Dissertation Final

A COMPARATIVE INVESTIGATION INTO THE PERCIEVED BRAND EQUITY OF AUDI, BMW,

MERCEDES AND VOLKSWAGEN AMONG STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHESTER

Robin de Wit

Assessment noº F15365

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of

Chester for the degree of Marketing with Psychology (BAH-C)

CHESTER BUSINESS SCHOOL

May 2012

A comparative investigation into to the perceived brand equity and marketing communications of Audi, BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen among students at the University of Chester

Robin de Wit University of Chester 1

Acknowledgements

I am greatly thankful to my dissertation supervisor Gautam Rajkhowa who supported me throughout

the entire duration of the investigation and helped me keep the investigation manageable and

heading in the right direction.

A special thanks goes to the marketing and psychology lecturers who sacrificed their lecture time in

order to help me with my data collection and of course to all those who participated and shared

their perceptions with me for the sake of the investigation.

Finally I would like to thank all my friends and family for providing me with the social support that

allowed me to bring this project to a successful conclusion.



Abstract

This investigation aimed to investigate the subject of perceived brand equity with regards to Audi,

BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen among students at the University of Chester. The sub topics that

were investigated were general brand equity perceptions, perceived brand depreciation, gender

differences and influence of relationship to automobiles on perceived brand equity.

The methods of data collection adopted were a survey for the primary quantitative data and content

analyses of relevant corporate data to collect secondary information.

The results showed there was a higher perceived brand equity for Audi relative to the other brands,

perceived brand equity is stronger for males than it is for females and the ownership of an

automobile, or a close relative who owns a studied brand, influences the perceived brand equity in a

positive way.

It was concluded that Audi was the brand carrying most brand equity among the sample at the

University of Chester, this was due to perception that the brand did not focus on one single unique

selling point. Also it was concluded that males would have higher levels of brand equity as they are

the main target audience of all the studied brands and thus more perceptive to the respective

marketing communications. Finally it was concluded that the closer your relationship is to

automobiles, either through personal ownership or a family owning a studied brand, the higher the

subject’s appreciation of the products.



Declaration of Originality

As the Owner of the research and dissertation I, Robin de Wit, can declare that this work is

original and that I have not submitted it for any other academic purpose. I also declare that

the work is mine and that all references to previous work – either by me or others- are fully

referenced

Signed: _________________________

Date: _________________________



Table of Contents

Page

1. Introduction 8

1.1. Background to the Research 8

1.2. Research Question 8

1.3. Justification for the Research 9

1.4. Methodology 9

1.5. Dissertation Outline 9

1.6. Chapter Summary 10

2. Literature Review 11

2.1. Introduction 11

2.2. Body 11

2.2.1. Branding 11

2.2.2. Brand Equity 12

2.2.2.1. Perceived Quality 15

2.2.2.2. Differentiation and Positioning 15

2.2.2.3. Price Premium 15

2.2.2.4. Brand Associations 16

2.2.2.4.1. Information Processing and retrieval 16

2.2.2.4.2. Positive attitudes 17

2.2.3. High Involvement Products 17

2.2.4. Product Life Cycle 17

2.3. Gap in the Literature 17


3. Methodology 19


3.2. Research Philosophy 19

3.3. Research Approach 20

3.4. Methods of data collection 20

3.4.1. Sampling method and details of research sample and population 20

3.4.2. Questionnaire design and rationale for adopted methods 21

3.4.2.1. Dollarmetric 21

3.4.2.2. Associations 21



3.4.2.3. Likert Scale 21

3.4.2.4. Demographics 22

3.4.3. Content Analysis 22

3.4.4. Data analysis 23

3.5. Ethical Considerations 23


4. Presentation of Findings 24


4.2. Analysis of research participants & non respondents 24

4.3. Presentation & discussion of findings 24

4.3.1. Presentation of primary data 24

4.3.1.1. General Primary data 24

4.3.1.1.1. Dollarmetric scale results 25

4.3.1.1.2. Brand Associations 25

4.3.1.1.3. Brand Preferences 28

4.3.1.2. Gender differences 28

4.3.1.2.1. Dollarmetric 28


4.3.1.3. Car Ownership 31



4.3.2. Presentation of Secondary data 36

4.3.2.1. Depreciation 36

4.3.2.2. Marketing communications messages 36

4.3.2.2.1. Audi 36

4.3.2.2.2. BMW 37

4.3.2.2.3. Mercedes 37

4.3.2.2.4. Volkswagen 37


5. Interpretation of findings and conclusions 39


5.2. Critical Evaluation of Adopted Methodology 39

5.3. Conclusions about the Research Objectives 40

5.3.1. General 40



5.3.1.1. Dollarmetric 40

5.3.1.2. Associations 41

5.3.1.3. Likert Scale 41

5.3.1.4. Conclusions research aims 1 & 2 41

5.3.2. Demographics 42

5.3.2.1. Gender Differences 42


5.3.2.1.2. Associations 42

5.3.2.1.3. Gender conclusions 43

5.3.2.2. Car Ownership 43


5.3.2.2.2. Associations 44

5.3.2.2.3. Car Ownership conclusions 44

5.4. Conclusions 45

5.5. Limitations of the Study 46

5.6. Opportunities for further research 46

6. References 47

7. Appendices 51

7.1. Appendix 1. Supervisory Meeting Forms 51

7.2. Appendix 2. Questionnaire 55

7.3. Appendix 3. Participant Information Sheet 57



List of Figures Page

Figure 1. Aaker, D. (1991) brand equity model 12

Figure 2. Keller (2000) CBBE model, six brand building blocks 13

Figure 3. Keller (2000) CBBE model, sub-dimensions of brand building blocks 13

Figure 4. Riezebos, R. (2003) Brand-Added Value/Brand Equity Model 14

Figure 5. Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon’s (2004) Customer Equity Framework 14

Figure 6. Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) “modal” model of memory 16

Figure 7. The research process “onion” source: Saunders,M et al. 19

Figure 8. Perceived value over time for Audi, BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen 25

Figure 9. Adjectives associated with Audi 26

Figure 10. Adjectives associated with BMW 26

Figure 11. Adjectives associated with Mercedes 27

Figure 12. Adjectives associated with Volkswagen 27

Figure 13. Section C, means of all brands 28

Figure 14. Mean perceived values for males and females for Audi 29

Figure 15. Mean perceived values for males and females for BMW 29

Figure 16. Mean perceived values for males and females for Mercedes 30

Figure 17. Mean perceived values for males and females for Volkswagen 30

Figure 18. Brand associations of females for Audi 31

Figure 19. Brand associations of males for Audi 31

Figure 20. Mean rating over time car ownership and relation for the Audi A4 33

Figure 21. Mean ratings over time car ownership and relation for the BMW 3 Series 33

Figure 22. Mean rating over time car ownership and relation for the Mercedes C Class 34

Figure 23. Mean rating over time car ownership and relation for the Volkswagen Golf 34

Figure 24. Brand association for Audi with regards to car ownership 35

Figure 25. Brand association for BMW with regards to car ownership 36

Figure 26. Brand associations for Mercedes with regards to brand ownership 36

Figure 27. Brand association for Volkswagen with regards to brand ownership 37

Table of Tables

Table 1. Depreciation in % of studied brands 39



1. Introduction

1.1. Background to Research

In modern society products no longer stand alone as just the physical product, but instead have

been integrated under the sheltering umbrellas of corporate brands. Brands also have gone beyond

Kotler (2000) definition of “the name associated with one or more items that is used to identify the

source of character of the items” and instead have become a more complex framework of

“identifying a product and distinguishing it from the competition” (Guzman, F., 2005). In order “to

create a strong and distinctive image in the mind of the consumer” (Kohli & Thakor, 1997)

The building of a strong and distinctive brand, also known as “branding” which has become the

priority for many organizations. This is because a brand “is a sign loaded with meaning that we

choose to consume because we feel we relate to it” (Williams, 2000)

The holy grail of branding is to build brand equity. Brand equity is defined by Farquar (1989) as “the

added value with which a given brand endows a product” and the “enhancement in perceived utility

and desirability through which a brand name confers on a product”. The two leading models used to

analyse brand equity are Aaker (1991) Brand equity model and Keller (2001) CBBE (Consumer Based

Brand Equity) model, each model describing different elements and phases of gaining and creating

brand equity.

