in the balance sheet” (Kapferer, 1997, p.386).

For acquisitions, the value of a brand to a certain consumer is often estimated

through scenario planning. This involves determining what future cash flows

could be achieved by the company if it owned and took advantage of the brand.

What this means is that there is no such thing as an absolute value for a brand,

and brand value must be considered as only one component of the overall

equity of a brand.

There are several possible ways to measure brand equity in financial terms, as

reported by Kapferer (1997, pp.398-410):

1. Valuation=by=replacement=costs: By taking the various characteristics of a

brand into account (awareness, relative market share, distribution network etc.)

an attempt is made to measure brand equity as the replacement cost of the

brand over a generic equivalent, that is how much it would take to build an

equivalent brand. Alternatively, replacement value can be estimated as book

value. Allegedly, this method suffers from a high level subjectivity.

2.=Valuation= by=market= price: Drawing on valuation practices popular in markets such as real estate, the valuation by market price approach attempts to

place a financial value on brands by looking at similar brands in the market.

The problem with this approach lies with the difference in that whereas in real

estate the price of a house remains the same irrespective of the use the owner

makes of it, in the case of brands, the price-setter is the consumer, based on the

perceptions s/he holds of brands. “In abstract terms, the purchase price is not

the price paid for the brand but is the interaction between brand and purchaser”

(Kapferer, 1997, p.400). Whether a brand can command the price asked for it

in the marketplace is in large part determined by how it is perceived by the

22

buyer, and whether someone continues to buy the same brand is also in large

part a function of their attitudes toward it (Dyson, P., Farr, A., and Hollis , N.,

1996).

3. Valuation=by=potential=earnings: Brand Equity is evaluated by discounting

the value of future earnings projections and adding to the value the cost

competitors would incur if they duplicated the brand.

4. Incremental=Cash= Flow= from= Branding: Brand equity is estimated by

determining the cash flows of a brand and subtracting the cash flows from an

unbranded product. The estimation challenge becomes more difficult as the

product of interest belongs to an increasingly differentiated category. For

example, it is harder to find a generic equivalent for cars than for cigarettes.

5. Price/Earnings Multiplier: Multiplying current earnings by an estimate for

P/E multiple yields an equity price. The critical step is estimating the P/E

multiplier. One approach that has been put forward is to measure brand

strength by a weighted average of seven factors (Penrose, 1989). Then, the P/E

multiplier is estimated using and S-shaped relationship between brand strength

and the P/E multiple that is based on similarities to risk free rates, industry

rates, and other factors.

In addition to the aforementioned methods, Interbrand, which calculates the

worth of the world’s most valuable brands on an annual basis, examines the

economic profit that a brand generates for the underlying business (Motameni

& Shahrokhi, 1998). This valuation process comprises three areas of brand

profitability: the future economic earnings that the branded business is

expected to generate, the role of the brand in generating those earnings and the

risk profile of the brand’s expected earnings. Essentially, Interbrand dissects a

company’s profit-and-loss statement to assign a value to the business’s brands.

Morgan (1993) illustrates Interbrand’s brand valuation process as follows:

23

Table=2- Interbrand’s brand valuation process

Branding=multiple Brand=earningsProfit before tax Subjective marks for:

Less profits from own label market leadership

Weighting from previous years market type

Disregards future profits trend

investmentprotection

Brand=valuation==

(some=multiple)=x=brand=earnings

Adapted from Morgan, R.P., 1993, p.6

The author criticizes Interbrand’s model as a subjective process that dwells on

past performance at the expense of future profits.

The major disadvantage with the financial approach of defining brand equity is

that it focuses on maximizing short-term goals at the expense of long-term

growth (Aaker, 1992; Davis and Douglass, 1995). “This is not to say that the

‘accountancy’ driven definition is wrong, merely that its usefulness is

elsewhere, and that any attempt to understand individual patterns of purchasing

behaviour must grapple with the way individuals perceive brands, and the way

in which these perceptions lead to some kind of brand standing or strength”

(Morgan, 2000, p.4).

3.4.2 Brand Extensions Perspective

The second major perspective in conceptualizing and measuring brand equity

is concerned with brand extensions (Pitta and Katsanis, 1995; Baldinger,

1990). In this context, brand equity is approached in terms of a brand’s ability

to act as a springboard for the development of similar brand types (extensions).

“Recent history shows that more than half of the new brands marketed during

the 1980s were extensions of existing products, marketed under existing brand

names” (Pitta & Katsanis, 1995, p. 51).

24

The main thrust that transverses the argumentation in the relevant literature is

that the more equity a brand holds, the more capable it is of expanding into

relevant territories. The parent brand may effectively act as a springboard for

stretching into the same, similar or different product categories. Based on the

parent brand associations stored in consumers’ memories, it is less cost

effective to gain awareness, favorability and brand salience (Keller, 1998).

Brand extensions may revitalize the parent brand, yield incremental sales,

enlarge the scope of the existing consumer franchise; however, extensions may

also alienate an existing consumer base, cannibalize parent brand sales and

dilute its image (Martinez & Pina, 2003). Extending a brand essentially entails

enlarging the breadth and depth of parent brand associations, in such as way as

to enable the extension to gain in brand salience and the favored associations

of the parent brand to migrate into its kernel.

According to Keller (1998, p.472) the benefits of an extension will depend

primarily on the following three main factors:

- how salient parent brand associations are in the minds of consumers in the

extension context

- how favorable any inferred associations are in the extension context

- how unique any inferred associations are in the extension category

By assessing current brand value and past performance, a prediction can be

made about potential future growth (Pitta and Katsanis, 1995). The same holds

for brand extensions. As Keller (1998) and Aaker (1996) remark, the costs of

introducing new brands into the market are significantly higher than they were

20 years ago. Barwise (1993) explains that brand extensions generally have

lower start-up costs than do brands introduced with new names. Furthermore,

calculations of existing brand equity can be used to determine what

contributing elements can be transferred to the brand extensions (Baldinger,

1990), by focusing on key structural elements of a brand, such as name, slogan,

symbols etc.

Despite the fact that the brand extensions approach takes into account the

consumer-based perspective, it is still largely grounded in economic theory. In

25

the next section, the third major perspective, that is consumer-based brand

equity, is described.

3.4.3 Consumer-based Brand Equity Perspective

The third major perspective consists in a consumer-based perspective of brand

equity (Aaker, 1991; Blackston, 1995, Kapferer, 1997, Keller, 1998, Morgan,

1999). Authors in this field are primarily concerned with psychological,

attitudinal and behavioral aspects in an attempt to establish causal links

between market performance and equity related variables or research data,

such as brand usage, purchase intention, price sensitivity. In this way, they

allow the voice of the customer to enter the brand valuation process. “Brand

equity is based on psychological indicators, which are measured from the

consumers’ point of view and is only worth something if it results in extra

profits” (Kapferer, 1997, p.388).

Aaker (1991, pp.109-113) stresses that consumers use brand associations to

help process, organize and retrieve information in memory and to aid them in

making purchase decisions. He demarcates brand equity as a set of five

categories of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, that is brand

awareness, brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand associations and other

proprietary assets (eg. patents, trademarks and trade relationships). Based on

these five categories Aaker puts forward a systematic perspective that attempts

to encapsulate brand strength. The components of his model consist in the

following:

Brand Awareness: It indicates the function of the brand as a seal of guarantee;

it constitutes the platform upon which more associations may be nurtured,

while signaling the potential of including the brand in consumers’ salient set.

Brand= Loyalty: Ensures reduced marketing costs, enables trade leverage,

creates reassurance, while establishing a stronghold in times of fierce

competitive pressure.

26

Perceived=Quality: Signals the achievement of differential positioning, while

providing a substantial reason-why for purchase, also functioning as a

precursor to brand loyalty.

Brand=Associations: Enables the retrieval and processing of brand related

information, allow for brand differentiation, while creating positive

attitudes/feelings.

Other=proprietary=assets: Including patents, R&D know how, trade goodwill,

or whatever other source may lead to competitive advantage.

According to Aaker (1991), all the above brand equity elements allow

consumers to process brand related information in a meaningful way, to

develop brand related associations, and to gain satisfaction from brand usage.

On the part of the company, they ensure the effective and efficient deployment

of marketing programs, while enabling to command higher prices/margins and

ultimately lead to a sustainable competitive advantage.

In order for brand equity to be built, brands must primarily be meaningful to

consumers. The remainder of this chapter will delve into the essence of brand

meaning, how it is constructed and how it may be researched in the Bath

Foams category with view to rendering brand equity manageable.

Exponents of the consumer-based perspective focus on consumers’ attitudinal

and behavioral patterns in order to determine brand equity. The key

components of these patterns are awareness and brand image. The challenge is

to combine these features into a composite view of how the consumer

perceives brand equity.

In order to systematically account for how consumers perceive brand equity,

Keller (1998) uses a multi-step approach in formulating his brand knowledge

model.

27

Figure=1- Keller’s Brand Knowledge Structure

Adapted from K.L.Keller, 1998, p.94

The two basic features of the model are brand awareness and brand image.

"Brand awareness can play a dominant role in brand choice if the customer has

strong awareness of some brands, but not of other brands, in part because

brands with little awareness are unlikely to be considered for purchase"

(Srinivasan 2001, pp.7-8). Awareness consists of brand recall and recognition.

Brand-image consists of type, favorability, strength, and uniqueness of brand

associations. “It defines the cluster of attributes and associations that

consumers connect to the brand name” (A.Biel, 1991, p.71).

Keller believes that by building favorable brand associations, the consumer

will develop a positive attitude towards the brand. The more needs the brand

satisfies, the more positive the attitude and the more positive the brand

knowledge imprint. “In particular, raising brand awareness increases the

likelihood that the brand will be a member of the consideration set, the handful

of brands that receives serious consideration for purchase” (Keller 1998, p. 91).

As the strength of the memory imprint increases, the greater the likelihood that

28

the information (knowledge) will become accessible to the consumer when

s/he actively thinks about a product. Awareness is built over time, through

consumers’ multiple encounters with a brand and its constituent elements, that

is logo, slogan, packaging, brand character. The vehicles whereby awareness is

built are all forms of brand communications, both above and below the line,

that is TV, radio, outdoor, magazine advertising, instore and onpack

promotions, sponsorships, public relations etc. However, “awareness is a

necessary, but not always sufficient step in building brand equity” (Keller

1998, p.92).

Brand image is the second important equity concept, which has been defined

by Keller (1998, p.92) as “perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand

associations held in consumer memory”. De Chernatony (2001, p.6) contends

that "associations tend to be stored in terms of metaphors and, importantly,

they tend to aggregate in clusters". Brand associations, in turn, are classified by

Keller into three major categories, that is attributes, benefits and attitudes.

Attributes are classified into product-related (primary brand associations), eg.

the purely functional base of products, such as ingredients, color, texture and

non-product related (secondary brand associations), such as price, usage/user

imagery, feelings and experiences and brand personality. Benefits refer to the

personal meaning consumers assign to the product attributes. Keller (1998)

identifies three main categories of benefits, that is functional benefits (deriving

from product-related attributes), symbolic benefits (deriving from non-product

related attributes) and experiential benefits (deriving from both categories of

attributes). The culmination of attributes and perceived benefits is the

formation of brand-related attitudes, which determine the strength, favorability

and uniqueness of brand associations.

After establishing the consumer knowledge structure of the brand, brand

managers need to determine what actions to take to capitalize on this

knowledge structure. The brand managers must decide on the core needs and

wants of consumers to be satisfied by the brand. Once these core needs are

identified, the appropriate tactics can be implemented. Also, brand managers

need to select the appropriate brand elements for effectively covering these

needs. Brand elements, according to Keller (1998, pp.135-172) consist in

brand name, logos and symbols, brand characters, slogans, jingles, packaging.

29

Pursuant to the exposition of the Brand Knowledge structure, Keller & Davey

(2001) proceeded with the construction of the Brand Equity Pyramid. The

brand equity pyramid essentially constitutes a portrayal of the key components

of brand equity. Keller & Davey conceives of the model as a sequential

process with four distinctive steps, as follows:

(i) ensuring identification of the brand with customers and an association of the

brand in customers’ mind with a specific product class or customer need

(ii) establishing the totality of brand meaning in the minds of customers by

strategically linking a host of tangible and intangible brand associations

(iii) eliciting the proper customer responses to brand identity and brand

meaning

(iv) converting brand response to create an intense, active loyalty between

customers and the brand

From this stepwise process, Keller & Davey identify 6 brand-building blocks,

which are portrayed in the Pyramid as follows:

Figure=2- Keller’s and Davey’s Brand Equity Pyramid

Adapted from K.L.Keller & K.K.Davey, 2001, p. 9

30

3.5 Brand Equity Pyramid in the Bath Foams category

This section outlines a rendition of the Brand Equity Pyramid, by drawing on

Keller’s & Davey’s work, as it is to our view, the most comprehensive model

up to date for researching brand equity. Aaker’s work is indispensable in the

construction of a conceptual model, however it constitutes a “series of

guidelines rather than a fixed model” (Cooper, 1998). Also, as Keller (1998,

p.625) himself stresses, his own model, compared to Aaker’s conceptualization

of brand equity, “permits a more definitive set of recommendations and

guidelines concerning how to build, measure and manage brand equity”.

Drawing on the above model, brand equity in the Bath Foams category is

operationalized in the following fashion:

Figure=3- Rendition=of Keller’s=and=Davey’s=Brand=Equity=Pyramid=in=the=

Bath Foams market

This rendition draws on Keller’s pyramid, however constitutes a more

customized approach for the Bath Foams category as regards the attributes that

31

make up its edifice, which will be displayed in due course. The basic variables

or brand building blocks of the Pyramid are explained below:

1. Salience-=Brand=Awareness: As already explained, awareness is a threshold

criterion for building brand equity, which brands must pass successfully in

order to climb to the higher strata of the pyramid. Brand salience merely

denotes that a brand is likely to be considered in the context of the next

purchase among a roster of brands that respond equally well to a given set of

requirements. “To be potentially salient, a brand has to be distinctive in its

name and logo, so that the consumer is able to focus on Bingo and select it.

But Bingo does not have to be 'best'. Nor does Bingo even have to seem to be

better than Bango, which would often be difficult to achieve. It only has to be

regarded well enough to continue to be salient to that consumer as once of the

brands he or she might buy” (Ehrenberg et al, 1997, p.5). According to

Ehrenberg et al there is an enormous gap between brand salience and

differentiation, thus pointing to the strenuous ascendance from the bottom of

the equity pyramid to the higher strata that lead up to identification.

