MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HOCHIMINH CITY

Lm Hng Phong

Testing a Model of
CUSTOMER-BASED BRAND EQUITY
In The Vietnamese Banking Service

MASTERS THESIS

In
Business Administration
Ology code: 60.34.05
Supervisor
Dr. Trn H Minh Qun

Ho Chi Minh City 2009

Acknowledgement

This research project would not have been possible without the support of many
people. Firstly I wish to express my deep sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Tran
Ha Minh Quan for his invaluable advices and helps. Without him, this thesis could not
have been completed.
Special thanks to all instructors without whose knowledge and assistance this
study would not have been successful. My debt is also acknowledged to Dr. Barry
Clough from Dragon-Mekong-CTU for his kindness and help in English editing.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude and honor to my dear parents for
not only the love they devote to me but also for the time I took from them which
should have been my devotion to them in their aged time.
My thanks would also go to all of my classmates, my colleagues, especially my
old pals, Nguyen Thanh Trung and Ms Dang Hai Yen for all of their friendship and
encouragement.
I also wish to thank my friends in Vietcombank, VPBank, Navibank and Tien
Phong bank for their great support. My thanks would also go to the respondents,
without them, my thesis could not have been done.
Finally, my greatest thanks would go to my dear wife, Vu Thi Thuy Duong and
my two sons, Vu and Phuc who are my whole life and are the greatest inspiration and
encouragement for me to overcome all difficulties through the duration of my study.

Abstract
This study reports on the research results by testing the model of customerbased brand equity proposed by Martensen & Grnholdt (2004) into banking industry
of Vietnam. A study of 295 respondents from two bank brands was conducted in Can
Tho city. Multiple linear regression technique was used to test the hypotheses and
research model. According to the results, the original model was applicable in
Vietnamese retail banking service with some adaptation. Service quality and price were
confirmed to have positive impacts on both rational and emotional evaluations.
However, the other associations such as brand differentiation, brand promise and trust
and credibility were found significant in relation with only either rational evaluation or
emotional evaluation. The different weights of the relationships between brand
associations and brand evaluations, and between brand evaluations and customer-brand
relationships, have some implications for bank managers who might use them as a
source of reference for CRM strategy. The study also provided a modified model of
customer-based brand equity that could be used as a point of departure for those who
would like to conduct a further research into brand equity in banking industry in
Vietnam.

Key word: banking, customer-based brand equity, customer-brand relationship

ii

TABLE OF CONTENT
Acknowledgement.............................................................................................................i
Abstract ............................................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENT ................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................v
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................1
1.2 Research background..............................................................................................1
1.3 Problem statement .................................................................................................2
1.4 Research objective..................................................................................................3
1.5 Scope and methodology of the study .....................................................................4
1.5.1 Scope of the study............................................................................................4
1.5.2 Research Method .............................................................................................5
1.6 Structure of the study..............................................................................................5
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW...............................................................................7
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................7
2.2 A brand versus a product........................................................................................7
2.3 Brand equity .........................................................................................................11
2.3.1 Brand associations .........................................................................................13
2.3.2 Brand evaluations .........................................................................................19
2.3.3 Customer-brand relationship .........................................................................22
2.4 Generation of hypotheses .....................................................................................24
2.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................25
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................27
3.1. Introduction .....................................................................................................27
3.2. Business research ............................................................................................27
3.3. Research design ...............................................................................................28
3.4. Item generation................................................................................................29
3.4.1 Scale to measure rational associations..........................................................29
Scale to measure price. ...............................................................................................31
3.4.2 Scale to measure rational and emotional associations..................................32
Scale to measure brand promise. ................................................................................32
3.4.3 Scale to measure brand evaluations..............................................................32
3.4.4 Scale to measure customer- brand relationship ............................................33
3.5. Pilot test ...........................................................................................................33
3.6. Main survey.....................................................................................................34
3.6.1 Brand selection .............................................................................................35

iii

3.6.2 Sampling ......................................................................................................35

3.6.3 Sample size ...................................................................................................36
3.7. Conclusion.......................................................................................................36
Chapter 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS........................................................38
4.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................38
4.2. Descriptions of sample ........................................................................................38
4.3. Scales assessment ................................................................................................40
4.3.1 Reliability testing...........................................................................................40
4.3.2 Exploratory factor analysis ............................................................................42
4.4 Testing the research model and the hypotheses ...................................................46
4.4.1
Testing correlations between all constructs .............................................46
4.4.2
Testing research model ............................................................................46
4.5
Findings and conclusion..................................................................................56
4.5.1 Findings .........................................................................................................56
4.5.2 Conclusion .....................................................................................................58
Chapter 5:
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS.....................................................................59
5.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................59
5.2 Conclusions of the study ......................................................................................59
5.2.1 Summary of all hypotheses............................................................................59
5.2.2 Conclusions of the study................................................................................60
5.3 Implications of the study ......................................................................................61
5.3.1 Theoretical implications ................................................................................61
5.3.2 Practical implications.....................................................................................62
5.4 Limitations and recommendations for further research .......................................63
List of References ..........................................................................................................65
Appendix 1 Questionnaire (Vietnamese version) .......................................................68
Appendix 2 Observed variables ..................................................................................71
Appendix 3 - Descriptive Statistics of variables............................................................73