1.2. Research Question

Brands use targeting strategies to reach a specific segment in order to build their brand and

consequently acquire brand equity. Audi BMW and Mercedes are three brands that have similar

target segments, similar products, long heritages and the same country of origin yet each brand has

positioned itself away from its competitor through branding and building of brand equity.

An investigation into the quantitative and qualitative perceptions students have towards these

brands in combination with a content analysis of marketing communications will give insight into the

perceived brand equity among students, towards these brands.

In addition to the brands Audi, BMW and Mercedes the brand of Volkswagen was added as a fourth

and controlling variable. The Volkswagen brand also has an strong brand heritage and the same

country of origin as the other three. Though in contrast to the other brands it products are

significantly different and targets a distinct consumer segment; one that students should find

appealing and identify themselves with.



The research question of this investigation is:

To investigate the subject of perceived brand equity of Audi, BMW, Mercedes and

Volkswagen in relation to their marketing communications, among students at the University

of Chester.

The research objectives of this investigation, in order to answer the research question, are:

Objective 1: To evaluate the concept of perceived brand equity of Audi, BMW, Mercedes and

Volkswagen among students at the University of Chester

Objective 2: To evaluate and compare the maintenance of perceived brand equity for Audi,

Mercedes, BMW and Volkswagen over time

Objective 3: To investigate gender differences in perceived brand equity for Audi, BMW,

Mercedes and Volkswagen

Objective 4: To investigate the relationship of car ownership on perceived brand equity for

Audi, BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen

1.3. Justification of Research

The subject of brand equity and perceived brand value is one that has generated large amounts of

literature over the years and that is a key to an organizations long lasting success. Brand equity is a

subject that many organizations monitor very closely and is their priority to keep it within the

organization.

1.4. Methodology

The investigation will adopt a critical realism philosophy with a deductive approach. A questionnaire,

with a range of scales, will be used for quantitative primary data collection from a representative

sample. A content analysis of relevant marketing communications and corporate information will be

used to collect qualitative secondary data.

1.5. Dissertation Outline

The structure that this investigation will take is as follows: a critical literature review followed by a

detailed description of the methodology applied to this investigation. The next chapter will present

the findings followed by the interpretation of these. The investigations will finish by interpreting and



drawing conclusions from the data as well as indicating methodological weaknesses and areas for

future research

1.6. Chapter Summary

To summarize this dissertation will be looking at brand equity. The main focus will be on the

evaluation and investigation of the perceived brand equity and the maintenance of it for Audi, BMW,

Mercedes and Volkswagen. A range of quantitative and qualitative methods will be used for data

collection that will lead to the critical analysis and evaluation of these results and their relation to

the literature and opportunities for future research.



2. Literature review

2.1. Introduction

This chapter of the investigation will review relevant literature, present well established theories and

recent writings. The review of the literature will follow an “hourglass structure” starting broad and

then focusing on narrower and more focused topics. The main topic that will be investigated is

branding, this will be narrowed down to the topic of brand equity which will then narrow down to

the sub topics of brand equity: perceived brand quality and brand associations. The chapter will

finish by indicating the gap in the literature that this investigation aims to close.

2.2. Body

2.2.1. Branding

The Origin of “branding” comes from the word derived from Old English meaning “burning stick” and

ultimately from the Indo-European meaning “to be hot”. Livestock branding was used by ancient

Egyptians as early as 2700 B.C. as a theft deterrent. (Zyman Institute of Brand Science, 2005)

Over a period of more than 4 millennia this concept developed to be defined as “the name

associated with one or more items in the product line that is used to identify the source of character

of the items (Kotler, 2000). This concept was established in the 1980’s however a paradigm shift

took place and corporations went from buying production capacity (chocolate producer) to buying a

place in the mind of the consumer (Kit Kat). A more up to date definition of brand is that “it serves to

identify a product and to distinguish it from the competition” (Guzman, 2005), according to Kohli

and Thakor (1997) “the challenge for a brand today is to create a strong and distinctive image in the

mind of the consumer”.

Kotler and Armstrong (2010) introduce the concept of brand layers by stating that each product

consists of three “product layers”, each layer adding additional value to the product. Companies

must act on these levels to create customer value and the most satisfying customer experience. The

development of these product layers allows the building of a brand, brand equity and positioning the

brand in the mind of the consumer through developing brand knowledge structures (Keller, 2001).

Williams (1982) supports this idea by suggesting that “branding is a business strategy to encourage

consumption of one product over its competitors and it is a sign loaded with meaning that we

choose to consume because we feel we relate to it”.



2.2.2 Brand Equity

Brand equity is defined by Farquhar (1989) as the ‘added value’ with which a given brand endows a

product. Lasser, Mittal and Sharma (1995) define brand equity as the enhancement in the perceived

utility and the desirability a brand name confers on a product. According to Aaker (1991) brand

equity is a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol, which add to or

subtract from the value provided by a product or service to that firms customers. The assets can be

grouped into five categories each with their corresponding effects. Based in these assumptions

Aaker (1991) developed his brand equity model used as a measure of brand equity and a widely

accepted key framework in the field. Aaker’s brand equity model is detailed in figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Aaker (1991) brand equity model

As Aaker’s model is descriptive of the effects of brand equity elements and can be seen as a series of

guidelines towards building brand equity (Cooper & Simons, 1997). Keller (2001) developed his CBBE

(Customer based brand equity) model which outlines four key steps to building brand equity in

relation to the six “brand building blocks”, as shown in figure 2 below, each block with its own

separate sub-dimensions as detailed in figure 3 below.



Figure 2. Kellers (2000) CBBE model, six brand building blocks

Figure 3, Kellers (2000) CBBE model, sub-dimensions of brand building blocks

Since 1991, when Aaker introduced his well respected brand equity model, the marketing landscape

has experienced a major shift in communication processes, changes in the external business

environment and an increase in the speed and competitiveness that organizations have to operate

at. Not all authors agree that Aaker’s (1991) brand equity model is up to date and bulletproof.

Riezebos (2003) argues that Aaker’s model “did not make an explicit distinction between the added

value a brand offers customer/consumers, and the added value offered to the brand owner. And this

model also fails to list market share as a brand equity component”. Riezebos (2003) Brand-Added

Value/Brand Equity model, shown in figure 4 below, takes these new elements into account.



Figure 4. Riezebos, R. (2003) Brand-Added Value/Brand Equity Model

Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon’s (2004) argue that brand equity is a component of customer equity.

Besides brand equity, customer equity also consists of value equity and retention equity. The core

components of this model are present and closely linked to Aaker’s (1991) brand equity model but

are rearranged to build customer equity. Figure 5 below presents Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon’s (2004)

Customer Equity Framework.

Figure 5. Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon’s (2004) Customer Equity Framework



Pickton and Broderick (2005) note that there are many more ways of measuring brand equity such

as the method proposed by Interbrand or Total Research Equitrend. But they claim that there is not

one single consistent framework proposed by the marketing industry and each method has its

strengths and weaknesses.

2.2.2.1 Perceived Quality

Perceived quality is defined by Zeithaml (1988) as the customer’s perceptions of the overall quality

or superiority of a product or service with respect to its intended purpose, relative to alternatives.

Perceived quality generates values through 5 different channels, it gives consumers a reason to buy,

it differentiates and positions the brand, it can aid in gaining distribution channels, it facilitates

brand extensions and it provides the brand with the option of a price premium (Aaker, 1991).

2.2.2.2 Differentiation/positioning

According to Kapferer (1994) in an increasingly global market, brands are the only truly international

language. Differentiation is a distinguishing feature that creates a brand advantage (Pickton &

Broderick, 2005) also it acts as a way of positioning away from the competition (Fill, 2005). In order

to do so the brand needs to obtain a unique position in the mind of the consumer; positioning

(Guzman, 2005). Positioning is the degree to which a brand is seen as different from others (Dahlen,

Lange, & Smith, 2010). A differentiating association can be a key competitive advantage. If a brand is

well positioned (with respect to competitors) upon a key attribute in the product class (Aaker, 1991)

2.2.2.3 Price premium

Kotler and Armstrong (2010) describe the price as the sum of all values that customers give up in

order to gain the benefits of having or using a product or service. A price is based on several factors

such as production costs, transportation cost and the desired profit margin, but some brands can

also charge a price premium. A price premium is the increase in price due to superiorly perceived

product attributes or in other words brand equity is an exclusive and distinguished position in the

mind of the consumer for which a price premium can be charged (Keller, 2001). Brand equity assets

have the potential to provide a brand with a price premium. The resulting extra revenue can be used

(for example) to enhance profits, or to reinvest in building more equity (Aaker, 1991).