2. Performance/Imagery: Simply put, “what a brand can do, moreover, what it

may be perceived as doing”. This is another key aspect of the bath foams

equity pyramid, as successful brands must be perceived as being capable of

meeting key consumer requirements, such as the ones laid out in the respective

part of our equity attributes list (see below table). In line with Keller’s and

Davey’s model, this list includes both tangible and intangible elements, such as

“has a moisturizing effect” in the case of the former, and “leaves skin looking

younger”, in the case of the latter.

3. Experiential=benefits/=Value/Quality=perceptions: Again in line with Keller’s

and Davey’s definitions, the variable of experiential benefits reflects brand

feelings, that is the “emotional reactions to the brand that relate to the social

currency the brand evokes” (Keller & Davey, 2001). The variable of

value/quality essentially reflects the perceived quality of brands in the Bath

Foams category.

4. Identification: Holding its rightful place in the apex of the equity pyramid, the

variable of identification is the culmination of brand management efforts and

the overarching aim of every successful brand. Identifications describes the

extent to which perceived image, benefits and experiences have managed to

colonize consumers’ personality, gain in consumer involvement and ultimately

make them part of their “extended self”. “In this case, consumers themselves

32

become brand evangelists and help to communicate the brand and strengthen

the brand ties of others” (Keller & Davey, 2001).

The list of attributes that is employed in the operationalization of each of the

strata of the Brand Equity Pyramid in the Bath Foams market is displayed in

the Table 3:

Table= 3-= Bath= Foams Brand= Equity= Pyramid= Building= blocks= and=

attributes

Performance/Imagery

Foams well

Cleans well

Has fragrances I love

Has long lasting fragrance

Clinically Tested

Has a moisturising effect

Gentle on skin

Keeps skin healthy

Purifying effect on skin

Leaves skin looking younger

Beauty treatment for my skin

Does not dry the skin

Contains natural ingredients

Like texture/consistency

Identification

A bath foam would choose for myself

Suitable for the whole family

Suitable for children

Experiential benefits

Brand enjoy using

Makes everyday cleansing more

pleasurable

Makes innovative exciting bath foam

Good for relaxing

Provides overall wellbeing

Refreshing

Value/Quality perceptions

33

Good quality

Has a competitive price

These attributes have been found to be the most relevant for the category in the

context of preceding qualitative surveys (company-funded).

3.6 Consumer-based Brand Equity and market performance

As may be gathered from the literature review so far, brand equity is a

condition sine qua non for strong and viable brands. Morgan (2000), among

others, contends that brands with a strong equity cherish increased market

share, premium pricing, reduced promotional expenses. Insofar as these

marketing variables are central to brand management, we intend to first explore

whether there is a relationship between brand equity and market share and

value/volume sales. For most brands, their equity is a strong indicator of their

market share (Khandelwal, M. and McKinney, C., 2003). Therefore, in order to

drive future market performance, understanding the specifics of brand equity in

conjunction with marketing fundamentals is a critical step.

When brand equity and market share are proportional, frequently the specific

sources of the respective brand equity indices, i.e., brand familiarity and

imagery can provide a clear understanding of how to continue to strengthen

market share. “Weaknesses in brand familiarity indicate awareness and trial

building strategies for share growth, while weaknesses in brand imagery

indicate positioning issues, a need to refocus on favourable and unique brand

associations or potentially the need to explore target consumer issues”

(Khandelwal, M. and McKinney, C., 2003).

Which of these different scenarios envisioned by the authors prevail in the

Bath Foams category? Is there sufficient differentiation among the key brand

players for creating sustainable associations, brand equity and competitive

advantage? These questions, alongside others that emerge from the respective

literature will be further consolidated in the next chapter in the context of the

research objectives.

34

3.7 Measuring consumer based brand equity

Pursuant to the delineation of the components of consumer based brand equity,

what it means (in terms of brand associations) and what are the structural

elements that make up its conceptual edifice (in terms of logos, symbols,

packaging), a brief mention on methods of measurement is deemed necessary

prior to proceeding with the exposition of the research methodology.

Keller (1998) distinguishes between two types of measurement, that is those

concerned with the sources and those concerned with the outcomes of brand

equity, as well as between qualitative and quantitative research methods. In

addition, Morgan (2000) draws a distinction between descriptive and

prescriptive consumer-based brand equity research methods, that is between

methods that yield brand diagnostics, as a snapshot of a given time period

(similar to the one that is pursued in this study) and methods that yield brand

prognostics, based on longitudinal studies and methods, such as time series

analyses and multivariate regression.

Quantitative methods of measuring sources of brand equity “employ various

types of scale questions so that numerical representations and summaries can

be made” (Keller, 1998, p.325). They may be used to “better assess the depth

and breadth of brand awareness and the strength, favourability and uniqueness

of brand associations” (Keller, 1998, p.325). Awareness may be gauged by

asking consumers which brands they know of in the context of a given product

category, either spontaneously or in a prompted fashion. As regards the

strength of brand associations, it may be gauged by either asking consumers to

simply state whether an attribute matches a brand (eg. “Do you agree with the

following list of statements regarding brand A”?) in a Yes/No fashion or by

asking them to give a score on a Likert scale (eg.1-7) reflecting the degree to

which they associate an attribute with a brand or rating a brand on a semantic

differential scale with bipolar adjectives (eg. No smell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Intense

smell) (Keller 1998).

As regards quantitative methods for measuring outcomes of consumer-based

brand equity, Keller (1998) reports two major trends, that is comparative

(brand based and market based) and holistic methods. “Brand based

comparative approaches use experiments in which one group of consumers

35

responds to an element of the marketing program or some marketing activity

when it is attributed to the target brand and another group responds to that

same element or activity when it is attributed to a competitive or fictitiously

named brand. Marketing based comparative approaches use experiments where

consumers respond to changes in elements of the marketing program or

marketing activity for the target brand or competitive brands” (p.345). Holistic

methods (Keller, 1998) attempt to place an overall value for the brand in either

abstract utility terms or concrete financial terms. Holistic methods tend to

either produce a single brand value (or equity score) in the context of a single

study (for example see Morgan, 1993 on how a brand equity score may be

produced from discreet utility values that emerge through a process of conjoint

analyses from partial equity variables, including attributes and attitudes, along

with price) or by combining attribute based components (gauging the sources

of brand equity) and non attribute based components (eg sales or market share

figures).

Qualitative studies of brand equity draw largely on the similar conceptual

constructs as quantitative studies; however the methods used vary, as expected.

As regards qualitative methods for exploring sources of consumer based brand

equity, Keller (1998) cites free association3 (asking consumers what comes to

mind when thinking about a brand) and a series of projective techniques, which

be illustrated further in Chapter 4.

The following paragraphs report relevant research studies that have attempted

to measure either sources or outcomes of consumer based brand equity or both.

Khandelwal and McKinney (2003) bore on AC Nielsen’s WinningBrands

model, which has been constructed on the grounds of equity attributes. The

authors draw on Keller’s conceptual framework and coined a proxy variable of

emotive brand loyalty (based on the extent to which consumers would

recommend their preferred brand). They combine emotive loyalty with

consumers’ willingness to pay a price premium for their preferred brand, while

applying multivariate regression analytical methods in order to produce a

Brand Equity Index (from 1 to 10) for each brand. Their research in various

product categories indicated that brand equity correlates with market share in 3 Also see Chen (2001) for an application of quantitatively measured free association in determining brand equity

36

most categories, however with some exceptions. These exceptions were found

to be largely attributed to a lack of differential positioning of brands. In

addition, various research studies conducted by Morgan (2000), also echoing

work done by Jones and Sasser (1996) pointed out that the size of the gap

between high equity ranking brands and the probability of choosing them is

highly category specific.

Lassar, Mittal and Sharma (1995) produced a brand equity model based on 17

attributes, which were reduced to five equity dimensions (image, value, trust,

performance, attachment) through exploratory factor analysis and the

concomitant application of discriminant analysis for measuring the

discriminant validity among factors. After confirming the hypothesis that

brand equity correlates with price perceptions they drew on the widely-held

assumption that brand communications aid in the creation and sustenance of

brand equity in order to point out that promotions techniques may help in

ameliorating equity factors, in which brands underperform.

Hollis, Farr and Dyson (1996) developed the Consumer Value model, which

developed into the Brand Dynamics system (later evolving into Millward

Brown’s brand equity tracking method, BRANDZ). Brand Dynamics is

displayed in a pyramid format, similar to Keller’s conceptual construct. The

factors taken into account for the construction of the model are consideration

of inclusion of a brand in the salient set, brand size, price responsiveness,

which gauges in crude terms the price sensitivity of consumers towards certain

brands in their salient set. The model’s approach is predictive and has been

applied in numerous tracking studies in order to point out to brand’s potential

share of requirements4. A brand’s consumer value was found by the

researchers to correlate highly with the brand’s share of requirements,

following a holistic approach, as previously explained, that is combining

primary research data with objective (eg. AC Nielsen’s) metrics to arrive at a

validated consumer based brand equity model. Pursuant to the validation of the

relevance of the concept of brand equity in terms of responsiveness, size and

price they proceeded with the operationalization of the components of brand

equity, by bearing on Aaker’s conceptual constructs. The culmination of their

4 Share of requirements is a term coined by ACNielsen in the context of analyzing Home Panel consumer tracking data, denoting the percentage of a brand’s volume sales based on consumers’ category purchase patterns

37

research was the portrayal of brand equity in terms of the Brand Dynamics

pyramid.

Figure=4- Brand Dynamics Pyramid

Adapted from Dyson, P., Farr, A., and Hollis , N., 1996, Figure 2

According to the authors, presence is exhibited in unaided awareness of the

brand name (similar to our definition of brand salience as the bottom of the

Equity Pyramid for the Bath Foams market); relevance consists in

demonstrating how a brand is capable of fulfilling at least some of the key

criteria the consumer has for the intended purchase. Then, the brand’s

performance must deliver the intended benefits against the standards set by the

competition, while demonstrating that is has a competitive advantage over the

competition against criteria that are deemed to be relevant. Ultimately, having

passed successfully through the preceding stages, a brand gains bonded

consumers, resulting in identification of the consumer franchise in terms of

match between high ranking category criteria (or key value drivers) and the

brand’s deliverables, in terms of benefits, attitudes, associations. A micro-

modelling approach is followed in this model (that is focusing on individual

Informant data, similar to the one advocated by Morgan, 1998,2000). Since

this a proprietary research model, the analytics that take place behind the

model are not open to scrutiny. For example, it is not clarified whether the five

equity dimensions were produced via factor analysis (as is the case of Lassar,

Mittal and Sharma’s above cited research model) or whether the category

38

specific key value drivers that constitute the relevance dimension are produced

by a direct questioning method or an indirect method .

Leuthesser, Kohli & Harich (1995) produced a very interesting brand equity

research, by showing how the effect of ‘brand size’ may distort equity data, by

drawing on the much discussed phenomenon of ‘halo effect’. They drew on the

method of double-centered normalization for purging data of the halo effect,

thus providing brand managers with a more accurate reading of quantitative

data5 .

Finally, Low and Lamb (2000), among other research objectives, sought to

explore whether the degree of dimensionality of brand associations varies

depending on a brand’s familiarity, where they found a positive correlation

(77%) between the successful discriminant validity tests for each surveyed

brand and the level of brand familiarity (measured on a 1-7 scale). Brand

familiarity essentially denotes the same phenomenon as presence (as coined by

Andy, Farr and Hollis) or brand salience and may be approximated by using

spontaneous brand awareness (as quoted in Keller’s model).

3.8 Conclusion

As this chapter illustrated, brand equity is a polymorphic concept, while a

string of perspectives have been coined over the past twenty years for coping

with the sheer complexity of this construct. While recognizing the usefulness

of the financial and brand extensions approaches, the consumer-based brand

equity perspective has been found to be the most relevant for the purposes of

the study at hand. The consumer-based brand equity perspective aids in

systematically unearthing consumer associations that underpin brand equity

and allows for the determination of the extent to which there is sufficient

differentiation among brands. Keller’s and Davey’s conceptual constructs are

deemed to be the most comprehensive and practical for the purposes of this

study. Their work is largely drawn upon the rendition the Brand Equity

Pyramid for the Bath Foams market. Last, but not least, circumstantial research

evidence was found to be suggestive of a clear relationship between brand

5 cf.4.6, Objective 3

39

equity and market share, which merits exploration in the selected target

market.

40

CHAPTER 4: Methodology

41

4.1 Introduction

The previous chapter illustrated the various strands of thought pertaining to

brand equity. Having focused on the perspective of consumer-based brand

equity as the most dominant and relevant among them, this chapter lays out the

research objectives, the methodological framework, and the respective methods

of data collection and analysis.

4.2 Purpose of the study/Research Objectives

The purpose of the study is to draw on the existing brand equity literature and

provide a descriptive overview of sources and outcomes of key brands’ equity

in the bath foams market. “Measuring sources of customer-based brand equity

requires measuring various aspects of brand awareness and brand image that

potentially can lead to the differential customer response that creates brand

equity” (Keller 1998, p.310)

More specifically, the research objectives consist of the following:

1. To determine the most important equity dimensions (category’s key value

drivers) in the Brand Equity Pyramid.

2. To determine the relationship between brand equity and market performance in

the Bath Foams category in the Greek market.

3. To identify differences among the key competitors in the Greek Bath Foams

category in terms of consumer-based brand equity.

4. To provide a descriptive overview of the primary and secondary brand

associations of key brand players, in terms of attributes, benefits, attitudes and

on the grounds of the key equity dimensions making up the Brand Equity

Pyramid.

4.3 Research Approach

4.3.1 Overview of Research Methodology

The research methodology consists of a combined quantitative/qualitative

approach. The pursuit of a combined methodology endows the study both with

the robustness of quantitatively collected and analysed data, as well as the

42

depth of the insights that is mandatory for such a delicate research subject

matter as brand equity. In addition, they complement each other in terms of

responding to the disadvantages inherent in each approach.

Overall, both indirect and direct methods for gauging sources and outcomes of

brand equity were employed. According to Keller “an indirect approach can

assess potential sources of customer-based brand equity by identifying and

tracking consumers’ brand knowledge structures. A direct approach, on the

other hand, could measure customer-based brand equity more directly by

assessing the actual impact of brand knowledge on consumer response to

different elements of the marketing program” (Keller, 1998, p. 308).

Finally, the methodological approach of this study is descriptive and not

prescriptive. Malhotra & Birks (1999, p.79) define descriptive research as

“describing something, usually market characteristics or functions”, among

which lies the determination of the degree to which marketing variables are

associated, as displayed in subsequent sections.