iv

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1. OUTLINE OF CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................1
FIGURE 1.2. STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY ...........................................................................6
FIGURE 2.1. THE STRUCTURE OF CHAPTER 2....................................................................7
FIGURE 2.2. A BRAND VERSUS A PRODUCT .......................................................................9
FIGURE 2.3 ORIGINAL MODEL OF CUSTOMERBASED BRAND EQUITY .........................14
FIGURE 2.4. RESEARCH MODEL OF CUSTOMER-BASED BRAND EQUITY ......................26
FIGURE 3.1. OUTLINE OF CHAPTER 3 ..............................................................................27
FIGURE 3.2. RESEARCH PROCESS ....................................................................................30
FIGURE 4.1. OUTLINE OF CHAPTER 3 ..............................................................................38
FIGURE 4.2. AGE GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS ..................................................................39
FIGURE 4.3 FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTIONS ..................................................................40
FIGURE 4.4. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN RATIONAL EVALUATION
AND THE BRAND ASSOCIATIONS ..............................................................................47

FIGURE 4.5. RESULTS OF MODEL I ..................................................................................50

FIGURE 4.6. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN EMOTIONAL EVALUATION
AND THE BRAND ASSOCIATIONS ..............................................................................51

FIGURE 4.7. RESULTS OF MODEL II ................................................................................53

FIGURE 4.8A HYPOTHESIS 11 TESTING RESULT ...........................................................54
FIGURE 4.8B. RESULTS OF MODEL III B ..........................................................................55
FIGURE 4.9. ADJUSTED MODEL OF CBBE IN BANKING SERVICE ...................................58
FIGURE 5.1 OUTLINE OF CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................59

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 4.1 SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................39

TABLE 4.2 RELIABILITY OF THE MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT....................................41
TABLE 4.3 ROTATED COMPONENT MATRIX .................................................................44
TABLE 4.4 EFA RESULT FOR INDIVIDUAL MEASUREMENT SCALES .............................45
TABLE 4.5 CORRELATION MATRIX...............................................................................48
TABLE 4.5A. MODEL SUMMARY .....................................................................................49
TABLE 4.5B COEFFICIENTS A ........................................................................................49
TABLE 4.6 SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES TESTING RESULTS (MODEL I).........................50
TABLE 4.6A - MODEL II SUMMARY ...............................................................................51
TABLE 4.6B - COEFFICIENTSA .........................................................................................52
TABLE 4.7 SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES TESTING RESULTS (MODEL II)........................52
TABLE 4.7A - MODEL III A SUMMARY ...........................................................................53
TABLE 4.7B - COEFFICIENTSA .........................................................................................54
TABLE 4.8A - MODEL III B SUMMARY ...........................................................................55
TABLE 4.8B COEFFICIENTS A ........................................................................................55
TABLE 4.9 SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES TESTING RESULTS (MODEL IIIA,B).................56
TABLE 5.1. SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES..........................................................................60

vi

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
This chapter portrays general introduction for the current study with which research
problem, research objectives and research questions are provided as the rationale for
this study. An introduction to the methodology to be used and the scope of the study is
also addressed in this chapter. At the end of the chapter, the structure of this study is
provided. The Outline of this chapter is shown in figure 1.1
Figure 1.1. Outline of chapter 1
1.1