Price premiums can be measured and this is often done through customer research. Customers are

asked what they would pay for various features and characteristics of a product. Termed a

dollarmetric scale, this survey provides a direct measure of the value of a product carrying a certain

brand name. (Aaker, 1991)



American Motors used a variant of the “dollarmetric scale” to measure the value of their brand

name. They presented participants with “unbadged” car models and asking them how much they

would pay for them and presenting them with “badged” car models and asking how much they

would pay for them. The price was approximately $10,000 for the unbadged car and approximately

$13,000 for the badged car. When Chrysler bought American Motors this car was sold for a price

close to the one suggested by the study (Aaker, 1991)

2.2.2.4 Brand associations

2.2.2.4.1 Information processing and retrieval

An association is a compact chunk of information, stored as memories, which provides a consumer

with an opinion of the brand. Atkinson’s and Schifrin’s (1968) “modal” model of memory, as show in

figure.3, can be used to show how associations and memories are obtained.

Figure 6. Atkinson and Shiffrin’s (1968) “modal” model of memory

The model shows the importance of grasping the audience’s attention and the rehearsal in order for

a brand association to be retrieved successfully at the point when intending purchase. The stronger

an association is and corresponds with consumer values the stronger the memories associated to

the brand will be and therefore easier to recall when faced with the purchase decision.

2.2.2.4.2 Positive attitudes

The authors don’t agree in the title but Aaker (1991) describes it as “positive attitudes” and Keller

(2001) describes it as “consumer feelings”. Positive brand associations are emotional responses and

reactions with respect to the brand (Keller 2001). Erk (2002) claims that rewards induce subjective

feelings of pleasure and contribute to positive emotions and attitudes. They can act as positive

reinforcements by increasing the frequency and intensity of goal-directed behaviour. Recently it has



been shown that these reward mechanisms are also involved in the regulation of social relationships

such as dominance and social rank, which some high involvement products also focus upon.

Erk et al. (2002) conducted a neuro-imaging experiment in which participants were stimulated

through visual images of cars of the following categories: sports cars, limousines and family cars. The

aim of the experiment was to determine the mean ATR activity of participants towards each

category. Findings showed that participants were significantly more attracted to the sports car

category. There was also higher atractivity for the limousines than to the small cars but results were

not significant. The researchers concluded their experiment by stating that their hypothesis “of an

activation of the reward circuitry by attractive sports cars was confirmed”.

2.2.3 High involvement products

A high involvement product is a high capital value good that is purchased only after long and careful

consideration (www.businessdictionary.com). The Product that this investigation focuses upon is

high end automobiles; these are classified as “high involvement products”.

2.2.4 Product Life Cycle

Every product has a certain “product life cycle”. This concept consists of four stages: introduction,

growth, maturity and decline. The introduction and growth stage require high investment with low

profits. In the maturity stage high profits are made but investments must be made to maintain the

products position (Bearden, Ingram and Laforge, 1998). Products carrying an equity rich brand are

able to complete the introduction and growth stage more rapidly than an unbranded product, will

enjoy a longer maturity and a slower decline. (Alabar, 2012)

2.3 Gap in Literature

The current public available literature is very strong in describing different elements needed to build

a brand and brand equity and it describes certain phenomena that occur due to such actions.

However there is a missing link between the subjects of brand equity, premium automobiles and

student perceptions; which this investigation will make a contribution to.



2.4 Chapter summary

To summarize there are many models with regards to brand equity, two of which have been

analysed in detail with regards to the relevant literature. The two models evaluated were Aaker’s

(1991) brand equity model and Keller’s (2001) CBBE model. Both models have been proposed based

on large amounts of literature. Although the models are different and have different focuses they

tend to agree on the basic principle of what brand equity is and how it is created. A gap in the

literature has been identified and the investigation aims to provide new insights.



3. Methodology

3.1 Introduction

A dissertation is founded on research, which is an effort to find things out (Fisher, 2007). This

process should involve a degree of philosophical underpinning. This chapter of the investigation is

based on the research process “onion” (see figure 4) suggested by Saunders et al. (2003) as a

template for its structure, The chapter will commence by detailing the methodological paradigm and

research design on which this research is based, followed by a description of the inner layers of the

research onion. This shall be followed by the presentation of details of the sample population and

the sampling method employed. This will be followed by a review of the different research

approaches and strategies and will present a rational approach to the choices made for data

collection methods and methods of analysis used. Finally the ethics involved in the research will be

discussed to be followed by the chapter summary.

Figure 7, The Research Process “onion” source: Saunders, M et al... (2003)

3.2 Research Philosophy

As Fisher (2010) highlights, epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge. The research

epistemology of this investigation will be the one of ontological critical realism. Critical realism

claims that there is a level of reality that is not easily accessible because it is hidden from common

view. Miles and Huberman (1994) expressed it as “we look for a process or mechanism, a structure

at the core of events that can be captured to provide a causal description of the forces at work”. As



opposed to phenomenology or positivism, critical realism shares values with ontological realism,

which aims to be scientific, but takes a Gnostic stance in the sense that is believes the truth to be

subjective, hidden and is gained through personal struggle.

This stance is appropriate for this investigation because it aims to investigate student perceptions,

personal interpretations of reality, of products within the automotive industry. The positivism stance

would not fit this research objective because it only has interest in the tangible. The realism stance

does come to terms with the subjective human nature but still considers reality to be to easily

accessible. Critical realism on the other hand argues that there is a level of reality below the

everyday levels of events and our experiences of them making it the appropriate stance for this

investigation.

3.3 Research Approach

The research approach of the investigation will be deductive. Deductive logic is used for theory

testing, as inductive logic is used for theory building, since this investigation aims to test the theories

application for a specific sample making it an appropriate approach. The research strategies that will

be used to implement the deductive approach are both surveys for primary data and case studies for

secondary data. Surveys allow for collection of large amounts of quantitative data that can be

statistically analysed while the strengths of case studies are that they can provide clear qualitative

insight into themes and messages. The time horizon will be cross sectional to provide insight into the

studied issue at a given moment in time.

3.4 Methods of data collection

3.4.1 Sampling method and details of research sample and population

For the collection of primary research it was decided to employ the method of purposive sampling;

all available participants were asked to participate. Convenience sampling involves choosing

respondents at the convenience of the researcher. This is the sampling of people to which the

researcher has easy access (Fisher, 2007)

The population that this sample intends to represent is that of the undergraduate students at the

University of Chester for the academic term of 2011/12. The entire student population consists of

12,438 students with a 2:1 ratio of females to males. From this a sampling frame was drawn, this

should mirror the population of interest (Bradley, 2010)

The sampling frame consisted of 139 participants consisting of 1st and 3nd year business studies and

1st and 2nd year psychology. Subject from both business and psychology where used to be increase



external validity and the sample size. Ratio of females to males was 82:57. To further break down

the demographics of the sample 25 1st year business, 31 3rd year business, 10 1st year psychology and

73 2nd year psychology students.

3.4.2 Questionnaire design and rationale for adopted methods

The body or content of a questionnaire consists of questions that cover information needed to solve

the marketing problem (Proctor, 2005). The following methods and scales have been selected for

collection of data that will provide insight into perceptions and attitudes towards Audi, BMW,

Mercedes and Volkswagen and their respective brand equities.

In the introduction of the questionnaire together with the instructions for participants 4 images

were of 4 cars, one for each brand studied. Brace (2004) suggests that “Showing logos can alter the

responses to questions about brand image. It is normal to establish prompted brand awareness

before asking about images of certain brands”. To make the brand as equal as possible for Audi its

A4 model was chosen, for BMW its 3 Series model and for Mercedes its C Class model. As a

controlling variable the Volkswagen Golf was added. To further control variables it was said students

should “consider the products to be in a good condition” (see appendix 2 for questionnaire)

3.4.2.1 Dollarmetric

Aaker (1991) suggested that a so called “dollarmetric scale” can be used to measure the value of a

brand name in comparison to another branded or unbranded product. A table was devised to where

participants would be able to enter their perceived values over time for the four brands easily (see

appendix 2, section A for Dollarmetric table).