4.3.2 Quantitative Research

“Quantitative measures of brand knowledge can be employed to better assess

the depth and breadth of brand awareness and the strength, favourability and

uniqueness of brand associations” (Keller 1998, p.325). Quantitative

methodology mainly addresses issues of validity and reliability, however it is

insufficient in addressing latent consumer associations (Objective 4), which

may be unearthed via the employment of a qualitative methodology, as

discussed in the ensuing section. Quantitative research in this study yielded the

background against which primary qualitative research took place, in order to

gain an elaborate perspective on the insights generated through the former. In

particular, secondary quantitative research data were employed additional

analyses were conducted on raw data with view to meeting the first three

objectives of this study.

4.3.3 Qualitative Research

“Qualitative research techniques are often employed to identify possible brand

associations and sources of brand equity. Qualitative research techniques are

43

relatively unstructured measurement approaches whereby a range of possible

consumer responses are permitted” (Keller 1998, p.311)

Objective 4 primarily seeks to systematically describe brand associations;

associations gathered through quantitative methodologies are elicited verbally

and reside in the conscious part of perception, whereas verbal representation is

only a mode among many (eg verbal, visual, sensory, emotional) (Supphellen,

2004). Given that brand associations reside more often than not in the spheres

of the pre and unconscious (Supphellen, 2004), then a qualitative research

methodology may allow for an elucidation of these latent perceptions and help

construct a system of brand associations. The pursuit of a qualitative

methodology may aid in, if not overcoming, at least mitigating consumers’

“unwillingness or inability to reveal true feelings, which are particularly

evident when consumers are asked about brands characterized by non-product

related image associations” (Keller 1998, p.314), such as those under scrutiny.

The disadvantages of qualitative research methodology consist of the high

level of subjectivity inherent in the process of eliciting brand associations out

of verbal and non-verbal (eg pictorial, such as those gathered via collage

exercises) representations. However, instead of disregarding the voice of

consumers in the elicitation of brand associations, Supphellen (2004) contends

that researchers should focus on how to ask better questions, or rather on how

to help consumers express their brand associations.

4.4 Research Design

4.4.1 Quantitative method

In order to meet the first three objectives identified in 4.2 and on the grounds

of previous studies employing similar methods as illustrated in 3.7, a string of

analyses were conducted on the grounds of secondary equity-related attribute

data that were collected during a company-funded equity research in 2004. The

category specific attributes (cf.3.5) that were included in the respective battery

of attributes in the research questionnaire were validated regarding their

relevance through extensive qualitative past research studies, commissioned by

the company.

44

The structure of the question from which the attributes evaluation was elicited

by the consumers who participated in the study was formed in an associative

fashion, asking consumers to state whether Attribute A matches Brand A (cf.

3.7), and so forth for the attributes/brands matrix under scrutiny.

In order to meet the second objective in particular, concerning the relationship

of equity scores with market performance (the holistic aspect explained in 3.7)

additional data from AC Nielsen’ ScanTrack database (market shares,

volume/value sales, weighted distribution figures, pricing, promotional

intensity) and Media Services (advertising expenditures and share of voice)

were used, spanning the same period as the equity data (that is annual 2004

figures). All of the analyses on secondary equity data, discussed in 4.6 were

conducted by the authors of this study. “Examination of available secondary

data is a prerequisite to the collection of primary data. Start with secondary

data. Proceed to primary data only when the secondary data sources have been

exhausted or yield marginal returns” (Malhotra & Birks, 1999, p.99).

The target group profile where the equity research was conducted consists of

Women, ABC1C2 S/E, aged between 18 and 44 years old who are primary

household consumers (primary characteristics of Bath Foams category users).

660 face-to-face interviews were conducted in a nationally representative

group of Informants via the employment of a structured questionnaire. Specific

quotas were set in terms of brand usage, while all respondents must have used

at least two of the investigated brands in the bath foams category (Palmolive,

Dove, Lux, Sanex, FA, Nivea, Papoutsanis, Badedas) in the past six months

prior to that study. Quotas based on brand usage were set in order to ensure

that respondents’ level of familiarity with a brand does not rest solely with

name recognition, but a set of brand related associations will have been formed

through brand usage (as explained in the Literature Review, brand usage is a

major source of forming primary and secondary brand associations).

4.4.2 Qualitative method

In order to gain additional insights into consumer based brand associations

(Objective 4) and a further understanding of the differential positioning of

brands, ten in-depth interviews were conducted among women, ABC1C2 S/E,

aged between 18 and 44 years old who are primary household consumers.

45

“Personal interviews are preferred [authors’ note: over focus groups] because

of their superior potential to delve deeply into the memories of Informants by

means of long, personal and individually adapted probing (Zaltman 1997;

Malhotra 1999)” (quoted in Supphellen, 2004).

In terms of sample selection, specific filters were used during the screening

phase of the selection process in terms of brand usage and brand awareness. In

particular, the recruited consumers must have been main users of one of the

key brands under investigation, that is Palmolive, Dove, Lux, Sanex, FA,

Nivea, Papoutsanis, Badedas Also, they must have used Palmolive during the

past year and not being rejectors of the brand. Particular emphasis was laid

during the determination of our qualitative research sample on the Palmolive

brand, insofar as it constitutes the focal point of our research.

The research design took place on the grounds of a discussion guide, in order

to allow consumers to express themselves in as a natural way as possible. In

the context of the in-depth interviews, projective techniques were used for

tapping into consumers’ latent brand associations. “Projective techniques go

beyond language to capture other ways in which we encode our experience- as

sensations, an ambience and atmosphere, visual memories, treasured instances”

(Branthwaite & Cooper, 2001, p.3). Hence, an array of techniques was

employed for eliciting latent perceptions pertaining to brand associations (as

illustrated in Supphellen, 2004) such as the following:

Free=Association: It provides a “rough indication of the relative strength,

favourability and uniqueness of brand associations” (Keller 1998, p.312).

Metaphors/Analogies: What would a brand be if it were a woman, a planet, a

movie, an actor/ress? With the employment of such Object Projective

Techniques (OPT), “impressions of brands are largely represented in memory

in terms of metaphors because this is an effective way to understand and store

impressions about brands (Supphellen, 2004). Also, given that the ultimate

purpose of the study (cf. Chapter 6) is to pin down equity particularities of the

two main brands in the category, Palmolive and Dove, a social interaction

technique was employed. This technique enables the elicitation of associations

as to what equity elements might act as a bridge between the two brands, such

as “What kind of discussion these two brands would enter if they met in a

bar?”.

46

Moodboard= technique: Informants were instructed to select any kind of

pictures (people, objects, colors, landscapes etc.) from magazines or

newspapers that represent what they think or feel about the brand.

Probing: Progressively digging deeper into latent perceptions on the grounds

of asking for qualification of primary associations (snowballing technique).

For example, when common places are referred to, such as “it is a quality

brand”, “it is a premium” brand, then consumers were probed into defining

what these terms mean to them. This process effectively allows for the creation

of links between perceived brand values (which are also highly dependent on

the variable extent of use and familiarity with a brand) and consumers’ own

belief systems.

Brand= Mapping:=On the grounds of the two category benefits consumers

deemed to be most important to them, they were asked to create a two-

dimensional map and position the brands of which they are aware according to

the level of proximity each brand has to the respective axis (each axis

corresponding to a category criterion).

The following section lays out the discussion guide and the interviewing

process that was followed during the qualitative phase.

4.4.2.1=In-depth interviews Discussion Guide

The discussion guide contains the main research areas and the guidelines that

governed the flow of the interview process. The process started with more

generic, category-wide questions and proceeded to more in-depth, brand-

specific elicitation techniques.

Stage=1

Perceptions / Habits in relation to Bath Foams (in brief)

Free= Association= Technique:=Informants were asked to state anything that

came to their mind when they think of the category, including:

- Words / phrases / adjectives

- Feelings / emotions

- Perceived benefits

- Role this product category plays in their life

- Characterization of role

Consumption pattern

47

- Brands they know of

- Personal consumption history (brands)

- Frequency of purchase

- Reasons for using / not using any more brands they know of

- for buying – own initiative, advertising, word of mouth

Criteria= of=brand selection= and=relative importance= of=selection criteria

(spontaneous mentions)

- Types (size, single unit, multipacks etc)

- Price

- Pack aesthetics

- Brand name trustworthiness, heritage

- Benefits (eg moisturizing effects, basic skincare etc)

- Fragrance

- Added value ingredients

- Word of mouth

- Advertising / promotional activities

Stage 2: Brand Equity in Focus

Brand mapping exercise

Before any further investigation informants were asked about spontaneous

(anew) and prompted awareness of brands.

Then, cards of brands they know of (Main brand and Palmolive, along with

key competitors, such as Dove, Lux, Sanex, FA, Nivea, Papoutsanis, Badedas)

were placed on the table and Informants were asked to categorize them into

groups according to any criteria that they deemed important, on the grounds of

a 2 dimensional map. The dimensions of the map were made up of the two

most important criteria (key category value drivers) for each individual

consumer.

This exercise enabled us to see how consumers categorize the market on a

spontaneous level, using their own personal criteria.

Once they sorted them they were asked to justify their groups:

- Characterization of each group

- What is the common denominator for each group

- What does each group think of the other

- Which groups are closest to which / which are further away

48

Pursuant to the mapping exercise consumers were asked to elaborate on the

brands falling under each of the four quadrants on the map:

- Brands they have consumed – reason why

- Brands they no longer consume – reason why

- Brands they would never consume –reason why

- Who are considered to be the strong players of the market

- Who are considered to be the weak players of the market

- Similarities and differences among them

- Sources of information they consider most suitable for each brand in their

salient set

- Brand communication elements they spontaneously recall

Moodboard Technique

For each of the brands that were investigated, namely main brand and

Palmolive, each Informant was asked to create a collage of images, words (by

cutting and pasting pieces from magazines) that signify what they believe each

brand represents and illustrate its core benefit. This set of images aimed to

depict the values, personality and emotions linked with each of the brands’

image/core benefit. After the completion of this exercise, consumers were

asked to interpret their collages.

Projective techniques

Latent perceptions about consumer brand associations were gathered through a

series of projective techniques:

Spontaneous=Associations: - What are the first things that come to mind

about brands: a physical sensation, an emotion / feeling, a symbol, a place, a

situation, a benefit, a drawback / shortcoming

Analogies: What would the brand be if it were ….a place……a film….a

car….an article of clothing…a type of sport….a famous person, celebrity or

athlete?

Planet: Imagine that the brand transforms itself in a planet, fully describe this

planet (atmosphere, what are the inhabitants like / their relationships, what are

their values, types of buildings, how do we feel on this planet, what do we like

most / least, what would make us stay there, do we make friends).

49

Stage 3: Brand encounters

In this stage a comparative assessment of the brands investigated was

conducted. This comparative assessment revealed the level of proximity that

each brand has to the consumer.

Informants were asked to imagine that the two brands (main brand and

Palmolive) meet in a pub or in a restaurant, and then asked to give their

opinion on the following:

- How does one react to the other?

- How would their physical appearance be described

- Could they find something to talk about? What might that be?

- Do they get along? Why yes/no?

4.5 Fieldwork

Quantitative research (which is the source of our secondary data) was

conducted at consumers’ homes via CAPI (computer aided personal

interviewing).

Primary qualitative research was conducted at consumers’ home via the

employment of a tape recorder. The participants will be recruited from a

company-owned list, which is maintained by Colgate Palmolive’s Consumer

Affairs Manager.

4.6 Methods of Analysis

In the light of the research objectives the following analysis methods were

employed.

Objective 1

A correlation matrix (as also employed by Leuthesser, Kohli & Harich, 1995 in

their study of brand equity, cf.3.7) was produced among each of the three

equity dimensions in the Bath Foams specific Brand Pyramid and brand

salience (in terms of unaided recall, which, according to Keller is a proxy for

brand strength), which lies at the bottom of the pyramid.

50

As already explained, this analysis (as well as the analyses conducted with

view to answering objectives 2 and 3 of our study) has been conducted in the

context of desk research, as the data that were employed stem from a

proprietary, company-funded brand equity research.

The correlation scores between salience and each of the three dimensions were

employed as the basis for determining the relative weight of each dimension in

generating brand salience, hence brand strength scores. Insofar as the purpose

of the study is descriptive and not prescriptive and the intention is to map out

relationships among variables (irrespective of the potential causation)

correlation is deemed to be appropriate. Correlation “indicates the extent to

which the variation in one variable, X, is related to the variation in another

variable, Y” (Malhotra & Birks, 1999, p.514). If the purpose of the study was

prescriptive, then analysis techniques, such as multivariate regression or

conjoint analysis should be employed, in order to determine (a) the

autocorrelation among variables, (b) the relative explanatory force of each

variable in accounting for brand salience.

Despite the fact that a strong correlation between equity dimensions and brand

salience may point to the fact that “halo effect” is operative in the data (see

discussion in Objective 2 below), the relative magnitude of the correlation

coefficients between equity dimensions and brand salience may point to the

relative importance of certain dimensions over others in defining brand

salience; and insofar as brand salience is a proxy of brand strength, then the

output of correlations may point to equity dimensions that are key determinants

or key value drivers of brand strength.

Objective 2

A series of correlations between secondary brand equity data and (i) market

share (ii) value/volume sales were produced in order to demonstrate the

relationship between key equity dimensions in the Brand Equity Pyramid and

market performance of the key brand players (cf.3.6). Also, insofar as brand

equity in the residual value approach terms (an offshoot of the holistic

approach, see Keller, 1998, pp.354-356) may be defined as the incremental

preference over and above that which would result for the product without

brand equity, a series of correlations were conducted among the more often

51

than not desired outcome of each marketing activity (that is volume/value sales

and/or share of market) and the rest key marketing variables (pricing, weighted

distribution, advertising expenditures, promotional intensity).

The aim was to determine the effect of each of these variables on market share

and compare the findings with the respective correlations between market

share and brand equity.

The impact of brand equity was determined in an inferential fashion by

comparing correlation coefficients between market share and the rest key

marketing variables and the correlation coefficients between market share and

brand equity Pyramid dimensions scores. A similar inferential approach was

followed by Khandelwal and McKinney (2003)- displayed in 3.7- in an attempt

to shed light to different patterns of fit or discrepancy of equity scores and

market performance data.

Objective 3

As explained in 3.7 in the context of the research conducted by Leuthesser,

Kohli & Harich, 1995, determining the differential positioning of brands in

equity terms may be overshadowed by significant distortions due to the “halo

effect” phenomenon, which is a matter of brand size. “Bigger brands (those

with more users) get more image responses than smaller brands, almost

regardless of the image attribute” (Romaniuk and Sharp, 1996). “The

consequence of this is that product-attribute ratings represent a composite of

individual attribute assessments, adjusted (“haloed”) by a rater’s global attitude

towards the product” (Leuthesser, Kohli & Harich, 1995, p.58).