Introduction

1.2

Research background

1.3

Problem statement

1.4

Research objectives

1.5

Scope and Methodology

1.6

Structure of the study

1.2 Research background

In a more globalized and integrated economy with increasing deregulation, competition
in the banking industry become significantly fiercer. Research into less successful
financial brands shows that inadequate support for the brand and, confusion and lack of
understanding of branding are two important factors that constrain the success of these
brands (Chernatony and Cottam, 2006).
For banks today, the strength and marketing power of an institutions brand is

rapidly becoming one of the critical levers for differentiation and hence competitive
advantages. Without doubt, a good brand increases value for a particular product or
service, and thus it is called brand equity.
In marketing literature, brand equity is defined and measured differently. Brand
equity is either conceptualized or measured, or both. Despite the fact that there are
different conceptions about brand equity, however, there are two major viewpoints
from which to consider brand equity: the financial perspective and customer-based
perspective. Financial perspectives focus on the financial outcome for the firm (Taylor
et al, 2005), for example, by using certain techniques to extract the brand equitys
value from the intangible value of the firm. The other perspective focuses largely on
the knowledge and relations that customers have with the brand (Aaker, 1991; Keller,
1993, 2001). Compared to the former perspective, the later is more fruitful in
marketing literature.
Despite the important role of brand equity, however, much attention and efforts
are devoted to the brand equity in goods marketing, while research into its contribution
to service, especially in banking industry, is very limited.
Recent years have seen a significant and rapid growth of the banking industry in
Vietnam, especially in the growth of the Vietnamese commercial join stock banks. This
trend opens up abundant choices for the customer, but also banks with fierce
competition, so banks now face the crucial problem of customer switch.
In this circumstance, the disadvantage of Vietnamese banks is apparently not only
weakness in financial strength, technology, diversification of products and services, but
also insufficient attention in branding. Branding strategy is one of the most critical
weaknesses of Vietnamese banks (Tap Chi Ke Toan, 2007).
1.3 Problem statement
Building a strong brand with significant (brand) equity is seen as providing a host of

possible benefits to a firm, including greater customer loyalty (Keller, 2001). Brand
equity is one of the most important marketing concepts and has been an area of interest
for marketing academics and practitioners as well. There are a numbers of models of
brand equity in common marketing settings (Farquhar,1989; David A. Aaker, 1991;
Kevin L. Keller, 1993, 2001; Ambler et al, 2002; Netemeyer et al, 2004; Martesen and
Grnholdt, 2004) or in financial service perspectives (Taylor et al, 2005). However, to
my best knowledge, there is no model of brand equity that particularly focuses on
banking service.
It might be worthwhile and necessary to build a brand equity model in banking
service. Brand equity in banking service deserves elaboration in some regards. First
and foremost, unlike other financial firms, banks act as intermediaries between
borrowers and lenders and, in so doing, they offer a unique form of asset
transformation (Shelagh Heffernan, 2005). Bank transactions usually involve a large
sum of money and hence, trust and price (in terms of interest rates) appear to be
critical matters in the industry. Second, bank transactions, especially lending, are more
complicated than transactions for other products and services. For example, before a
loan is approved, it takes time and effort to get through an assessment process that is
strictly regulated (by the State bank and/or by laws). Finally, most of the brand equity
models are conceptualized by Western authors and validated in developed countries.
This poses the question of whether or not these models work well in a developing
country like Vietnam.
1.4 Research objective
As noted above, in a highly competitive banking sector, a strong brand is likely to
sustain competitive advantage for the bank that holds the brand. It is widely agreed in
the literature that strong brand increases customers trust of the invisible purchase.
Strong brands enable customers to better visualize and understand intangible products.
They reduce customers perceived monetary, social, or safety risk in buying services

(Berry 2000) and a good brand name is a first step that will draw consumers to buy (or
foster intent to buy), and can make a substantial contribution to brand equity (Aaker,
1991)
This research aims to apply the model of brand equity developed by Martensen
and Grnholdt (2004) and test this model in the banking sector of Vietnam as an
emerging economy.
To confirm the applicability of the model, this study will determine the
contribution of each of the brand associations to the customers brand evaluations and
ultimately to the loyalty that customers have with the brand from the perspective of
customer- brand relationships in the Vietnamese banking industry.
To serve this task, two questions need to be answered:
Q1. Is the CBBE model developed by Martensen and Grnholdt (2004) applicable
in the Vietnamese banking service?
Q2. What factors nurture customer-based brand equity in Vietnamese banking
service?
1.5 Scope and methodology of the study
1.5.1 Scope of the study
In the banking sector of Vietnam, there are four types of bank: the State-owned banks
(including commercial banks and specialized banks such as social policy bank);
100% foreign-invested banks; joint venture banks and the rest are Vietnamese
commercial joint stock banks.
The model of customer-based brand equity in this thesis is intentionally applied in
the context of the Vietnamese commercial joint stock banks. Only this type of banks is
targeted because in the course of globalization and economic integration, all stateowned commercial banks are planned to be equitized, i.e. sooner or later they will