3.4.2.2 Associations

To measure the effectiveness or marketing communications and general brand associations it was

decided to use a “connect the dots” task, where participants were asked to connect each of the four

brands to one of the four predetermined adjective. This allowed for the evaluation of which

adjectives were most associated with each brand.

3.4.2.3 Likert Scale

According to Brace (2004) many of the scales used in measuring attitude, brand perceptions,

customer satisfactions etc. are interval scale and Likert scales. As these are interval data, means and

standard deviations can be calculated”. A Likert scale will provide the researcher with quantitative

data” (Byman, 1989)



According to Brace (2004) “An attitudinal rating scale, used to rate respondent’s attitudes, can be a

Likert scale. This is a questionnaire technique where respondents are presented with a series of

attitude dimensions, they are asked how strongly they agree or disagree with a statement. … This

technique is easy to administer in self-completion questionnaires”

Tsiotsou (2005) conducted an investigation was to investigate the effect of perceived quality in

product involvement, overall satisfaction and purchase intention. The question was answered on a 7

point Likert scale. The author mentions that one of the limitations of the research is that “more

emphasis on the distinctive characteristics of perceived quality in different product categories

“There are four interrelated issues that questionnaire writers must be aware of when using the

Likert scale: Order effect, Acquiescence, Central tendency, Pattern answering. To avoid such issues it

is advised to keep the number of the Likert scale questions to a minimum and put negative answers

on the left hand side of the scale” (Brace, 2004). To prevent these errors the number of Likert scale

questions was limited to 4 and the order effect was eliminated by alternating the brands in the

question. To prevent pattern answering and acquiescence the Likert scale was limited to 5 points.

3.4.2.4 Demographics

In order to be able to investigate all the aims thoroughly and perform meaningful statistical analysis

the questionnaire, as the last question, asked for some basic personal demographic data such

including: sex, course of study and is they or a close relative owned a car or one of the studied

brands

3.4.3 Content and analysis

For the collection of secondary data a content analysis marketing communications was applied to

recent commercials, papers or company documents on Audi, BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen. The

content analysis was performed partially using the guidelines provided by Zhang and Wildemuth

(2009). The steps used, in chronological order, where: preparing the data, defining the units of

analysis, develop categories and a coding scheme, code all text, draw conclusions from coded data

and report your methods and findings



3.4.4 Data analysis

To analyse the quantitative primary data, all data from the questionnaires was coded and

transferred to Microsoft Excel. This software was used to calculate means, standard deviations,

margins or error and draw charts

3.5 Ethical Consideration

There are ethical issues regarding data collection such as the participation being voluntary, if desired

anonymous and that subjects are given full informed consent. All participants were treated in

accordance with the BPS guidelines and were given full informed consent (see appendix 3 for

information sheet) this stated that participation was entirely voluntarily and that participants were

guaranteed anonymity. In order to guarantee anonymity no personally identifiable details were

required. The information sheet also provided participants with contact details in case the

questionnaire were to cause them any issues.

There is a debate about whether or not anonymity affects accuracy of responses for example Klein,

Mahler and Dunnington (1967) reported that responses became more distorted when subjects felt

threatened that their identities would become known. On the other hand Butler (1973) found that

confidentiality did not affect response rates or responses in comparison to non-confidentiality. For

this investigation knowing the identity of the participant would not benefit the experiment in any

way, so it was decided that participants where to remain anonymous.

3.6 Chapter summary

To summarize the investigation will take a critical realism stance to perform a deductive cross

sectional investigation using questionnaires to collect primary data and content analysis of case

studies to investigate brand perceptions, associations and to evaluate marketing communication

efforts. Participants have been treated ethically in accordance to BPS guidelines.



4. Presentation of Findings

4.1 Introduction

This chapter will present and describe all the relevant data. The data presented is in three sets. Data

from the general population will be presented first, followed by demographic data illustrating

gender differences will be presented followed by data with as variable whether or not the

participant or a close relative owns a car. Each of these data sets will have an individually analysis of

dollarmetric scale, brand association and the 5 point Likert scale, where appropriate.

4.2 Analysis of research participants & non-respondents

The conducting of the questionnaire returned 139 completed questionnaires approximately 1.16% of

the research population and indicates a margin of error of 8.38%1. The sample was largely

representative; the sample consisted of participants from various years of study and two different

courses, also the ratio of females to males was 82:57, not identical to the universities 2:1 ratio

(http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/chester) but similar.

There were no non-respondents although some questionnaire were incomplete this was taken into

account during statistical analysis

4.3 Presentation & discussion of findings

The data collected consists of both primary and secondary data. Primary data was obtained through

questionnaires and secondary data from content analysis of corporate documents, papers and

marketing communications. First the results from the primary data will be presented followed by the

presentation of secondary data.

4.3.1 Presentation of Primary Data

4.3.1.1 General Primary Data

The processed data for the whole sample will be presented in the figures below2, this is data from

the dollarmetric scale, brand associations, and the 5 point Likert scale will be presented.

1 Using: L=2√(p(100-p)/n)

2 Spread Sheet is available on www.mymarketingdissertation.com until 01/10/13

http://www.mymarketingdissertation.com/



4.3.1.1.1 Dollarmetric scale results

One of the aims of this investigation was “To evaluate and compare the maintenance of perceived

brand equity for Audi, Mercedes, BMW and Volkswagen over time”. Figure 8 below show the means

of the perceived product value for the corresponding age and brand.

Figure 8. Perceived value over time for Audi, BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen

Figure 8, shows the perceived values and depreciation of the products over time. It was observed

that Mercedes C Class is the highest valued brand (new = £33218, σ = 16340), BMW 3 Series the 2nd

highest valued (new = £30676, σ = 14629), Audi A4 the 3rd highest (new = 27906, σ = 12855) and 4th

highest the Volkswagen Golf (new = 17590, σ = 7818). The products all depreciate at an equal rate

with insignificant differences

4.3.1.1.2 Brand Associations

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of marketing communications of the studied companies it was

investigated which adjectives were most associated with the corresponding brands. Figures, 9, 10,

11 and 12 below present the association with preselected adjectives to Audi, BMW, Mercedes and

Volkswagen.

£0,0

£5.000,0

£10.000,0

£15.000,0

£20.000,0

£25.000,0

£30.000,0

£35.000,0

New 2 Years 5 Years 10 Years

Pe

rcie

ved

Val

ue

(£

)

Percieved Brand Value Over Time

Audi A4

BMW 3 Series

Mercedes C Class

Volkswagen Golf



Figure 9. Adjectives associated with Audi

Figure 10. Adjectives associated with BMW

Performance 34%

Luxury 21% Sustainable

Future 12%

Innovation 33%

Audi

Performance 47%

Luxury 16%

Sustainable Future

13%

Innovation 24%

BMW



Figure 11. Adjectives associated with Mercedes

Figure 12. Adjectives associated with Volkswagen

From the pie charts presented above, figure 9 shows that the two adjectives most associated to Audi

are Innovation (33%, L=8%) and performance (34%, L=8.045). Figure 10 shows that the adjective

mainly associated to BMW is performance (47%, L=8.47%). Figure 11 shows that the dominating

adjective associated with Mercedes is luxury (64%, L=8.15%) and figure 12 shows that the adjective

most associated with Volkswagen is sustainable future (71%, L=7.72%).

Performance 8%

Luxury 64%

Sustainable Future

6%

Innovation 22%

Mercedes

Performance 10%

Luxury 1%

Sustainable Future

71%

Innovation 18%

Volkswagen



4.3.1.1.3 Brand preferences

In order to measure brand preferences a 5 point Likert scale was used. The mean scores for each

brand were calculated and are presented in Figure 13 below.