This is the so-called double-jeopardy effect, which, as noted by Ehrenberg

(1995), occurs due to the circular relationship between the sheer size of big

brands and the equity scores they tend to obtain in the context of brand equity

studies. This often produces a distortion in the ratings collected in the context

of a battery of attributes, which may in turn “result in misleading conclusions

about competitive positioning, and may even lead brand managers to make

erroneous decisions concerning product modifications and product strategy”

(Leuthesser, Kohli & Harich, 1995, p.57).

52

The statistical technique of double-centered normalization was employed on

secondary equity data in order to purge equity scores of the halo effect. The

data transformation procedure is straightforward and is carried out in two

steps. “First, columns (corresponding to attributes) are standardized, followed

by rows (corresponding to raters). The effect of this double centring is

essentially to move the centroid of raters and attributes to the same origin,

keeping the raters’ response profiles intact across attributes, but removing

mean differences which are considered to be irrelevant” (Leuthesser, Kohli &

Harich, 1995, p.61).

In particular, the process whereby equity data were purged of the halo effect

via the double centered normalization consists in the following steps:

1. We take the raw image data by brand and convert it to a score based on

an index of 100.

2. Above (below) 100 indicates the extent to which the brand is endorsed

relatively more (less) on the attribute than on other attributes in relation to

other brands.

3. The outcome removes the effect of some brands being more widely

endorsed than others : each brand’s total endorsements is 100 x the number of

attributes and the total for each attribute is 100 x the number of brands (ie. a

constant sum outcome for brands and attributes).

4. The precise steps are as follows :

(i) for each brand we add together all the attribute % scores and

divide by the number

of attributes (to generate an average attribute score for the

brand)

(ii) for each attribute we add together all the brand % scores

and divide by the number of brands (to generate an average

brand score for the attribute)

(iii) we calculate for each brand the difference between (i) and

(ii)

(iv) we add together the score at (iii) and (i) to create a new grid

of figures (ie. the expected score for each brand on each

attribute)

53

(v) we take the difference between this expected score and the

actual score for each brand (when ahead of expected, this

produces a positive number; when behind a minus)

(vi) we add this score to 100.

Scores above 105 point to a differential competitive advantage,

whereas scores below 95 point to a differential competitive

disadvantage.

Objective 4

The qualitative analysis method comes into play in order to address the fourth

research objective. Insofar as brand equity, as referred to so far, consists in

building favourable, relevant and unique brand associations, the employment

of qualitative collection and analysis techniques will help us in systematically

mapping these associations with regard to the key brand players in the Bath

Foams market. “The consequences of superficial knowledge of brand

associations can be serious. When managers fail to grasp the full breadth and

depth of the associations people have for their brands, their understanding of

customer brand perceptions and the way brands are positioned relative to

competitors in the mind of customers will be biased” (Supphellen, 2004).

The primary data collected by using qualitative research methods were

analysed on the basis of discourse analysis, of which the analytical tools and

the limitations are outlined herebelow.

Since the very foundation of discourse analysis is the concept of discourse, it

may be useful to start with a definition of discourse. Parker (1992, pp.6-17)

summarizes the meaning of discourses under seven headings, as follows:

1. A discourse is realized in texts, while texts are “delimited tissues

of meaning reproduced in any form that can be given an

interpretive gloss”.

2. A discourse is about objects, meaning that “discourse constructs

representations of the world, which have a reality almost as

coercive as gravity”.

3. A discourse contains subjects, meaning that “a subject is a

location constructed within the expressive sphere which finds its

54

voice through the cluster of attributes and responsibilities assigned

to it as a variety of object”.

4. A discourse is a coherent system of meanings, meaning

“recurrently used systems of terms used for characterizing and

evaluating actions, events and other phenomena…a limited range

of terms used in particular stylistic and grammatical constructions

organised around specific metaphors and figures of speech”.

5. A discourse refers to other discourses, meaning that “discourses

embed, entail and presuppose other discourses to the extent that

the contradictions within a discourse open up questions about

what other discourses are at work”.

6. A discourse reflects its own way of speaking, meaning that a text

is articulated in such a way as to convey certain implicit meanings

that can be reworked by showing how its terms interlock”.

7. A discourse is historically located, meaning that “discourses are

located in time, in history, for the objects they refer to are objects

constituted in the past by the discourse or related discourses”.

The main protocol behind discourse analysis is looking at what the discourses

present in text are trying to achieve, in order to gain “a better understanding of

social life and social interaction” (Potter and Wetherell 1987, p.25). This is

carried out by relating the structure of the language, present in texts, to its

desired function, and observing the social forces that operate behind utterances.

“The question is not so much why people understand one another, or even

what they understand, but the organisational forms through which they achieve

that understanding” (Silverman 1986, p.118). Discourse analysts seek to

examine how people use language to construct their own social world, while

no particular reading of a text is superior to another.

Van Dijk (1997) provides the following recommendations on the way of

conducting discourse analysis, which were drawn upon during the analysis of

the primary data (cf. Chapter 5):

1. Select a sequence in which whatever interests you occurs, by

looking= at= identifiable= boundaries= between= topics. The

selection took place by isolating data fragments and reordering

55

them according the main topics included in the discussion

guide.

2. Characterize= the= actions= in= the= sequence,= i.e.= the= actions=

performed= in= the= course= of= speech-acts.= Speech-acts= are=

discursive= entities= that= accomplish= certain= actions.

Interviewees accomplished actions in their utterances through,

for example, descriptions of experiences and benefits derived

from the usage of bath foams brands, or by interpreting the

effect certain communicative vehicles had on purchase

decisions.

3. Consider=how=the=speakers’=packaging=of=actions,=including=

their= selections= of= reference= terms,= provides= for= certain=

understandings= of= the= actions= performed= and= the=matters=

talked= about. This is a very important step, as it helped

demonstrate how the selection of particular adjectives and

expressions in the description of events frame consumers’ brand

associations.

4. Consider= how= the= ways= whereby= the= actions= were=

accomplished= implicate= certain= identities,= roles= and/or=

relationships= for= the= interviewees. In the process of making

sense of the data and trying to discern how discourses interlock

with the exploration of brand personalities, individual

consumers’ value systems were taken into account. This aided

in moderating the effect discreet value systems and beliefs have

on value judgments conferred on brands. For example, certain

consumers were found to reject Dove not in terms of functional

attributes and benefits, but because its premium image and

positioning was irrelevant to their own lifestyle and value

system. Hence, the extent to which there is a fit between a

consumer’s value system and the values projected by a brand is

a key determinant of the potential endorsement of a brand by a

consumer.

4.7 Limitations of the research methods

The limitations of using secondary research data , according to Malhotra &

Birks (2000), consist primarily in the terms of relevance and accuracy. For the

56

purposes of this study, secondary data are deemed to meet these criteria, given

that brand equity was the focus of the study, while the generation of the

attributes list has taken place against the background of qualitative image

studies. The robustness of quantitative findings would be enhanced if equity

tracking data were available, on the grounds of which we might be able to

build a multivariate regression model or conduct a time-series analysis, in

order to assign a predictive value to the findings.

The limitations regarding the qualitative elicitation of brand associations, as

identified by M. Supphellen (2004) consist in problems of access in surpassing

the level of primary associations (as coined by Keller, see Keller’s brand

knowledge structure) and moving to more abstract, secondary brand

associations; the problem of verbalisation, since the relationship between

visual, pictorial, emotional representations and verbal descriptions is not

necessarily a one-to-one referential one; the issue of censoring , insofar as

occasionally, latent wishes, aspirations, self-identities are projected onto

brands, irrespective of whether consumers really believe these disclosed

aspects match their perceptions or not.

As regards qualitative data analysis, the inherent subjectivity in the

interpretation of the findings may partially distort the intended meaning on

behalf of the consumers. In more detail, Parker and Burman (1993) single out

five main limitations of discourse analysis, as follows:

1. The analyst has the power to impose meaning onto sections of

the interviewees’ text, which may not have been originally

present.

2. It is very labour intensive, meaning that analysts spend

considerable time sorting out which parts of the information

are linked.

3. It is difficult to ascertain whether different discourses are

present in the text as discreet phenomena, or whether the

changes in context are in fact responsible for the changes in

meaning

4. It becomes too difficult to view the text in terms of empirical

generalisations, therefore the wider context is often not

considered.

57

5. The methodology of discourse analysis is not rigorous

enough, cutting down the variety of possible interpretations,

made available by the text.

4.8 Conclusion

This chapter presented the purpose of our study, along with the research

objectives and the methods of data collection and analysis that were used with

view to exploring these objectives. Based on similar methods employed in

various studies and against the background of the brand equity attributes and

dimensions that make up the Brand Equity Pyramid, the output of our research

will be illustrated in the Main Findings chapter, in an attempt to map out brand

equity in the Bath Foams category.

58

CHAPTER 5: Analysis of Main Findings

59

5.1 Introduction

Pursuant to the display of the research objectives, the methodological

framework and the methods of analysis for exploring these objectives, this

chapter lays out of the main findings. The exposition of the main findings takes

place alongside an allusion to the conceptual framework and the analysis

methods that constitute the backdrop of the findings.

5.2 Objective=1=Main=Findings:=Determining=the=key=equity=dimensions=in=

the Brand Equity Pyramid

In this section the findings of the analyses that were conducted on secondary

research data in the context of desk research will be displayed.

First and foremost, the performance of the investigated brands against the key

variables (brand pyramid blocks) that make up the Brand Equity Pyramid

(cf.3.5) are displayed in Table 4.

Table=4-=Performance=of=key=brands=in=the=Bath=Foams=Category=against=

Brand Equity Pyramid building blocks Palmolive Badedas Dove Fa Johnson's Lux Nivea Sanex Papoutsanis

Identification 11 12 38 17 26 15 11 10 10A bath foam would choose for myself 10 11 42 16 11 18 7 8 7Suitable for the whole family 13 13 38 21 29 18 15 15 13Suitable for children 11 11 35 15 39 10 11 8 9Experiential benefits 13 15 44 22 14 20 11 10 10Brand enjoy using 11 11 46 19 14 18 9 8 9Makes everyday cleansing more pleasurable 15 17 47 24 18 23 12 13 11Makes innovative exciting bath foam 13 15 45 24 14 21 13 10 10Good for relaxing 12 14 43 20 14 21 9 10 10Provides overall wellbeing 13 17 43 24 13 20 10 10 10Refreshing 12 14 41 22 13 19 11 9 8Value/Quality perceptions 15 17 44 24 21 21 17 15 16Good quality 14 14 49 20 18 21 15 13 12Has a competitive price 16 20 38 28 23 20 18 16 20Performance/Imagery 13 15 49 20 16 19 12 12 10Foams well 14 19 47 25 16 19 12 10 13Cleans well 18 23 51 28 21 25 18 16 15Has fragrances I love 12 13 50 22 11 23 8 8 11Has long lasting fragrance 13 15 46 20 13 21 9 8 8Clinically Tested 20 23 51 26 24 22 21 23 14Has a moisturising effect 11 12 52 16 12 17 13 10 8Gentle on skin 9 12 47 17 18 15 10 9 8Keeps skin healthy 13 15 44 19 18 18 14 15 11Purifying effect on skin 11 12 47 16 11 15 7 9 9Leaves skin looking younger 10 12 54 16 15 17 11 10 10Beauty treatment for my skin 11 14 46 18 12 16 7 10 8Does not dry the skin 13 16 54 18 17 19 12 11 8Contains natural ingredients 14 12 44 20 18 15 12 14 10Like texture/consistency 11 12 47 16 15 17 9 8 8Salience/Brand Awareness (Spontaneous) 54 40 60 36 30 43 32 6 16

The score for each brand pyramid block (performance/imagery, value/quality

perceptions, experiential benefits, identification) has been calculated as an

average of the attributes that fall under its umbrella. Brand salience

60

(spontaneous brand awareness), that forms the base of the brand equity

pyramid, was gauged from a separate question enquiring which brands

consumers were aware of.

As a second step, a correlation matrix among variables6 was produced (cf.4.6-

Objective 1), in order to discern the most important dimensions (or category

key value drivers) in the Brand Equity pyramid.

The key value drivers were discerned by looking at the correlation coefficients

between awareness and each of the key variables under investigation. This

analysis takes into account how each attribute, therefore each of the key

variables that are made up of the distinctive attributes, scores on a category-

wide level. Insofar as spontaneous awareness is considered to be a proxy for

brand strength (cf. 4.6-Objective 1), the stronger a brand and/or a variable, the

more likely it is for the correlation output to be close to 1 (or 100% ), as amply

evidenced in the Table 5.

Table=5-=Correlation=coefficients= (=r= )=between=awareness/brand= salience=

and Brand Equity building blocks in the Bath Foams category

Performance/Imagery Identification Experiential benefitsValue/Quality perceptions Awareness

Performance/Imagery 1,0 0,9 1,0 1,0 0,6Identification 0,9 1,0 0,9 0,9 0,5Experiential benefits 1,0 0,9 1,0 1,0 0,7Value/Quality perceptions 1,0 0,9 1,0 1,0 0,6Awareness 0,6 0,5 0,7 0,6 1,0

From Table 5 data the following findings are inferred:

1. There is a clear positive relationship between the key equity variables and

spontaneous awareness on an inter-brand, and hence on a category-wide level.

2. The highest correlation coefficient is observed between brand salience and

experiential benefits. Hence, in order for a brand to colonize successfully

consumers’ perceptual framework in the Bath Foams category it is crucial to

establish a rich set of consumer associations with regard to the end result, that

is brands must become as “experiential” as possible in the battle of winning

consumers.

3. Contrary to what was expected (cf.3.5), identification and brand salience

have the lowest correlation coefficient. However, this may be explained in the

6 cf.4.4 for the source of data whereupon the analyses were conducted

61

context of the disadvantages of the data collection method, that is quantitative,

where, as is well-known, eliciting in-depth responses which may dwell in

preconscious and unconscious strata of consumer behaviour, is not feasible via

a rationally structured list of attributes, but merits a more qualitative approach

(cf.4.3.3).

5.3 Objective= 2= Main= Findings:= Determining= the= relationship= between=

brand equity and market performance

As explained in 4.6, the analytical route for answering Objective 2 is twofold.

Thus, the impact of brand equity was determined in an inferential fashion by

comparing (i) the correlation coefficients between market share, value/volume

sales and brand equity Pyramid blocks scores7 and (ii) the correlation

coefficients between market share and the rest key marketing variables

(advertising pressure, promo intensity, weighted distribution, pricing).