Figure 13. Mean Likert rating of each respective brand

The bar chart, figure 13, above shows that participants rated Audi the highest on the 5 point Likert

Scale (3.05, σ=1.731). The 2nd highest scoring brand was Mercedes (2.69, σ=1671), 3rd highest was

Volkswagen (2.63, σ=1.667) and 4th highest was BMW (2.62, σ=1.597)

4.3.1.2 Gender differences

One of the aims of this study is to investigate the influence of demographic differences. One of these

demographic differences that can be studied from the sample is the differences in gender

perceptions. Results for the dollarmetric scale and brand associations. The 5 point Likert scale

showed no significant differences.

4.3.1.2.1 Dollarmetric

The mean scores of the dollarmetric scale were calculated separately for the male and female

participants. The results for the Audi A4, for this analysis are presented in figure 14 below. Results

for BMW 3 Series are presented in figure 15, results for the Mercedes C Class are presented in figure

16 and the results for the Volkswagen Golf are presented in figure 17.

2,400 2,500 2,600 2,700 2,800 2,900 3,000 3,100

Audi

BMW

Mercedes

Volkswagen

General Likert Means, Section C



Figure 14. Mean perceived values for males and females for Audi

Figure 15. Mean perceived values for males and females for BMW

£27.244

£21.269

£15.494

£9.828

£28.846

£20.755

£13.006

£7.284

New 2 YO 5YO 10 YO

Audi

Females Males

£29.923

£23.114

£16.917

£10.615

£31.746

£23.146

£14.618

£8.546

New 2 YO 5YO 10 YO

BMW

Females Males



Figure 16. Mean perceived values for males and females for Mercedes

Figure 17. Mean perceived values for males and females for Volkswagen

The results presented in figures 14 -17 show males perceived the value of the new product to be

higher than females. Also it shows that females value the ageing products higher than males.

4.3.1.2.2 Brand associations

The “connect the dots” task only showed relevant gender differences with regards to Audi. No other

sex differences were found with regards to associations towards other brands. The findings of

gender differences in brand associations for Audi are presented in figures 18 and 19 below.

£31.096

£23.968

£17.835

£11.385

£36.227

£26.284

£17.191

£10.164

New 2 YO 5YO 10 YO

Mercedes

Females Males

£17.122

£13.299

£9.282

£5.350

£18.255

£12.805

£8.326

£4.414

New 2 YO 5YO 10 YO

Volkswagen

Females Males



Figure 18. Brand associations of females for Audi

Figure 19. Brand associations of males for Audi

The results shown in figures 18 and 19 show a difference between the associations of Innovation

with Audi; 28% of females in contrast to 41% of males. Associations to performance and luxury show

no differences, but males did associate sustainable future less with Audi than females do.

4.3.1.3 Car ownership

The final set of data will present findings with regards to the variable of relationship and ownership

to automobiles. Data was divided into three groups: those who indicated that they own a car, those

that indicated that a close relative owns a product of one of the studied brands and those that

indicated neither. One participant could be represented in two groups.

Performance 34%


Future 16%

Innovation 28%

Females Audi

Performance 34%


Future 7%

Innovation 41%

Males Audi




Figure 20 below represents the mean ratings for Audi A4 on the dollar metric scale. Figure 21

represents the same for the BMW 3 series, figure 22 for Mercedes C Class and figure 23 for

Volkswagen

Figure 20. Mean ratings over time in respect of car ownership and relation for the Audi A4.

Figure 21. Mean ratings over time in respect of car ownership and relation for the BMW 3 Series.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000


Audi A4

Car Owners

Relative owns studied brand

No relation

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000


BMW 3 Series

Car Owners


No relation



Figure 22. Mean ratings over time in respect of car ownership and relation for the Mercedes C

Class.

Figure 23. Mean ratings over time in respect of car ownership and relation for the Volkswagen

Golf.

4.3.1.3.2 Brand Associations

In order to investigate the effect of ownership or the lack of it, on brand associations the data

gathered from section B of the questionnaire was divided and the results for the association for each

brand are presented in figures 24 to 27 below.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000


Mercedes C Class

Car Owners


No relation

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000


Volkswagen Golf

Car Owners


No relation



Figure 24. Brand associations for Audi with regards to car ownership

Figure 25. Brand associations for BMW with regards to car ownership

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

30,00%

35,00%

40,00%

45,00%

Performance Luxury Sustainable Future

Innovation

Audi

Car Owners


No relation

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

60,00%


Innovation

BMW

Car Owners


No relation



Figure 26. Brand associations for Mercedes with regards to car ownership

Figure 27. Brand associations for Volkswagen with regards to car ownership

The results from the associations test showed that the group that has a close relative who owns an

Audi, BMW, Mercedes or Volkswagen scored the most accurate for each of the four brands. The

group that “owns a car” scored 2nd most accurate. The final group, those that have no relation to

automobiles, had the least accurate. They highly associated Mercedes with luxury but for the

remaining brands no significant differences were observed.

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

60,00%

70,00%


Innovation

Mercedes

Car Owners


No relation

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

60,00%

70,00%

80,00%


Innovation

Volkswagen

Car Owners


No relation



4.3.2 Presentation of Secondary Data

4.3.2.1 Depreciation

A depreciating asset is an asset that has a limited effective life and can reasonably be expected to

decline in value over the time it is used. Depreciation assets include such items as computers,

electronic tools, furniture and motor vehicles (www.ato.gov.au). Table 1 below shows the

depreciation, in %, of the four studied personal mobility vehicles.

New Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Depreciation values %

Audi A4 Saloon 3.0 TDI quattro 245 SE 4dr 100.00% 56.27% 46.74% 38.80% 33.58%

BMW 3 Series Saloon 330d M Sport 4dr 100.00% 57.14% 47.44% 39.50% 34.16%

Mercedes-Benz C-Class Saloon C220 CDI

Blue Efficiency SE 4dr

100.00% 65.26% 54.30% 45.10% 39.00%

Volkswagen Golf Hatchback 2.0 TDI 170 GTD

5dr

100.00% 64.73% 53.03% 43.22% 36.58%

Table 1. Actual depreciation in % of studied brands. Data obtained from www.whatcar.com.

The obtained data shows that Mercedes is the brand that best maintains it value over time, worth

39% or its original value after 4 years. Volkswagen does 2nd best, being left with 36.58% after 4 years.

BMW comes 3rd, being left with 34.16% of its original value after 4 years and Audi comes 4th with

33.58% of its original value left after 4 years

4.3.2.2 Marketing communication messages

4.3.2.2.1 Audi

The German car manufacturer was founded in 1909 by Agustus Hoch, since 1965 Audi has been part

of the Volkswagen group (Haig, 2004). The brand was ranked in 2011 by Interbrand valued at $6.171

million and 60th worldwide. Audi is currently positioned as the premium brand within the

Volkswagen group. The brand maintains the slogan “Vorsprung durch Technik”, translated as

advancements through technology, this slogan focuses on its German origin and heritage but also on

their unique selling point: Innovation (http://www.metadesign.com/clients/audi). Proof of this USP

can be found in the 2010 claim that the company hold 12860 patents, some of the best known are:

Quatro, S-tronic transmissions or e-tron electric concept car (www.audi.co.uk).



The exact target market is a corporate secret. From the products, pricing, and marketing

communications it is estimated that the target audience will be mainly males of the ages of 25 to 65

with an above average income. These individuals would choose the brand for its luxury, innovation,

and brand heritage and customer service. The Audi offers a new A4 Saloon starting from £23,500

(www.audi.co.uk).

4.3.2.2.2 BMW

BMW is also a German car manufacturer founded in 1916, when it produced aircraft engines. Since

then it moved on to become one of the best known car brands in the world. The brand was ranked

in 2011 by Interbrand at $24.554 million, 15th worldwide. The firm currently promotes the brand

with the slogan “the ultimate driving machine”. This slogan indicates the brands focus on motoring

performance. BMW is positioned as a luxury and elicit brand, it appeals to people who don’t accept

second best and has become the perfect personality statement. (Haig, 2004)

A new BMW 3 Series Saloon from is priced starting from £25,000 (www.bmw.co.uk). The exact

target market is not available but marketing communications indicate that the target market is are

males aged 28-55 with high incomes that are looking for an “aggressive” ride

4.3.2.2.3 Mercedes-Benz

The German car brand Mercedes-Benz appeared first in 1924. And is currently ranked the highest of

the four brands in this study, according to Interbrand, who ranked the brand 12th worldwide with an

estimated value of $27,445 million (www.interbrand.com). The company, in the UK, maintains the

slogan “the best or nothing”, focusing on the company’s focus on being the best, supported by the

fact that the brand has been focusing on establishing itself as a prestige brand (Haig, 2004). Also

being German is one of the strongest traits of Mercedes-Benz (Drawbaugh, 2001).

A new Mercedes C Class Saloon is available from £26,000 (www.mercedes-benz.co.uk). No official

target market is available but the marketing communications indicate and positioning indicates that

the target markets are males with a well above average income aged 30–65.

4.3.2.2.4 Volkswagen

The Volkswagen brand was founded in 1938 in Germany, its name is translated as “the people’s car”,

an idea that runs deep in its DNA. The company’s slogan is “Das Auto”, or “The car”. The slogan

focuses on what it indicates a car that will satisfy everyone. The consistency in design and product

personality has meant that the resale value of Volkswagen cars is among the highest in the industry

(Haig, 2004)



A new Volkswagen Golf available at a starting price of £16,000 (www.volkswagen.co.uk), cheaper

than any of the other brand. No official statement of the target market is available but it is widely

accepted that the company’s targets young males, aged 21-35

4.4 Chapter summary

To summarize this chapter presented all relevant primary data for the general population, gender

differences and the variable of car ownership. Also secondary data was presented containing details

on marketing communication messages that participants could have been exposed to.



5. Interpretation of findings and conclusions

5. 1 Introduction

The goal of the investigation was “to investigate the subject of brand equity, focusing on Audi, BMW,

Mercedes and Volkswagen and their relevant marketing communications, among students at the

University of Chester”. The perceived value, maintenance, associations and perceptions were

investigated using a questionnaire and a content analysis of secondary data provided insight into the

respective marketing communications. A sample of 139 students was selected through a

convenience sampling method. This chapter will interpret the data from the previous chapter in the

light of the corresponding literature.

5.2 Critical Evaluation of Adopted Methodology

The conducted investigation was generally successful and provided insight into the on-going themes

in and around brand equity. However, the investigation was not flawless and there are some issues

that need to be addressed.

The tool used for primary data collection was a questionnaire. Section C of the questionnaire, due to

its wording, was structured to avoid an order effect; sections A and B of the questionnaire were not

edited to avoid an order effect. This increased the likelihood of an order effect producing in the

sections A and B. Section B was especially vulnerable to this as the task had a limited set number of

answers

In an attempt to collect sufficient quantitative data questionnaire were conducted in large lectures.

It was observed that participants discussed the questionnaires with each other, possibly influencing

each other’s perceptions.

Due to a lack of data no separate analysis could be made with regards to “course of study”. However

this investigation is in the field of marketing and marketing students as well as psychology students

participated in the data collection. It is possible that marketing students would have been more

accurate, and thus affecting the results, on the dollarmetric and brand association sections as they

could have acquired the relevant brand knowledge or knowledge of depreciation as it is a topic

related to their subject of study. The results and findings have to be treated critically and further

research will be needed to confirm findings.



5.3 Conclusions about Research Objectives

5.3.1 General

Objective 1: To evaluate the concept of perceived brand equity of Audi, BMW, Mercedes and

Volkswagen among students at the University of Chester


Objective 2: To evaluate and compare the maintenance of perceived brand equity for Audi,

Mercedes, BMW and Volkswagen over time

Figure 8 showed that the four brands depreciated at an almost identical rate. The highest valued

brand was the Mercedes C Class (£33,218), the second highest was the BMW 3 series (£30,676),

third highest was the Audi A4 (£27,906) and least valued was the Volkswagen Golf (£17,590).

These results from the sample are similar to the real depreciation data (table 1). This data showed

the same “brand hierarchy” thought this differed as participants over-valued Mercedes-Benz by

26%, BMW by 20%, Audi by 14.89% and Volkswagen by 6.25% compared to data from table 1.

These results indicate that for the studied population the brand that has the highest perceived brand

value is Mercedes. It was perceived to be most costly and was perceived o depreciate slightly less

than the other brands α > 0.05. BMW was perceived to contain second most brand equity and Audi

3rd. Perceived depreciation of Audi and BMW was identical ±0.3%.

In accordance with Keller (2001) the higher perceived price of a product by its consumers, or price

premium, is caused by superiorly perceived product attributes and by product of brand equity.

According to Aaker (1991) a price premium is only the result of a high perceived quality and

according to Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon’s (2004) the premium price is a driver of value equity that

contributes to building customer equity.

According to the literature, from this section, it is interpreted that Mercedes is perceived to be most

superior compared to the other brands, though in accordance with the secondary data the

participants are most “out of touch” with this brand as they overvalued it by 26%. Over time the

brand, according to the results, maintain their perceived brand premium relative to each other.




The brand association data, figures 9-12, showed that participants correctly associated Mercedes

with Luxury (64%), BMW with Performance (47%) and Volkswagen with sustainable future (71%).

Also participants associated Audi with performance (34%) and the correct innovation (33%).

According to Pickton & Broderick (2005) differentiation is what creates a brand advantage and

Guzman (2005) this means gaining a unique position in the mind of the consumer. From the results it

can be interpreted that only Mercedes and Volkswagen have achieved this.

According to Riezebos (2003) the high levels of differentiation is a component of the brand added

value, which allows for the rapid data processing and increases customer satisfaction, all of which

are sub components of brand equity.

In section 5.2.1.1 Mercedes was identified as being most superior to the other brands. Audi and

BMW seem to be confusing brands for the participants as they are unable to distinguish between

the two brands. Volkswagen obtained the highest correct association this means, according to the

literature, that the Volkswagen has positioned itself most uniquely against the other presented

brand. This would make sense as Volkswagen targets a different segment and also operates in a

different sub-market away from Audi, BMW and Mercedes

5.2.1.3 Likert Scale

The Likert scale served to measure brand preferences and brand equity. The results (figure 13)

showed that there was a mean preference of 3.05/5, for Audi, 0.36 (7.3%) higher than the other

brands. BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen scored 2.63 – 2.685, only slightly above the null mean of

2.5.

According to Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon’s (2004) positive attitudes towards a brand generates brand

equity which in turn creates consumer equity, as Audi is the brand that scored highest Keller (2001)

would claim that Audi provokes the largest positive emotional response. Erk (2001) explains this that

Audi induces subjective feelings of pleasure and contribute to positive emotions and attitudes.

As the other three brands scored only slightly above the expected mean of 2.5, this would mean that

these brands evoke only slightly positive feelings but only minimal.



5.2.1.4 Conclusions about research aims 1 and 2.

To summarize Mercedes was perceived to have the highest price premium, Volkswagen and

Mercedes scored highest in the brand association section and Audi scored highest on the brand

preferences trail. The data seems relatively disperse but if it is considered that Audi was only over

valued 14.89% and scored significantly higher on the brand preferences trail.

In conclusion Audi can be considered to be the brand that holds most brand equity in the eyes of the

students at the University of Chester. It is the most preferred brand and was valued relatively

accurate in comparison to the other brands. The fact that, in the eyes of the sample, it is not purely

associated with one adjective seems to in favour of the brand as it is considered to be an all-round

product. Reasoning this was can be considered rational is the studied population has limited

financial resources; as is considered to be the case among students.

5.3.2 Demographics

The data collected from the primary data was divided for two demographic variables: gender and car

ownership. Data presented in the previous chapter will be analysed.

5.3.2.1 Gender Differences

Objective 3: To investigate gender differences in perceived brand equity for Audi, BMW, Mercedes

and Volkswagen.


Figure 14 to 17 present the mean results from the dollarmetric trail contrasting genders. The results

show the trend, of males perceiving the new product higher than females and females perceiving

the products to have a higher value when depreciating this is consistent among all of the studied

products.

The secondary data provided insight into the fact that males are the target audience of marketing

communications rather than females in addition many car programs such as Top Gear and fifth Gear

are directed towards a male audience (Jessop, 2009).

Since a price premium is a caused of perceived product superiority (Keller, 2001), in relation to the

data this means that males perceive the new automobiles to be more superior than females

perceive them to be. However as the products age females maintain, though decreasing, their

perception of superiority better than males do.



5.3.2.2 Brand Associations

There was only a significant gender difference with regards to the brand associations of Audi, figures

18 & 19. Males and females rated the brand in the same percentages on performance and luxury.