Table=6-=Market=performance=variables=by=key=brand=player= in=the=Bath=

Foams market PALMOLIVE BADEDAS DOVE FA LUX NIVEA SANEX PAPOUTSANIS

Volume sales 635110 514098 458084 244665 397750 158945 293915 231844Value sales 4772905 3380389 4691978 2156153 3176368 1227167 2197039 1820555Weighted distribution 94 46 93 86 88 76 47 69Value share 10,8 7,8 11,0 5,0 7,3 2,8 5,1 4,2Volume share 9,1 7,4 6,6 3,5 5,7 2,3 4,2 3,3

Average selling price (per 1000 ml) 7,5 6,6 10,2 8,8 8,0 7,7 7,5 7,9 Source: AC Nielsen Scan Track database 2004

7 This analysis constitutes a holistic approach (cf.3.7), combining the overall equity score for each of the examined brands (that emerges from averaging the four basic dimensions making up the Brand Equity

pyramid) with non-attribute based components, that is marketing performance, such as share of market,

sales, weighted distribution, pricing, advertising expenditures, that have been collected through independent

research audit firms, such as AC Nielsen and Media Services.

62

In the case of (i) the correlation coefficients were quite low, as may be

gathered from Tables 7-9.

Table 7- Correlation between Average Brand Equity and Market share

MARKET SHARE TTL EQUITYMARKET SHARE 1,00 0,53TTL EQUITY 0,53 1,00

Table=8- Correlation between Average Brand Equity and Volume Sales

VAL SALES TTL EQUITYVOLUME SALES 1,00 0,21TTL EQUITY 0,21 1,00

Table=9- Correlation between Average Brand Equity and Value Sales

VAL SALES TTL EQUITYVALUE SALES 1,00 0,54TTL EQUITY 0,54 1,00

Average correlation between brand equity and value sales was 54%, between

brand equity and market share 53%, while average correlation between brand

equity and volume sales was 21%. In a standalone fashion, this direct method

of gauging the effect of brand equity on market performance might point to the

conclusion that brand equity is not a key determinant of market share and

value/volume sales.

However, as Khandelwal and McKinney report (2003) (cf.3.7 and 4.6) “it has

been observed that in some cases brand equity scores do not correlate with the

in-market performance which exhibits that there are factors (for example

distribution, pricing) other than the brand equity that need to be addressed to

strengthen the market shares before brand equity can become a major

contributor to strategic planning and growth”. This finding urged us to conduct

the second set of correlations, as above mentioned, between market share and

the rest key marketing variables (advertising pressure, weighted distribution,

pricing). This set of analyses on secondary data allowed us to determine in an

indirect, inferential fashion the relative effect of brand equity on market

performance, in terms of a residual value approach (cf.4.6).

63

As regards advertising pressure, there is a clear positive relationship between

advertising spending levels and achieved market share8. Table 10 table

displays the respective figures for the key Bath Foams market players for the

year 2004.

Table=10- Share of market/Share of voice of key brands in 2004

2004 2004J&J 13,8% 19%DOVE 11,0% 20%PALMOLIVE 10,8% 19%BADEDAS 7,8% 0%LUX 7,3% 22%SANEX 5,1% 6%FA 4,9% 0%NIVEA 2,8% 0%ALL OTHERS 36,5% 14%

Share of market Share of voice

Sources: AC Nielsen Scan Track database (share of market), Media Services (share of voice)

Note: Share=of=market is calculated by dividing the sales of each brand with ttl Bath Foams

market sales. Accordingly, Share of Voice is calculated by dividing the advertising expenditures

for each brand (across the key above the line advertising media, that is TV, radio, print, outdoor)

with ttl market expenditures.

Based on this dataset, a correlation figure of 68% was returned, which points

clearly to a positive relationship between the level of advertising expenditure

as an enabler of market share sustainability.

The same holds in the case of weighted distribution.

Table=11- Share of market/Weighted distribution of key brands in 2004

Weighted Distribution Share of marketDOVE 94,5 10,8LUX 92,9 7,3BADEDAS 92,1 7,8SANEX 90,8 5,1J.&.J 97,0 13,8PALMOLIVE 95,0 11FA 86,8 4,9NIVEA 76,8 2,8 Source: AC Nielsen Scan Track database 2004

8 This is also in line with J.P.Jones’ finding, published in his seminal book “When Ads work: New Proof that Advertising Triggers Sales” (Lexington 1995), where there was ample evidence about high correlation between market share growth and advertising intensity (p.95); advertising intensity is used by the author interchangeably with share of voice, denoting the same metric).

64

Based on Table 11 data a correlation figure of 86% was returned, pointing to a

clear relationship between the achievement of market share and the build up of

distribution, even more so than in the case of advertising expenditures. The

positive relationship between market performance and key marketing

parameters as above illustrated (distribution, pricing, advertising expenditures)

is pretty much self-explanatory. As Ehrenberg et al (1998) contend, the

number of consumers to whom a brand is salient tends also to correlate with

just about everything in the marketing-mix that contributes towards purchasing

and market share.

The above more often than not verified remark by the authors, which

constitutes a consolidation of longitudinal studies across more than 50 product

categories is a forceful attestation of the findings of our research so far. Hence,

despite the fact that (i) brand salience correlates positively with all equity

dimensions (ii) market share and value/volume sales correlate positively with

almost all key marketing mix elements, yet key brand equity variables have a

mild positive correlation with value/volume sales and share of market. This is

attributed to the low level of discrimination among the key players, with the

exception of Dove, which manages to charge a considerably high premium (cf.

Table 6)9.

The above point to the conclusion that whereas the relationship between

market share and the marketing mix variables is pretty much linear, yet some

brands are more effective than others in building equity. Also, as already

stressed (cf.3.2), establishing differential positioning entails establishing

differentiated consumer perceptions that lead to brand equity. Insofar as

building equity may only be attained at the interface between the brand and the

consumer, then gaining in equity and long lasting consumer perceptions may

be attained by enhancing the effectiveness of brand communications (all other

marketing mix variables held equal, as already explained in the preceding

analyses and on the grounds of the positive relationship among key marketing

variables). This standpoint is further discussed in Chapter 6.

9 A similar finding regarding high brand equity for Dove and its ability to command a price premium was found by A.Chaudhuri (1995) in “Brand Equity or Double Jeopardy?”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol.4, No1.

65

5.4 Objective= 3=Main= Findings:= Discerning= whether= there= is= sufficient=

differentiation among the key brand players

As is well known in the brand equity literature, brands with high esteem tend

to score high across seemingly discreet attributes, due to the “halo effect”

phenomenon. “Halo effect” urges consumers to attribute high scores to most of

the attributes, based on the degree of brand knowledge, usage and

involvement. In order to purge data of the halo effect, which more often than

not seethes into quantitatively consolidated perceptions, the statistical method

of double centered normalization was applied (cf.4.6, Objective 3).

The output from the above analysis allowed the determination of the true

points of differentiation among brands in the Bath Foams market, which are

displayed in Table 12:

Table12- Output of Double-centered normalization (DCN)

Palmolive Badedas Dove Fa Johnson's Lux Nivea Sanex Papoutsanis

Identification 99 98 94 98 111 98 101 101 101A bath foam would choose for myself 100 100 100 99 98 103 99 100 100Suitable for the whole family 98 97 91 100 111 98 102 103 102Suitable for children 100 98 91 96 124 93 101 99 101Experiential Benefits 100 100 99 102 98 102 99 99 100Brand enjoy using 101 98 102 101 99 101 99 99 101Makes everyday cleansing more pleasurable 99 100 100 101 99 102 98 99 99Makes innovative exciting bath foam 99 100 100 103 96 102 101 99 99Good for relaxing 101 100 99 100 98 103 98 100 100Provides overall well being 100 102 98 103 96 101 98 99 100Refreshing 101 101 96 102 98 101 101 99 99Value/Quality perceptions 100 100 96 101 102 99 102 101 103Good quality 100 98 102 98 100 101 102 101 100Has a competitive price 100 102 89 103 103 97 102 101 105Performance/Imagery 100 100 102 99 99 100 100 100 100Foams well 98 103 100 103 98 99 99 98 101Cleans well 98 103 100 102 99 101 101 99 99Has fragrances I love 99 99 105 102 95 105 97 97 101Has long lasting fragrance 100 101 101 101 96 103 98 98 99Clinically Tested 101 101 98 99 100 97 102 105 97Has a moisturising effect 101 99 107 97 96 100 102 101 99Gentle on skin 101 99 104 99 103 99 101 100 100Keeps skin healthy 99 100 98 98 101 98 101 103 100Purifying effect on skin 101 100 104 98 97 99 98 101 101Leaves skin soft & supple 100 98 110 97 99 99 101 100 101Beauty treatment for my skin 100 102 103 100 97 100 98 101 100Does not dry the skin 100 101 107 97 99 100 100 99 97Contains natural ingredients 100 97 99 100 101 96 101 103 99Like texture/consistency 101 99 104 97 100 100 99 98 100

In order for a DCN equity score to be meaningful as a point of differentiation,

thus constituting a competitive advantage or disadvantage, it must be either

above or equal to 105 and below or equal to 95 respectively.

66

On the grounds of the above analysis the following are inferred (per key brand

of concern):

Dove is clearly the leading equity, with the highest salience (spontaneous

brand awareness) score (60%). In terms of equity, it stands out in

performance/imagery. In particular, it is well differentiated from competition

in terms of well endorsed range of fragrances, for leaving skin soft, not drying

the skin, and for its moisturizing effects.

Johnson’s has carved a key territory and is perceived mainly for its suitability

for children and for the whole family, thus standing out in terms of

identification.

Lux stands out for its fragrances, Sanex for being clinically tested and

Papoutsanis for its competitive prices.

Palmolive,=Badedas,=FA,=Nivea do not have any clear positioning, while their

equity is indiscreet and diffuse.

In a nutshell, the majority of key brand players in the Bath Foams market have

not attained to cultivate points of differentiation, in Keller’s terms, thus facing

the threat of unsustainable competitive advantage and market share erosion in

the long term. Equity scores are suggestive of points-of-parity associations,

which “represent a necessary, but not sufficient condition for brand choice”

(Keller 1998, p.117).

5.5 Objective=4=Main=Findings:=Descriptive=overview=of=the=primary=and=

secondary brand associations of key brand players

On the grounds of the Brand Equity pyramid and in the light of the main

findings in the context of desk research, this section provides an exposition of

key brands’ primary and secondary brand associations.

The exposition of brand associations, as noted in the Methodology chapter,

aims to unearth latent consumer perceptions through qualitative research

techniques and against the background of discourse analysis. Hence, following

Van Dijk’s (cf.4.6) recommended steps for discourse analysis, an attempt was

67

made primarily at singling out certain areas of concern, in line with the topics

covered in the in-depth interviews discussion guide. Then, primary data

(verbatims) were rearranged in such a fashion, as to transform speech-acts into

brand equity related insights, while trying to respect the original intention

behind speech-acts on behalf of consumers.

Starting with a synopsis of the first three objectives’ main findings, it was

found that experiential benefits is the key value driver of the Bath Foams

category as a whole; on a category level, brand equity does not correlate highly

with market performance (in a direct fashion), due to the high degree of

undifferentiated equity perceptions for the majority of key brand players

(Palmolive, FA, Nivea, Badedas), with the exception of Dove, Sanex and Lux;

Dove is the leading brand in brand equity terms and market performance, given

its market share status and its ability to command a higher price premium.

The focus of this section will now turn to an exposition of key brand players’

primary and secondary brand associations, after an overview of the qualitative

research findings on a category-wide level.

Attitudes towards the category

Overall, the category is associated with pictures of water, bubbles, colors,

fragrances and feelings of pureness, relaxation, coolness, energy, euphoria and

well being. Most of the women associate their bath with the time of relaxation

after work, or during the time when they need to feel clean and enjoy the

feeling of personal treatment and “pampering” themselves. The category was

claimed to create positive feelings to the users. We may argue that Informants

seem to be involved with the bath foam category as illustrated by their

responses (“I spend a lot of time in front of the shelves, checking new products

and smelling various variants” – Informant 5, ”I like trying new variants”-

Informant:6).

During the “perceptions/habits exploration” stage of the in depth interviews,

Informants were asked to state spontaneously the criteria they use when

selecting a bath foam. Following the first stage where Informants referred to

the criteria spontaneously, they were further asked on other criteria (not

mentioned spontaneously) and their importance to them. It is important to note

68

that during that process, Informants were mentioning as main criteria not only

functional benefits but also more emotional benefits such as the feeling of

freshness (Informants:1,2) or feelings of relaxation: “ I want to feel relaxed

after having taken a bath at the end of a difficult day” (Informants: 5,7). During

that stage, the following criteria emerged as the most important ones:

Fragrances: Fragrance was claimed to be one of the major criteria for the

selection of the category. “I choose this brand since it has fragrances I like”

(Informants: 6, 7, 9). What Informants expected from “fragrance” is variable.

Some are looking for strong, “happy” fragrances; others claimed that they are

looking for more “discreet” fragrances. Some say that they want it to last after

the bath, others that they enjoy the fragrance during the bathing process. In any

case, Informants claimed to smell the products in front of the shelf in order to

be able to make the final decision.

Packaging= Aesthetics: packaging appears to play a significant role in the

Informants’ decision hierarchy, especially when in front of the shelf. Aspects

of packaging that affect purchase decisions are shape and color as they

constitute the first impression that a consumer gets from a product. Many

Informants claimed that “packaging plays a significant role in my decision as I

want to have something beautiful in my bathroom.”(Informants:2,8) It is worth

noting that “size” was not claimed to be a significant factor affecting the

purchase decision.

However, preferences vary depending on the size of the family but it is worth

mentioning that all interviewees claimed that they buy small sizes during

holidays. Some Informants claimed that they usually buy small sizes in order

to have a lot of different bath foams in the bathroom to have the opportunity to

choose among them according to their mood or even use more than one during

their bathing. As Informant 7 said “I want to have a lot of different bottles in

my bathroom, and be able to choose between them according to my mood.”

Benefits= (Moisture-= feeling= on= the= skin-skin= care): Two key benefits

emerged in Informants’ discourses with regard to the use of a bath foam brand:

The feeling of cleanliness (the feeling that they have taken the route for

personal hygiene) and moisture. With regard to the feeling of cleanliness,

Informants claimed that this varies depending on the product used. Some bath

69

foams give the sensation of pure cleanliness, while others do not meet this

requirement. However, it is notable that the feeling of cleanliness is a threshold

requirement and it is closely connected with freshness, coolness and

revitalization.

With regard to moisture, Informants claimed that they need to feel their skin

smooth and moisturized. Moisturizing effect was claimed to be one of the

major benefits that Informants seek from their bath foam. It is worth

mentioning that certain Informants claimed that they do not expect or seek

hydration from their bath foam since they use special creams after their bath to

moisture their skin. As stated by Informant 4: “I am not interested in

moisturizing effect. I use body lotion for this reason after my bath”.

For both these benefits (cleanliness and moisturizing effect), the texture of the

product seems to be closely associated with the benefit. This association is

mostly clear for the moisturizing effect where Informants consider creamy,

thick texture as responsible for leaving the skin soft and hydrated. As

Informant 7 said: “I use Dove and I have this feeling of deep moisture… It is

because of this creamy, thick, white texture”.

Promotion: Price did not appear to be a factor that affects Informants’

decision. As stated by Informant 6 “The bath foams are not so expensive. The

differences between the brands are rather small, so I do not pay attention to

prices. What I seek is a product I like and I will pay for this”. It is important to

note that the Informants do not appear to be price sensitive either because they

do not consider the category to be “expensive” or because they want the best

for themselves and they are willing to pay for this. However, promotions (both

value adding promotions -with gifts- or price incentives (price off, volume

free) seem to constitute a purchase incentive in case the brand that is promoted

is included in the Informants’ roster of brands that are considered for the next

purchase given that these brands respond equally well to the given set of

requirements.

Informants have a set of products that they like and are willing to switch

between them and promotions may have an impact on their decision for

selecting any of the brands comprising their salient set. In case a brand has

been rejected by the consumer, it will not be purchased even if it has a very

70

low price or is promoted with a very attractive gift. As Informant 4 said “I go

to the super market and I normally take a look at the brands that I use most

often. In case one of them has a promotion I like – I am keen on gifts – I will

purchase it. But I will not consider buying brands I do not like only because

they are on promotion”. “I once changed because I liked the promotion but the

product was awful and I decided not to pay attention to the promotions

anymore”. “I only pay attention on the promotions that have the products I like

and I switch between them” (Informant: 5).

Both types of promotions (value added or price related) were stated as

important. People like their main brand to offer them volume free. As

Informant 10 said “I enjoy buying my favourite brand under free volume

promotion. It seems to me that I gain more. I would buy it anyway, but with

free volume, I buy more at less price”.

Nevertheless, value added promotions (such as product and free gift) appear to

draw more easily Informants’ attention and are considered to be a very

effective promotion. As Informant 3 said “I love gifts. Each time I am in front

of a shelf I spend a lot of time checking who gives the best gift”.

It is notable that a lot of promotions have been recalled either during the

mapping process – when talking about the brands they have consumed - or

during the initial talk about the criteria that affect their purchase decision –

particularly when talking about the reasons for switching. The following were

quite memorable promotions: Dove Bath Foam with free hut made of silk,

Dove with free blouse made of silk, Palmolive with slippers, Badedas with free

mini radio. As Informant 10 said “Badedas is a brand that I would not use.

However, I bought the male variant for my husband since it had a mini radio as

a gift and I was sure he would like it”.

Information Sources

With regard to advertising, it is notable that at the beginning of the

conversation, all Informants argued that advertising does not influence their

decision and it does not convince them on the brand’s benefits. As Informant 1

said “All advertisements look the same and all advertisements claim the same.

That is the reason that I do not pay attention to them.” These responses took

71

place during the first stage of the in depth interview process when Informants

were asked if they were influenced by advertisements.

At that time, it was stressed that the role of advertising is limited to building

awareness. “It helps me learn about new products in order to have a look at

them the next time I visit a super market” (Informant 4), but they need to use

and test the products in order to draw their conclusions.

However, as the discussion evolved, different perceptions emerged indirectly,

especially through the employment of projective techniques. For example,

Informant 1, even though she claimed primarily that she is not influenced by

advertisements, referred to Dove as “white and clean”, and recalled “ the sense

of milk pouring on your skin leaving it soft and smooth” when talking about

her favourite brand. These images were instilled to consumer perceptions

through advertising communication. Informant 7, despite the fact that at the

beginning of the interview argued that she was not influenced by the

advertising, at the stage of brand mapping, she said “I have bought FA. I had

seen the advertisement with the island, the naked woman, the colours, and it

reminded me of vacations. I had positive feeling so I bought it”.

Overall, with regard to the recalled advertisements, FA TV communication

(the woman under the waterfall) is the advertisement that is most salient,

followed by Dove’s communication (either testimonials- Informants talking

about their experiences when using DOVE or the visual with the ¼

moisturizing cream pouring into Dove’s bottle). It is notable that not only

television, but also magazines were recorded as a valuable vehicle of

communicating new product offerings.

In addition to the above, the shelves of the retail outlets were reported as a key

information source about new variants or other bath foams (“I spend time in

front of the shelves, smelling and having a look at the variants” as stated by

Informants 5,6).

Having thus far dwelt on the findings of the first stage of the in-depth

interview, we shall now proceed with the exposition of primary and secondary

associations for each key brand player of concern, as they emerged during the

72

second stage of the in-depth interviews, though the brand mapping exercise,

the moodboard and projective techniques.

Dove

With regard to the brand knowledge dimension, it is remarkable that Dove -as

a leading brand- enjoys high levels of spontaneous awareness, since it was not

only spontaneously recalled by all Informants – users or non users of the

brand- but it was also recalled among the three first mentions. With regards to

brand image, Informants appeared to have a very clear idea about what Dove

stands for: ‘Luxurious, premium, creamy with a moisturizing effect’ – even in

the case of Informants that had rejected it. As a brand with such clear brand

image, Dove has built associations in Informants’ minds, rich in all dimensions

(attributes, benefits and attitudes).

With regard to the performance/ imagery dimension of the brand equity

pyramid, the brand is claimed to have clear functional benefits, both tangible

(moisturizing effect) and intangible (my skin is smoother and looks younger).

The perception of these functional benefits are enhanced through various

attributes of the brand, either functional, product related (creamy texture) or

non product related (such as the communication of the ¼ moisturizing cream

that pours into the bottle).

In addition to that, Dove has strong brand elements: (strong brand name, strong

symbols -the dove picture, the white color, the crème pouring into the bottle-

and a packaging (the oval, white opaque bottle) that are easily recognized and

established at the consumer’s minds. As stated by Informant 10 “ When I am

thinking about Dove, the picture of the milk pouring into the bottle comes to

my mind, giving me the sense that it will offer a unique moisturizing effect”.

Overall, Dove appears to meet the basic requirement of the “moisturizing

effect”, while Informants claim that they feel this moisturizing effect during

the bathing process.

With regard to the experiential benefits dimension of the brand equity pyramid,

Dove is perceived as a premium brand of high quality that is used by

Informants that treat themselves; they are rich, clean and beautiful. Dove

evokes a picture of Luxury and richness. It is notable that during brand

73

personification, Informants described the brand as a woman (aged 35 years old

+) that enjoys taking care of herself, wearing nice, expensive clothes. As

illustrated by Informant 7 “ Dove is a woman around 30+, that is Luxurious,

surrounded by white objects in a clean , expensive house, she wears expensive

clothes , she owns a yacht, she is part of the jet set”. This image was strong

even in the analogy process with the Dove planet as described by Informant 3:

“Dove planet is strong, it is differentiated, very Luxurious, and very clean,

with people with lots of money that live a Luxurious life”.

It is important to note that this picture is described by both Dove users and

Informants that have rejected the brand. The former adore the rich, beautiful

woman and they want to be like her, the latter consider this lady somewhat

hypocritical or even boring and distant and cannot relate to her. In both cases

the picture and the associations are clear. Dove is white, creamy, rich, leaves

the skin smooth and supple. In the case of its users, as illustrated by Informant

1: “Dove is my brand: a brand that takes care of my skin is rich, pure, and

Luxurious”. Dove brand is a very clear choice for those Informants that seek

moisturizing benefits from the bath foam category. These perceptions were

confirmed during the collage process, where Informants were choosing icons

of expensive bags, satin clothes, jewellery, beautiful - clean - blonde women,

creams, white color to describe the Dove brand.

However, the Informants that rated experiential benefits (fragrance, relaxation,

excitement) as more important than moisturization had negative perceptions

about Dove, considering it a little bit boring. “It remained unchanged over the

years” (Informant 5), “It has a single fragrance, not the variety I need” (

Informant 6). In addition to this, the lack of variety, the and single minded

concept of moisture is connected in some Informants’ mind with inertia,

indolence: “Too clean and soft to be exciting” as Informant 6 said.

Overall, Dove holds strong associations (white, milk, softness) that have been

built not only though advertisement, but supported through all elements of the

marketing mix (white packaging, thick texture, promotions with satin garments

that convey the idea of softness and Luxury). It is notable that apart from

strong, Dove associations are favorable and unique, mostly for those consumer

seeking softness and hydration from their bath foam. In any case, Dove enjoys

74

a very clear positioning as a brand that is premium, well established, of high

quality, that delivers its promise of moisture.

Palmolive

Palmolive does not appear to have a strong, unique, single minded image in

consumer’s minds as is the Dove case.

In terms of the performance/ imagery dimension of the brand equity pyramid,

the Palmolive attributes are not so clear. It is notable that Informants could not

claim a clear functional benefit -such as softness on skin- for the Palmolive

equity. The only clear functional benefit that Palmolive was considered to offer

was a variety of products. The benefits of these products varied depending on

the product line they have used or recalled. The only “striking” product related

attributes of the Palmolive equity was its fragrances and different packaging

colors. This was argued by Informants talking about the colors of Palmolive

packaging that attracted their attention on the shelves; they smelt it and they

bought it. Overall, Palmolive has the image of a brand that offers variety in

terms of different colors, fragrances, benefits (relaxation with Aromatherapy or

revitalization with the SPA line), while not being considered premium.

It is notable that Palmolive brand has a lot of identities (“It is not one planet, it

is a lot of smaller, different ones” as stated by Informant 5). On the one hand,

Palmolive is modern, different, young, joyful, and full of colors and

fragrances, exciting. As described by Informants, during the projective

techniques phase, the Palmolive planet is “a green, natural environment,

exotic, with strong fragrances, with lightly dressed, beautiful, young, warm

people” (Informant 4), “Relaxing environment, something like a spa, where no

stress, no activity exists, a world full of pale colors – light purple, light blue -

more a rainforest type of world “(Informant 6). Similar pictures were used to

describe Palmolive during the moodboard technique: Islands, natural

environment, green trees, flowers, young Informants in beachwear.

Palmolive associations (nature, colors, fun) are rather strong and favorable,

especially to these Informants seeking more “experiential” benefits from a bath

foam such as relaxation, strong fragrances. However, Palmolive associations

75

are not unique. On the contrary, they are very similar to FA’s brand

associations.

FA

In terms of the performance/ imagery dimension of the brand equity pyramid,

most of the Informants claimed that FA offers a variety of fragrances, while the

functional benefit of softness on skin was not reported. When referring to

functional, product related attributes, people associate FA with strong

fragrances and strong colors – mostly with packaging elements. As Informant

6 said “When I think of FA, a lot of variants, colors and fragrances are coming

to my mind”.

With regard to experiential benefits we may argue that FA has more

“experiential benefits”, and Informants perceive it as a brand that “makes

cleansing more pleasant and refreshing”. “FA experience is refreshing “as

Informant 2 says.

It is worth mentioning that at the stage of the brand mapping process, the

pictures of colors, nature, activity, refreshing experience and fragrances were

mainly quoted. FA communication (TV ads) played a major role in building

associations to Informants’ minds. It is notable that FA TV advertisement was

the first recalled by all Informants. In addition to that, in the context of the

analogies technique, the FA brand was described as an island that is

surrounded by sea and waterfalls, images that are communicated in the FA

commercial.

Overall, FA is associated with fragrances and a refreshing experience, but

lacks a differentiated image and a clear identity.

Badedas

With regards to awareness, Badedas lacks in spontaneous awareness (just 2 out

of 10 Informants recalled it spontaneously) but it has been promptly

recognized by all the Informants. As far as product related attributes are

concerned, the Informants recorded the variety of Badedas’ fragrances along

76

with the shape of its bottle. With regards to performance / imagery attributes,

Badedas was described as an average bath foam that cleans well.

Badedas was found to be lacking in experiential benefits. This may have to do

with the fact that Badedas is related more to a “masculine” brand. It is

characteristic that during the analogies process, most Informants described

Badedas as an athletic man. Most of the Informants have associated Badebas

with men since it is the brand they buy for the male members of their families.

As Informant 10 said: “I buy Badedas for my husband and I use another brand.

Badedas fragrances are too strong and “macho”for me” and Informant 6 said:

“I use it when I ran out of my brand and I borrow my boyfriend’s bath Foam”.

Overall, it was rather rejected by 8 out of 10 Informants, while for the other 2

it was not a top choice.

Nivea

Nivea is a brand that competes in various product categories and is well known

for its creams / body lotions products. However, it lacks awareness as a bath

foam brand – no Informant recalled it spontaneously. When people identified it

they talked about boring bottles with no innovation. As Informant 10 said: ”

Everything is boring about Nivea: the opaque, blue bottles, the fragrance,

everything!”

Nivea , due to its strong heritage in body lotions and creams has been accepted

as a brand that may offer moisture effect but as Informant said: “There are

better options in bath foam category when seeking moisture”. It is interesting

to note that during the analogies’ process, Nivea was evoking images of boring

family movies, ordinary, unsuccessful people. Nivea did not have either strong

or favourable associations.

Lux

Lux is a brand that has strong awareness since more that half of the Informants

recognized the brand spontaneously.

With regard to functional benefits, Lux is associated with its fragrances.

Informants that were users of Lux rated its fragrances as elegant and long

77

lasting (as Informant 8 said “Lux fragrances are long lasting. I love them”),

while other Informants found them too strong. It is worth mentioning that there

was the case of 2 Informants (2, 6) that described Lux as a brand that is old

fashioned and associated it with the soap category. As Informant 6 said: “Lux

reminds me of my grand mother that was using Lux soap. It is so old fashion!”

With regard to experiential benefits, Informants that are brand users, described

feelings of Luxury and pleasure when describing the feelings they get when

having a bath with Lux. Overall, Lux is connected with pictures of Luxury. It

is notable that during the analogies stage, Lux was described as a rich woman,

older woman, with Luxurious appearance but a little bit distant. As Informant 5

said: “Lux is a woman at mid 40s that is beautiful, very Luxurious, attracts

attention but does not let the others approach her; she is a little bit distant”. In

addition, in the context of the moodboard technique, Lux was associated with

pictures of gold, precious stones, femme fatales.

Lux image has been influenced by the TV advertisements that show beautiful,

rich and famous celebrities bathing with Lux. Two Informants (2,3) recalled

these advertisements. As Informant 2 said: “Lux reminds me of E. Menegaki [

a Greek, TV persona that has endorsed the brand] that is beautiful, Luxurious,

but somehow “comme il faux”.