But for innovation females associated the brand with this adjective 28% whereas males did so in 41%

of the cases. Also females scored 16% on sustainable future and male participants 7%.

According to Aaker (1991) differentiation and positioning can be a key competitive advantage.

Secondary data (section 4.3.2.2.1) showed that the Audi brand primarily targets young males.

Previously it was also demonstrated that Audi was statistically the preferred brand out of the

presented four. This data shows that Audi is better differentiated among the males within the

sample and thus has a more unique place in the mind of the consumer (Kohli and Thakor 1997).

The fact that Audi is better differentiated among males seems to be a direct result of the

organizations marketing communications that the participants, over time, have been able to identify

themselves with better than females have.

5.2.2.4 Gender Conclusions

Through contrasting the data of the genders it was observed that males perceive new products to be

more superior than females do and also that Audi is better differentiated in the mind of the male

participants. Overall automobiles tend to be a “male product” and the data certainly indicates the

same.

5.3.3 Car Ownership

Objective 4: to investigate the relationship to car ownership on perceived brand equity for Audi,

BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen”

The sample was split into three categories: those that personally owned a car, those who have a

close relative who owns one of the studied brands and those who have neither. Participant could fit

into up to two categories.


The results, figures 20 and 21, suggest that having a close relative own an Audi or BMW increases

the perceived value and superiority of the product. It is assumed that the personal experience with

the products has led to an increase in their appreciation of the products and consequently increased

their perceived value.



For the Mercedes C Class, figure 22, those participants that have no relation no automobiles peak in

their perceived value of the new product, away from the trend observed with Audi and BMW. The

same is observed for the 10 year old product. The results suggest that have no experience with

automobiles over-value the brand more than those that do have such experience.

The Volkswagen Golf, figure 23, presents the same trends that were observed for the Mercedes C

Class and additionally for the product being 2 and 5 years old those participants who own a car rated

this product highest.

The secondary data has shown that Volkswagen predominantly targets 21-35 year olds, a target

audience to which the sample belongs. What is especially significant is that those that own a car

value the product higher than those who have a close relative that owns one of the four studied

brands. This is significant because it means that the group owning a car perceives the

Volkswagen Golf to more superior than the other two groups. Those that own a car are likely to

possess one that is very similar to the Volkswagen Golf.


The results, figures 24-27, from the associations trail showed that the group that has a close relative

who owns an Audi, BMW, Mercedes or Volkswagen answered most accurately. The group that

“owns a car” scored 2nd most accurate. The final group, those that have no relation to automobiles,

had least accurate answers.

According to Atkinson and Shirrfin (1968) modal model of memory, figure 6, one of the key stages to

creating firm memories and thus strong brand associations is the attention components. It is

assumed that such associations are mainly created through non-personal advertising (Dahlen, Lange

& Smith, 2010). However the data indicates that the groups of the sample that have been exposed

to the actual or similar products have created much stronger brand associations and those that have

had no such exposure seem to have relatively weak brand associations.

5.2.3.4 Car Ownership conclusions

The results show that having a direct relative owning an Audi, Mercedes, BMW or Volkswagen has a

consistent impact on the perceived brand equity: valuations are higher, associations more accurate

and appreciations slightly more defined. The 2nd best performing group were those owning a car and

it was shown that not personally owning a car or having a relative who does so impacts the



participants’ perceptions, valuations and appreciations of the products in a negative way relative to

the marketing communications.

To conclude, marketing communications are vital to promote the brand its values but efficiency

could improve if those who have no relation to cars are targeted in different ways than those who

already own a car, or a close relative does so.



5.4 Conclusions about the research question

Research Question: To investigate the subject of brand equity, focusing on Audi, BMW, Mercedes and

Volkswagen their relevant marketing communications, among students at the University of Chester.

The research question was investigated through four research objectives, each objective

investigating a different aspect.

Research objective one showed that although Mercedes was perceived to possess the highest price

premium, Audi was the preferred brand amongst the sample as they considered the brand “smarter

to buy over an identical unbranded competitor”. It was concluded that the brand gained the

preference because it was not associated with attribute and rather multiple ones.

Although this conclusion initially goes against the theory that differentiation positions it away from

the competition (Fill, 2005), it is logical to state that a product that is perceived to be superior to its

competitors on multiple aspects will be the brand that acquires the largest enhancement in

perceived utility and desirability (Farquar 1989) building brand equity.

Research objective two provided little to no new insight into the subject of brand equity. It showed

that the brands were perceived to depreciate at a very similar rate minor differences were observed

between the brands but not large enough to provide conclusive evidence. It was however observed

that BMW and Audi were near enough perceived to depreciate at an identical rate ±0.3%, BMW was

though perceived to be slightly more costly.

Research objective three showed there are gender differences in the perceptions of the studied

automobile brands. The differences were assumed to be due to the marketing communications of

the brands that is mainly directed towards a male audience. From Atkinson and Shiffrin (1969)

modal model of memory this would grasp their attention rather than those of the females leading to

better differentiation in the mind of the male participants.

Research question four showed that owning a car or having a relative who own one of the studied

brand increases the perceived price premium of an automobile. It was reasoned that the close

contact with the product is a very strong force in building brand equity, a force that is stronger than

for example non personal communications to build brand association.

The overall conclusion is that brand equity is a key element in the marketing strategies of any

automobile brand. At the University of Chester the graduates seem to identify themselves most with

the Audi brand.



5.5 Limitations of the study

In an attempt to keep the research focused this also meant limiting the scope of the investigation.

From the sample used results can only be generalized to the University of Chester undergraduate

student population (aged 18-25, highly educated with a majority of females).

Because of the small sample size only a limited amount of data analysis techniques could be applied.

In hindsight more sophisticated data analysis software, such as SPSS, and a larger sample size would

have been able to provide more detailed insight into the data.

5.6 Opportunities for further research

Further research should be looking to collect more general data from a representative national or

regional sample. Another opportunity is to conduct research among a completely distinct and

limited population such as a different student population, age group or level of education to be able

to compare and contrast results to this investigation.

Further research can also look into the brand equity associated with other automobile brands. This

can take the shape of a completely different set of brand or products or can use the brand used in

this investigation and expand the investigation by adding new brands.

A final opportunity for further research is to use a quantitative approach for the collection of

primary data. A thematic coding system could provide insight into other aspect of brand equity.



References

Aaker, D. A., (1991) Managing Brand equity, capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. New York, The Free

Press

Alabar, T. T. (2012) Product Life Cycle and Brand Management Strategies. International Journal of Business

and Management Tomorrow, Feb. Vol.2 No.2, pp 1-11

Atkinson, R. C. & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In

Spence, K. W. The Psychology of learning and motivation (volume 2) New York: Academic Press pp.

89-195.

Audi (2012) Detroit showcar Audi e-tron. Retrieved on 05/02/12 from: http://www.audi.co.uk/audi-

innovation/concept-cars/detroit-showcar-audi-etron.html

Australian Government (2011) Guide to depreciating assets 2011. Retrieved on 07/02/12 from:

http://www.ato.gov.au/content/downloads/IND00270218n19960611.pdf

Bearden, W. O., Ingram, T. N., Laforge, R. W. (1998) Marketing Principles and Perspectives. Boston: McGraw

Hill.

Brace, I. (2004) Questionnaire design: how to plan, structure and write survey material for effective market

research. Kogan Page Limited, London, United Kingdom

Bradley, N. (2010) Marketing research tools and techniques. Oxford university press, Oxford United Kingdom.

Byman, A. (1989) research methods and organizational studies. Loughborough, Routledge

Butler, R. (1973) Effects of signed and unsigned questionnaires for both sensitive and nonsensitive Items.

Journal of Applied Psychology 57: pp.348-349

Cooper, A., Simons, P., (1997) Brand Equity Lifestage: an Entrepreneurial revolution. London: TBWA Simons

Palmer.

Dahlen, M., Lange, F., & Smith, T. (2010) Marketing Communications, A Brand Narrative Approach.

Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Klein, S., Mahler, J., Dunnington, R. (1967) Differences between identified and anonymous subjects in

responding to and industrial opinion survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 51. pp.152-160

Drawbaugh, K. (2001) Brand in the Balance, meeting the challenges to commercial identity. London, Pearson

education limited.