Overall, Lux is connected with fragrances and the idea of Luxury. However,

we must highlight the fact that in most cases the idea of “Luxurious brand” has

been rejected by Informants as something that is not realistic. As Informant 6

said: “Lux would like to be premium and Luxurious, but it is fake”.

Sanex

Although Sanex is well positioned in Informants’ minds, it does not enjoy high

levels of spontaneous awareness. Sanex identity is very clear. With regard to

the functional benefits, Sanex is considered to be clinically tested, hygiene,

suitable for people with allergies that need something neutral for their

cleansing. People recall it promptly, but rarely include it in their set of products

that they regularly buy. Sanex is more functional (“Neutral, “Clinically

tested”), but lacks emotional associations. During the analogies’ process,

Sanex was described as a doctor or someone that is obsessed with cleanliness

78

and hygiene, someone that most of the Informants could not relate with.

Nevertheless, Sanex was strongly differentiated versus all other brands in the

category as the expertise in hygiene.

Johnson’s & Johnson’s

In terms of brand awareness, the brand was mainly (8 out of 10 Informants)

promptly recalled by Informants. It is notable that Johnson’s was not

spontaneously recalled since most Informants have associated Johnson brand

more with shampoo or body cream categories rather than the bath foam

category. When they were prompted whether they knew the brand or not, they

associated the brand with other product categories. “I know it, but somehow I

recall mostly the baby shampoos” (Informant: 7)

In terms of the performance/ imagery dimension of the brand equity pyramid,

the J&J brand is related to the benefit of “softness on skin”. More specifically,

regarding product related attributes, the Informants recalled the opaque bottle

of J&J along with its creamy texture. The elements of bottle, milky texture and

soft fragrances were described during the free associations’ stage. As

Informant 1 said: “J&J has a very creamy texture, and it has a very nice

moisturizing effect”. Overall, J&J has built strong perceptions in Informants’

minds over the years: “It is creamy, soft, and suitable for babies” as Informant

2 said.

With regards to experiential benefits, it is notable that J&J brand was described

as a brand that respects the skin, but did not evoke multiple descriptions related

to feelings or pictures. Moreover, it is not perceived as something premium (as

in the case of Dove), but as a viable option in the bath foam category.

It is notable that during the analogies’ stage, all Informants described J&J

brand as a baby that is sweet and soft. The J&J brand association with babies

(suitability for kids) is very strong. During this process, it was made clear that

J&J advertisements in all product categories had played a significant role in

building this association. It is worth mentioning that during the analogies

process four out of ten Informants, while describing images and characteristics

of the J&J brand, recalled the Johnson shampoo advertising “No more tears”.

As Informant 2 said “It reminds me of the “no more tears” shampoo

79

advertisements, with the baby that does not cry.” Johnson’s has a very strong

identity as a brand suitable for the whole family.

Differences and Similarities among=brands

During the brand mapping and the analogies phases of the in depth interviews,

some points of difference and /or similarities between the brands emerged.

During the brand mapping process, the Informants clustered the brands

according to their key brand selection criteria. The two dominant criteria upon

which brands were categorized were the following: Skin Care (hydratation),

fragrance and experiential benefits (feelings of cleanliness, relaxation,

pureness, freshness). Brands were found to fall largely in two broad categories:

skin care (Dove, J&J, Nivea) and that of fragrances and freshness (Palmolive,

FA, Badedas and Lux).

On the one hand, it was evident that Dove, Johnsons and Nivea brands were

highly connected to hydration. Despite the fact that all these three brands had a

point of parity (the moisturizing benefit), further analysis during the projective

techniques pointed to quite a few points of difference. Dove offers a

moisturizing effect, but at the same time it is premium and more relevant to the

Informants. Dove has a “female” image, a brand that is used by Informants that

take care of their appearance and want to be beautiful and unique. On the

contrary, J&J appears to be a brand for the whole family, a brand relevant to

kids that housewives buy in an effort to “take care of your family”. Nivea

leverages its strong heritage of body lotion category in bath foams and has an

image of a brand that offers skin moisture, but lacks in terms of experiential

benefits and identification.

On the other hand, Palmolive, FA, Badedas and Lux were categorized as

brands that have very strong fragrances. Palmolive and FA were perceived to

be very close as brands that offer refreshing experiences. This finding was

clear during the projective techniques, when Informants were describing Fa

and Palmolive with almost the same pictures of nature and fun. One difference

between these two that emerged during the analogies’ process was the fact that

“Palmolive lady” appeared to be more involved with her appearance, more

relaxed, whereas FA lady was more into sports. Badedas, as already described,

80

has a more “male” image and lacks the “feminine” side. Lux has strong

variants but it lacks in refreshing experiential benefits.

5.6 Conclusion

This chapter presented the main findings according to the four research

objectives. As emerged through desk research, the majority of brand players

suffer from low discrimination in brand equity terms, which is reflected in the

lukewarm relationship between brand equity and market performance.

From analyses conducted on secondary data and the brand mapping technique

conducted during the qualitative phase of the project it was found that

experiential benefits, fragrances and the benefit of moisturization are key value

drivers in the Bath Foams category. Dove was found to be the leading equity in

the Bath Foams market in both equity terms and market performance, which

corroborates Keller’s hypothesis that strong brands cherish higher market shares

and are able to command price premiums. Palmolive was found to perform well

on the experiential benefits equity building block during the qualitative

exploration of brand associations, however consumer perceptions are somewhat

polarized. This is attributed to the existence of different product lines and an

inconsistent brand promise, as against Dove, which has a coherent equity

platform, built on the promise of moisturization and fortified via cross category

promotions.

The next chapter constitutes a reflection on the main findings of the research

against the literature review, while focusing on Dove and Palmolive brands and

attempting to point to directions whereby brand equity may be enhanced.

81

CHAPTER 6: Conclusions and Recommendations for further research

82

6.1 Introduction

This chapter focuses on advertising and new product development, which

constitute two major sources of consumer based brand equity (cf. Chapters and

2 and 3). Brands with consistent and relevant brand communications and a

clear brand promise across line extensions may sustain fierce competitive

pressure and cherish higher margins. In Chapter 5, this aspect of brand equity

was amply evidenced in the case of Dove, which is a category leader in market

share terms, as well as a brand with a clear, distinctive and relevant

positioning.

This chapter provides an interpretation the main findings of secondary and

primary research, with a focus on Dove and Palmolive brands, while pointing

to relevant areas for further research.

6.2 Integrated= Marketing= Communications= as= a= way= of= building= and=

sustaining=brand=differentiation,=competitive=advantage=and=brand=equity=

in the Bath Foams category

Secondary and primary research findings clearly pointed to the conclusion that

consumer based brand equity principles apply in the case of Dove.

In particular, Dove was found to be salient in consumers’ minds in terms of its

being able to deliver its brand promise of moisturization; it has the highest

equity scores among the researched brand players; it has strong, favourable and

unique brand associations alongside the key elements of the brand knowledge

structure. It is able to command a price premium over the rest market players

and it is the leading brand in market share terms. All other marketing variables

(distribution, product innovation, new variants proliferation, pricing) held

equal, Dove’s brand strength may be attributed largely to consistent brand

communications, which is key for building and maintaining brand equity. As

Keller (1998) contends, insofar brand equity is primarily concerned with brand

associations in consumers’ minds, and given brand communications’

instrumental role in cultivating these associations, then the effectiveness of

brand communications is key in building and maintaining brand equity.

83

Hence, in this section an attempt is made to demonstrate how brand

communications may be closely integrated with view to producing the

intended brand knowledge structures for the Palmolive brand.

First and foremost, the concept of integrated marketing communications will

be defined prior to illustrating its components and pointing out possible ways

of leveraging brand communications with view to building and maintaining

unique, favourable and strong brand associations.

Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC) denotes “all the promotional

elements of the marketing mix which involve the communications between an

organisation and its target audiences on all matters that affect marketing

performance” (Pickton & Broderick, p.3). For many years, advertising

effectiveness analysis in terms of sales and consumer based measures focused

on the performance of TV advertising. The increasing complexity of reaching

effectively and efficiently distinct target audiences in multiple contact points

gave rise to the concept of IMC as a way of systematically accounting for the

synergies that are built when employing multiple communicative vehicles in

the implementation of a marketing communications program.

The quest for possible links between IMC and brand equity is often considered

as a quest for the Holy Grail (according to Ehrenberg, 1997), given that the

ways whereby the effectiveness of various communicative vehicles is

measured differ markedly. For instance, TV advertising effectiveness is

measured in terms of actual GRPs, CPR, reach, frequency, which is not

directly comparable to Outdoor and print advertising (despite the fact that

some measures are commonly used, they are not directly comparable, given the

creative particularities of each medium and the different levels of exposure to

and involvement with each medium). This is further complicated by less

traditional vehicles that fall under the generic term “direct” or “below the line”

marketing, encompassing database marketing, couponing, events, e-advertising

etc.

Pickton and Broderick portray these vehicles in their Wheel of Integrated

Marketing Communications, which depicts “the planned activities of

marketing communications and all the unintended or uncontrolled

84

communications between an organization and its audiences that collectively

affect the outcome of these two core and overlapping management tasks".

Figure=5- The Wheel of Integrated Marketing Communications

adapted from Pickton and Broderick 2001, p.9

Examining the level of integration among the various communicative vehicles

employed by Palmolive would amount to a wholly different area of

investigation. Instead, the focus is on the provision of general guidelines for

optimizing the integration of brand communications based on the diagnosed

equity deficit for Palmolive in Chapter 5. In particular, emphasis is laid on the

qualitative aspect of brand communications, in terms of the consistency and

complementarity of the various vehicles employed in the context of an

integrated brand communications plan.

85

“Consistency considerations relate to the extent to which information conveyed

in different communication options is consistent and thus mutually reinforcing.

Complementarity considerations relate to the extent to which different

communication options are designed in a way such that the strengths in one

option help to negate the disadvantages of another option” (Keller 1998,

p.257). Consistency and cohesiveness of brand image are important because

they determine how easily existing associations can be recalled and additional

associations may be linked to the brand in memory.

As found in the context of secondary and primary research, Palmolive has

multiple personalities due to different product lines and positioning. Let this

phenomenon be termed “multiple=brand=personalities=syndrome”. Achieving

a distinctive positioning among sub-brands is fruitful for differentiating on an

intra brand level, however it is problematic for differentiating on an inter brand

level. This was evidenced from the low level of differentiation of the

Palmolive brand in the context of the double centred normalization analysis.

In contradiction to the multiple brand personae of Palmolive, Dove was found

to have a single-minded and coherent positioning, leading to a high brand

equity score and positive market performance. Also, consumer associations

about Dove that emerged in the context of the projective techniques, are very

clear and in line with the brand’s intended positioning, both among consumers

who endorse the brand, as well as among consumers who reject it. Dove’s

advertising communication has been incumbent since market entry on the

single minded proposition of skin moisturization, a claim that has been

consistently employed in every brand and line extension endeavour, thus

creating homogeneity in consumer perceptions, and gaining sustainable and

differentiated mindshare.

Hence, we may conclude that the multiplicity of discreet product line benefits

and consumer associations should be enacted against a uniform brand promise.

In terms of integrated marketing communications, a uniform brand promise

may be enacted by employing the key brand benefit(s) across all

communicative vehicles. This could be executed by including a respective

pack shot in all TV communication, a tag line in radio communication, as well

as an additional line in all POP materials, on pack promotional communication

and PR briefs, stressing the single minded proposition of brand equity. In

86

addition, an equity enhancing advertising execution might be developed,

focusing on the core brand promise, while depicting all different product lines.

This would run in tandem with discreet product line focused advertising in

order to fortify the uniqueness of the core brand equity. “Therefore, in the long

run, different communication elements should be designed and combined so

that they work effectively together to create a coherent and cohesive brand

image” (Keller 1998, p.257)

All brand-relevant communication should incorporate the key structural equity

elements, encompassing, apart from the logo, brand symbol and colours, the

brand’s single minded brand proposition, thus functioning as an ad retrieval

cue. “By using ad retrieval cues, greater emphasis can be placed in the ad on

supplying persuasive information and creating positive associations so

respondents have a reason why they should purchase the brand” (Keller 1998,

p.260).

In concluding, different advertising executions should not be viewed as

discreet pieces of information geared solely towards generating short term

sales, but as parts of a continuous brand communication program aimed at

generating lasting and memorable brand associations. Without any intention of

toning down any sales oriented objective, and especially in such a fragmented

category, populated by repertoire driven respondents as the Bath Foams one,

the brand communications of Palmolive should have an equity building

objective. This objective may be materialized on the grounds of the above

suggested guidelines.

6.3 New=product=development=as=a=way=of=building=and=sustaining=brand=

differentiation,= competitive= advantage= and= brand= equity= in= the= Bath=

Foams category

Another customary mode of maintaining brand salience is via innovation.

Innovation is a key aspect of variants and product lines proliferation in the

Bath Foams category, against the background of new fragrances, end benefits

(advanced moisturization, relaxation, sensuality, exfoliation etc.), pack

aesthetics and usage (cf. Chapter 2). However, given the rapid degree of

technological advancements, no innovation in the concerned market cannot be

copied within a time span of six months, thus reducing long term competitive

87

advantage in equity terms to short term sales oriented benefits. “The

increasing speed of technological change is such that there would appear to be

better opportunities for developing stronger, more erosion resistant brands by

allocating a larger share of resources to the so-called softer side of image than

is currently used” (A.Biel, The Brandscape, Converting Image into Equity,

Admap Oct 1991). Hence, the constantly recurring criticism that brands are not

differentiated and that they are increasingly mere commodities.

Nevertheless, if innovation takes place against a concrete equity platform and a

coherent, relevant and credible brand promise, then it may contribute towards

brand equity sustenance. Again, the case of Dove stands as a prominent case in

hand. Over and above the consistency in the structural elements employed in

every new product launched by the brand, that is common pack aesthetics (flip

top, curved bottle shape, logo and the dove symbol, elliptic lines connoting

modernity and openness from a semiotic perspective) what is worth noting is

that all Dove products’ front labels feature in a holistic fashion the

substantiation of the discreet, variant specific benefits (be it refreshment,

firming or softening effects), that is the extra moisturization. This

substantiation is uniformly denoted among a multiplicity of product benefits in

the context of the omnipresent flash accompanied by the key claim “contains ¼

moisturizing cream”. This is not the case with any of the key competitors

reviewed so far. Despite the fact that all of the key competitors’ on pack

communication lays out explicitly the product benefits (be it functional or

emotional, or both), none of them follows a consistent approach in terms of a

single minded brand promise, thus fragmenting their communication and

posing significant barriers in the establishment of a coherent equity platform.

Hence, the importance of a coherent equity platform, in terms of a concrete

brand knowledge structure, may lead to the build up and sustenance of brand

equity.

6.4 Limitations of the research

One of the major limitations of this research is the difference in the periods

covered from the secondary and primary researches, as secondary research data

stem from 2004, whereas primary research was conducted in 2005. Given the

high level of new product introductions and the concomitant change in brand

88

communications, consumer perceptions may change on the grounds of trial of

new products or the exposition to new brand advertising. Hence, despite the

fact that primary and secondary data were congruent in various respects, the

validity of the comparison might be enhanced if all data stemmed from the

same period of time.

As regards the quantitative analyses conducted on secondary data, a more

accurate picture would have been yielded if more data were available prior to

2004. As stressed in the methodology chapter, methods for measuring

quantitatively brand equity often involve time series that extend to at least

three years coverage, thus enhancing the robustness of the output.

As regards primary research, as mentioned in the relevant literature, it takes a

lot of experience in qualitative research in order to be able to unearth latent

consumer perceptions and overcome certain biases, both from the interviewer’s

and the interviewee’s side. The authors of this study are not professional

qualitative researchers, however valuable experiences were gathered in the

process of designing and implementing the qualitative research.

6.5 Recommendations for=future=research

From the analysis of the results of this research, it has become apparent that

there are several areas that might merit further research, as follows:

1. In the process of seeking to unearth consumer brand associations with

regard to key brand players in the Bath Foams market, several branding

elements were mentioned by informants. It would be interesting to delve

into individual brand histories and attempt to display through which

branding strategies these associations crystallized, through further

qualitative exploration, such as semiotic analysis

2. Focusing on market performance, it would be interesting to conduct a

longitudinal analysis with the application of econometric analyses in

order to discern shifts in brand equity scores and market shares.

3. Since the exploration of links brand equity and integrated marketing

communications has gained in popularity over the last years, it might be

useful to explore different communications mix scenarios and the effect

these have on building differential consumer responses, as well as their

89

impact on the strength, favourability and uniqueness of brand

associations.

4. In terms of methodology, an issue was encountered during primary

research, regarding the indicators that would enable us to classify brand

associations as unique, favourable and strong. It might be useful to coin

a systematic approach for classifying brand associations under these

discreet categories.

5. Last, but not least, despite the fact that brand equity was shown to be a

key factor for sustaining brand leadership (the case of Dove), it might

merit further investigation to demonstrate the effect of brand equity in

terms of short, mid and long term benefits and in the context of return

on brand equity investments.

6.6 Conclusion

This chapter constitutes a reflection on the study’s main findings, with an

emphasis on how brand communications and new product development may

help in creating and/or sustaining brand equity. The case of Dove, the

category’s leading brand, was selected in order to demonstrate how

consistency and complementarity among brand communications and variants

proliferation may lead to clear and distinctive positioning, strong, favourable

and unique brand associations and sustainable brand equity. The reflection on

Dove’s branding elements was used in order to draw guidelines, against the

relevant literature, for optimizing Palmolive’s brand equity, a brand that was

found to suffer from what was termed a “multiple brand personalities

syndrome”.

Last, but not least, further areas of research were outlined in order to enlarge

the exploratory scope and yield more insights in the inherently complex topic

of brand equity.

90

APPENDICES

91

APPENDIX I: Bibliography

92

Aaker, D.A (1991) Managing Brand Equity, New York: Free Press

Aaker, D.A (1992) ‘Managing the most important asset: Brand Equity’

Planning Review; 20 (5), pp. 56-58

Aaker, D.A (1995) Building Strong Brands, New York: Free Press

Baldinger, A (1990) ‘Defining and applying the brand equity concept: Why the

researcher should care’ Journal of Advertising; 30(3), RC2-RC5

Barwise, P (1992) ‘Brand equity: Snark or Boojum?’ International Journal of

Research in Marketing; 10, pp. 93-104

Biel, A., Aaker, D.A. (1993) Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertising’s role

in building strong brands, LEA Publishers

Biel, A. (1991) ‘The Brandscape: Converting brand image into equity’ Admap

Biel, A. (1997) ‘Discovering brand magic: the hardness of the softer side of

branding’ International Journal of Advertising, Vol.16, No3

Blackston, M. (1995) ‘Copy-testing and brand equity: What’s the connection?’

Journal of Advertising Research, 35 (1), RC2-RC7

Blackston, M. (1995) ‘The qualitative dimension of brand equity’ Journal of

Advertising Research, 35 (4) RC2- RC7

Branthwaite, A , Cooper, P. (2001, Oct) ‘A new role for projective techniques:

Tapping the power of imagery’ Esomar Congress Paper

Broadbent S. (1998) ‘Advertising Effects-more methodological issues’ Journal

of Marketing Research Society, 30 (2), pp.224-229

Chaudhuri, A. (1995) ‘Brand Equity or double jeopardy?’ Journal of Product

and Brand Management, 4 (1), 26-32

Chay, Richard F (1991) ‘How Marketing Researchers Can Harness the Power

of Brand Equity’ Marketing Research, v 3, n 2.

Cobb-Walgren, C., Ruble, C., and Donthu, N. (1995) ‘Brand equity, brand

preference, and purchase intent’ Journal of Advertising, 24 (3), 25-40.

Cooper, A. (1998, Jan) ‘Brand equity - a lifestage model’ Admap Publications

De Chernatony, L., Martinez, E. (2004) ‘The effect of brand extension

strategies upon brand image’ Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol 21, No 1,

pp.39-50

De Chernatony, L. (2001) ‘A Taxonomy of Brand-Linkages: the brand-

relationship-interaction (BRI) matrix’ Working Paper, Birmingham University

Business School

Davis, S., and Douglass, D. (1995) ‘Holistic approach to brand equity

management’ Marketing News, 29 (2) 4-5

93

Duncan, T. and Moriarty S. (1997) Driving Brand Value: Using Integrated

Marketing to Manage Profitable Stakeholder Relationships, McGraw Hill,

N.Y.

Dyson, P., Farr, A., and Hollis , N. (1996) ‘Understanding, measuring, and

using brand equity’ Journal of Advertising Research, 36 (6), pp.9-21

Ehrenberg, A. , Barnard, N., Scriven, J. (1997, Nov/Dec) ‘Differentiation or

Salience’ Journal of Advertising Resrearch

Farquhar, P. (1990) ‘Managing brand equity’ Journal of Advertising Research,

30(4), RC7-RC12

Feldwick, P. (1996) ‘What is brand equity anyway, and how do you measure

it?’ Journal of Market Research Society, 38 (2), 85-104

Feldwick, P. (1996) ‘Do We Really Need Brand-Equity?’ Esomar Congress

Paper

Hollis, N. (1995) ‘How to Show the Influence of Advertising on Sales: New

Proof that Advertising Works, at least in the Short-Term’ Admap

Kapferer, J.N. (1999) Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining

Brand Equity Long-Term, Kegan Page, London

Keller, K. (1990) ‘Consumer Evaluations of brand extensions’ Journal of

Marketing, 54, pp. 27-41

Keller, K. (1993) ‘Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based

brand equity’ Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), pp. 1-22

Keller, K. (1998) Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and

Managing Brand-Equity, Prentice-Hall, NJ

Khandelwal, M. and McKinney, C. (2003) ‘Comparing Brand Equity

Valuation With In-Market Performance, Truths unfolded’ Esomar Congress

Paper

Krishnam, H. (1996) ‘Characteristics of memory associations: A consumer-

based brand equity perspective’ International Journal of Research in

Marketing, 13, pp. 389-405

Lassar, W., Mittal, B., Sharma, A. (1995) ‘Measuring customer-based brand

equity’ Journal of Consumer Marketing, pp. 11-19

Leuthesser, L., Kohli, C., and Harich, K. (1995) ‘Brand equity: The halo effect

measure’ European Journal of Marketing, 29 (40), pp. 57-66

Low, G.S., Lamb, C.W. (2000) ‘The measurement and dimensionality of brand

associations’ Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol.9, N.6, pp.350-

368

94

Mahajan, V., Rao, V., Srivastava, R. (1994) ‘An approach to assess the

importance of brand equity in acquisition decisions’ Journal of Product

Innovation Management, 11, pp. 221-235.

Martinez, E, Pina, J.M. (2003) ‘The negative impact of brand extensions on

parent brand’ Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol.12, No 7, pp.432-

448

Morgan, R.P. (2000) ‘A Consumer-Oriented Framework of Brand Equity and

Loyalty’ Journal of Market Research Society, Vol.42, Winter

Morgan, R.P., Carter, I., (1998, Jul) ‘Measuring brand equity- a consumer led

approach’ Admap

Morgan, R.P. (1993) ‘Measuring brand equity: For marketers, it has to include

'desirability' - and involves an intriguing new research toolkit’ Admap

Motameni, R. & Shahrokhi,M. (1998) ‘Brand equity valuation: a global

perspective’ Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol.7, No 4, pp.275-

290

Oakenfull, G., and Gelb, B. (1996) ‘Research-based advertising to preserve

brand equity but avoid ‘genericide’’ Journal of Advertising Research, 36 (5),

pp. 65-72

Parker, I. (1992) Discourse Dynamics, Routledge, London

Parker, I., Burman, E. (1993) Discourse Analytic Research, Routldege, London

Pitta, D., and Katsanis, L. (1995) ‘Understanding brand equity for successful

extension’ Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12 (4), pp.51-64

Romaniuk, J. & Sharp, B. (1996) ‘Using known patterns in image data to

determine brand positioning’ Journal of Market Research Society

Potter, J., Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology, Sage

Publications, London

Seetharaman, A., Nadzir, Z. Gunalan, S. (2001) ‘A conceptual study on brand

valuation’ Journal of product and brand management, Vol.10, No 4, pp.243-

256

Silverman, D. (1986) Qualitative Methodology and Sociology, Gower,

Aldershot

Srinivasan, V. (2001) ‘Equitymap: Measurement, Analysis and Prediction of

Brand Equity Sources’ Stanford University Graduate School of Business

Research Paper No.1685

Srivastava, R.K., Shocker, A.D. (1991) ‘Brand Equity: A Perspective on Its

Meaning and Measurement’ Marketing Science Institute Technical Working

Paper, Report No. 91-124

95

Supphellen, M. (2004) ‘Understanding Core Brand Equity: Guidelines For In-

Depth Elicitation of Brand Associations’ International Journal of Market

Research

Teas, K., and Grapentine, T. (1996) ‘Demystifying brand equity’ M arketing

Research, 8 (2), pp. 25-29

Thornley C. and Hill H. (1998) ‘A Strategic Alignment: Ad Evaluation and

Marketing Strategy’ Research Surveys Ltd Working Paper

Van Dijk, T. (1997) Discourse as Structure and Process, Sage Publications

Wood, L. (2000, 38/9), ‘Brand and Brand equity: definition and management’

Management Decision

Web=sites=

http://www.brandchannel.com

http://www.brandfinance.com

http://www.brandknowledge.com

http://www.warc.com

96

APPENDIX II: Profile of Qualitative Research informants

97

Informant=1: Joanna, 25 years old, B socio economic class, single.

• Main brand: Dove.

• Spontaneous awareness of the following brands: Dove, Palmolive, Fa,

Johnson

• Prompted awareness of the following brands: Lux, Sanex, Nivea,

Papoutsanis, Badedas

• Brands she has never used: Papoutsanis, Badedas

Informant=2: Maria, 36 years old, B socio economic class, single.

• Main brand: Dove.

• Spontaneous awareness of the following brands: Dove, Palmolive, Lux,

Sanex

• Prompted awareness of the following brands: Fa, Johnson’s, Nivea,

Papoutsanis, Badedas

• Brands she has never used: Papoutsanis, Nivea

Informant=3: Evi, 33 years old, C1 socio economic class, married.

• Main brand: Johnson.

• Spontaneous awareness of the following brands: Dove, Palmolive, Johnson,

Lux, Fa

• Prompted awareness of the following brands: Sanex, Nivea, Papoutsanis,

Badedas

• Brands she has never used: Papoutsanis

Informant=4: Eleni, 29 years old, C1 socio economic class, single.

• Main brand: Palmolive.

• Spontaneous awareness of the following brands: Dove, Palmolive, , Lux,

Fa, Badedas

• Prompted awareness of the following brands: Sanex, Johnson, Nivea,

Papoutsanis.

• Brands she has never used: Nivea

Informant=5: Katerina, 35 years old, C1 socio economic class, married.

• Main brand: Palmolive.

• Spontaneous awareness of the following brands: Dove, Palmolive, Lux

• Prompted awareness of the following brands: Sanex, Johnson, Nivea,

Papoutsanis, Fa, Badedas

98

• Brands she has never used: Papoutsanis, Badedas, Johnson, Nivea

Informant=6: Despina, 28 years old, C1 socio economic class, single.

• Main brand: Fa.

• Spontaneous awareness of the following brands: Dove, Fa, Palmolive,

• Prompted awareness of the following brands: Johnson, Lux, Nivea,

Papoutsanis, Fa, Badedas

• Brands she has never used: Papoutsanis, Sanex, Johnson, Nivea

Informant=7: Maria D, 27 years old, C2 socio economic class, single.

• Main brand: Dove.

• Spontaneous awareness of the following brands: Dove, Fa, Palmolive,

Johnson, Badedas

• Prompted awareness of the following brands: Lux, Nivea, Papoutsanis,

Sanex.

• Brands she has never used: Nivea

Informant=8: Niki, 40 years old, C2 socio economic class, married with 1 child.

• Main brand: Lux.

• Spontaneous awareness of the following brands: Dove, Lux, Fa.

• Prompted awareness of the following brands: Palmolive, Nivea, Badedas,

Johnson

• Brands she has never used: Papoutsanis, Sanex, Badedas, Johnson’s.

Informant=9: Athina, 30 years old, C1 socio economic class, single.

• Main brand: Lux.

• Spontaneous awareness of the following brands: Dove, Lux, Fa.

• Prompted awareness of the following brands: Palmolive, Nivea, Badedas,

Johnson

• Brands she has never used: Papoutsanis, Sanex, Badedas, Johnson’s.

Informant=10: Fofi, 42 years old, C1 socio economic class, married with 2 children.

• Main brand: Palmolive.

• Spontaneous awareness of the following brands: Dove, Palmolive,

Johnson’s.

99

• Prompted awareness of the following brands: Nivea, Badedas, Lux, Fa,

Papoutsanis, Sanex.

• Brands she has never used: Sanex, Nivea, Lux

100

APPENDIX III: Moodboard Technique output

(collages)

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

APPENDIX IV: Brand Maps