Erk, S., Spitzer, M., Wunderlich, A., Galley, L., Walker, H., (2002) Cultural objects modulaate reward curiosity.

NeuroReport 13:2499-2503

Farquahar, P, H. (1989) “Managing Brand Equity”, marketing research, 1, 24-33

Fill, C. (2005) Marketing Communications: Engagement Strategies and practice, 4th Edition. London: FT

Prentice Hall

Fisher, C. (2007) Researching & Writing a Dissertation for Business Students, 2nd Edition, Harlow: FT Prentice

Hall

Guzmán, F. (2005), “A Brand Building Literature Review,” The ICFAI Journal of Brand Management, 2 (3), 30-

48.

Haig, M. (2004) Brand Royalty, how the world’s top 100 brand thrive & survive. London, Kogan Page Limited

Interbrand (2012) 2011 ranking of the top 100 brand. Retrieved on 06/02/12 from:

http://www.interbrand.com/en/best-global-brands/best-global-brands-2008/best-global-brands-

2011.aspx

Jessop, J. (2009) Postmodern or past it, Masculinity and Top Gear, Mediamagazine, December 2009, pp.35-

40

Kapferer, J., N. (1994) Strategic brand management: New Approaches to creating and evaluating brand

equity. New York, Free Press

Keller, K. L., (2001) Building customer based brand equity: A blueprint for creating strong brands. Cambridge,

Marketing Science Institute.

Kohli, C., & Thakor, M. (1997) Branding consumer goods; Insight from theory and practice, Journal of

Consumer Marketing, 14(3), pp.206-219

Kotler, P. (2000), Marketing Management. The millennium edition, Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall.

Kotler and Armstrong (2010) Marketing Principles, 13th edition. Upper Saddle River, Pearson Education Inc.

Lasser, W., Banwari, M., Sharma, A. (1995), Measuring Customer Based Brand Equity, Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 12 (4), 11-19

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. (2003) Research Methods for business students (3rd edition) Harlow:

Prentice Hall



MetaDesign (2012) Audi. Retrieved on 03/02/12from: http://www.metadesign.com/clients/audi

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M., (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Pickton, D., & Broderick, A., (2005). Integrated Marketing Communications. Harlow: Pearson Education

Limited.

Proctor, T., (2005) Essential of Marketing Research, Fourth Edition. Harlow, Pearson Education Limited.

Riezebos, R. (2003) Brand Management: a theoretical & practical approach. Financial times. Harlow, Prentice

Hall. Retrieved on 27/04/12 from http://www.eurib.org/en/knowledge-resource-centre/online-

recource-centre/brand-equity.html

Rust, R. T., Zeithaml, V. A., Lemon, K. N. (2004), Customer-centred brand management. Harvard Business

Review, September, p.1-10

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. (5th ed.). Harlow,

England: FT Prentice Hall an imprint of Pearson Education

Thakor, M. V., Kohli, C. S., (1996) Brand origin: Conceptualization and Review. Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 13 (3), 27-42

Tsiotsou, R (2005) The role of perceived product quality and overall satisfaction on purchase intentions.

Marketing Bulletin 16, note 4. Retrieved on 02/02/12 from: http://marketing-

bulletin.massey.ac.nz/V16/MB_V16_N4_Tsiotsou.pdf

University Guide (2012) University of Chester. Retrieved on 04/02/12 from:

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/chester

Williams, G. (2000). Branded? Products and Their Personalities. London: VandA Publications

Zhang, Y., & Wildemunth, B, M., (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. In B. Wildemuth (Ed.), Applications

of social research Methods to Question in Information and Library Science (pp.222-231) Westport,

CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Zyman Institute of Brand Science, (2005). The Executive Guide to Branding. Corporate Performance and

Brands: The Risk and Return Effects of Branding. Retrieved on 12/1/12 from:

http://www.zibs.com/GuidetoBranding.pdf



Appendices

Appendix 1 A. Supervisory Meeting Form 18/11/11



Appendix 1 B. Supervisory Meeting Form 16/12/2011



Appendix 1 C. Supervisory Meeting Form 20/01/2012



Appendix 1 D. Supervisory Meeting Form 10/04/2012



Appendix 2. Questionnaire

Instructions

- Follow the instructions given in each section. - Please answer all questions to the best of your ability, if you are unsure please ask the

researcher or skip the question.

Additional Information to help you answer this questionnaire

These are the cars and brands being studied:

Audi A4 BMW 3 Series

Mercedes C Class Volkswagen Golf

Section A. Please complete the table, in each cell fill in what you perceive the value to be of the product with the corresponding age.

Age of Car


B R A N D

Audi A4, 2.0d £ £ £ £

BMW 3 Series 2.0d £ £ £ £

Mercedes C Class, 2.0d £ £ £ £

Volkswagen Golf 2.0d £ £ £ £

Section B Connect each brand to the one adjective you most associate it with

Audi Performance

BMW Luxury

Mercedes Sustainable Future

Volkswagen Innovation



Section C.

For each statement, rate on a scale of 1 – 5 (1=not at all, 5=completely), how much you agree with each statement.

A) It makes sense to buy Audi instead of any other brand even if they are the same

1 2 3 4 5

B) Even if another brand has the same features as BMW, I would prefer to buy BMW

1 2 3 4 5

C) If there is another brand as good as Mercedes, I prefer to buy Mercedes

1 2 3 4 5

D) If another brand is not different from Volkswagen in any way, it seems smarter to buy Volkswagen

1 2 3 4 5

Section D

Please fill in your personal information in the spaces provided below.

Sex Male /Female

Year of Study _______________

Course of study ____________________

Do you own a car? Y/N

Do you or a direct family member own an Audi, BMW, Mercedes or Volkswagen? Y/N

If Yes, which one? _________________________

Thank you for your participation!



Appendix 3. Participant information sheet

Participant Information Sheet

An investigation into the perceived brand equity and achievements of marketing tactics

concerning the Audi A4, BMW 3 Series, Mercedes C Class and Volkswagen Golf among students at

the University of Chester.

Principal Researcher

Robin de Wit

Mob: 07794337067

Email: [email protected]

Invitation

You are being invited to take part in a research study. Participation in the project is entirely

voluntary. Before you decide it is important for you to understand why the research is being

conducted and what it will involve. Please take time to read the following information carefully and

discuss with other if you wish. Please ask the researcher if there is anything that is not clear or if you

would like more information. Take your time to decide whether or not you wish to take part

What is the Purpose of the study?

To investigate differences in brand perceptions between the Audi A4, BMW 3 Series, Mercedes C

Class and the Volkswagen Golf among 1st, 2nd and 3rd year students at the University of Chester.

Why have I been chosen?

You have been chosen because you are a 1st, 2nd or 3rd year student at the University of Chester

attending psychology or business studies. Approximately 150 further students will be asked to

complete a questionnaire

Do I have to take part?

It is up to you to decide whether or not to take part, and participation is completely voluntary but

responses are expected to be honest.



What will be my involvement if I take part?

Your involvement in the investigation will be in the form of completing a questionnaire. The

questionnaire will take longer than 10 minutes. You will be questioned about your perception

towards the products studied, their monetary value and values you’re associated with the brands.

Will my taking part in the study be kept confidential?

Yes. Your data will be treated confidentially and you will not be asked to supply any data that could

identify you.

What will happen to the results of the research study?

The results will be written up as an academic dissertation. It will be stored in the archives at the

University of Chester and will be available on request. Analysed data will also be made available

online at www.mymarketingdissertation.com until at the latest September 2013.

Who is organising and funding the research?

This research is being undertaken as part of an academic program at the University of Chester

leading to the award of a BAH-A Marketing and Psychology.

Who has reviewed this study?

This study has been reviewed by the Ethics committee at the University of Chester and Guatam

Rajkhowa, lecturer at the business department at the University of Chester.

I confirm that I have read and understand the information sheet for the study above and I have had

the opportunity to ask questions. Also I understand that my participation is voluntary but cannot be

withdrawn once submitted to the researcher. By signing below I confirm that I understand the

condition and agree to take part in this investigation

____________ ____/____/_______

Signature Date (dd/mm/yyyy)

Dissertation Final

Documents

Transcript of Dissertation Final