become commercial joint stock banks. Second, foreign banks are ignored because the
model is intended to be tested with banks in an emerging economy. In addition,
customer information from foreign banks is usually confidential and hard to obtain.
Finally, banks for special purposes owned by the State are not taken into account due
to their special characteristic. For example, credit is rationed by the government for
some social purposes.
1.5.2 Research Method
This study was conducted in Can Tho city with two phases: a pilot test and the main
study. In the first phase, a qualitative approach was employed in order to explore
whether the scale for measuring the constructs of brand equity were suitable in
Vietnamese culture and the Vietnamese banking service. Some amendments have been
made where needed. This step was carried out by using group discussion techniques.
A quantitative approach was then used in the second phase. Data were collected
by interviewing banks customers. The purpose of this phase was to re-assess the
reliability of the measurement scales using Cronbach alpha coefficient and Exploratory
Factor Analysis (EFA). Multiple Linear Regression analysis (MLR) was employed to
test the research model and hypotheses. SPSS software version 16 was used for data
analysis. Chapter 3 will discuss the methodology for this study in more detail.
1.6 Structure of the study
The structure of this study is shown in figure 1.2

Figure 1.2. Structure of the study

Chapter 1

Introduction

Chapter 2

Literature Review

Chapter 3

Methodology

Chapter 4

Data Analysis and Findings

Chapter 5

Conclusion and implications

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction
The previous chapter introduces an overview of the study background, the rationale of
the study, the research objective and the research questions. This chapter searches and
reviews relevant theories in the literature. The aim of this review is to propose a
research model of customer-based brand equity and to generate hypotheses that will be
tested in the Vietnamese banking service to answer the research questions and to
confirm the research model.
Figure 2.1. The structure of Chapter 2

2.1

Introduction

2.2

A brand versus a product

2.3

Brand equity

2.4

Generation of hypotheses

2.5

Conclusion

2.2 A brand versus a product

Today, every organization wants to have a brand (Kapferer, 2008). Kapferer (2008)
argues that while companies focus on CRM, customer equity, relationship marketing,
customer database management as useful techniques to serve the most profitable
customers , these tools will soon loose their potential to create a lasting competitive
advantage because the more they are diffused and shared the faster they become
standard and used by competitors. Managers learn that a brand is among very few

strategic assets of their organizations that can provide long lasting competitive
advantage.
In the ever-demanding global business climate of the twenty-first century, it is critical
that we continue to protect and enhance GEs unique competitive advantage - our name
and reputation.
Robert C. Wright Vice Chairman & Executive Officer of GE

There is significant difference between a product and a brand, although most

consumers use them interchangeably. But a product is something that tends to offer a
functional benefit, whereas a brand is much more than this (Myers, 2003). Gregory
(2001) sees a brand as the sum total of all that is known, thought, felt and perceived
about a company, service or product. A brand is not a thing, a product, a company or
an organization. A brand does not exist in the physical world it is a mental construct
(Cited in Martensen & Grnholdt, 2004).
The American Marketing Association defines a brand as "a name, term, sign,
symbol, or design, or a combination of them, intended to identify the goods or services
of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors.
Each of these elements is individually called brand identity and totally a brand (Keller,
1993). But is it all about the brand? Of course not. Today's understanding of brand
takes it far beyond the somewhat simplistic view of brand that prevailed a decade ago
(Leiser, 2004). A brand is not just merely the name, symbolor simple combination of
those elements of a product or service. In addition, it is believed that beyond those
intrinsic elements, a brand also means all the experience and feelings that customers
associate with it or even the reputation about the brand echoed either by words of
mouth or appears on articles (Philip Kotler & Waldemar Pfoertsch, 2007). Ultimately,
a brand is the things people say about you when youre not there, says Jeff Bezos, the
CEO of Amazon.com. This statement, of course, implies both positive and negative
meaning about the brand.

Aaker illustrates the distinctions between a brand and a product as shown in the
figure below.
Figure 2.2. A brand versus a product

BRAND

Organizational
Associations

Country of
Origin

User Imagery

Brand
Personality

PRODUCT
Scope
Attributes
Quality
Uses

SelfExpressive
Benefits

Symbols

Brand-Customer
Relationships

Emotional
Benefits

Source: David A. Aaker (1996a)

What makes a brand such powerful tool? Brands have become a major player in
modern society and in fact they show up everywhere (Kapferer, 2008). According to
Keller (1998), brands benefit both the consumers and manufacturers. For consumers, a
brand is a signal of quality; it helps identify products and services and assign
responsibility to manufacturers or service providers; a brand is also the risk and search
cost reducer; it is even can be used as a symbolic device(Aaker,1996; Keller, 1998)
Brands also help manufacturers to identify and simplify handling or tracing
products. Brands legally protect unique features of a product or service that bears the
name. A brand is also a manufacturer or service providers promise of quality and

especially those functional benefits that the consumer expects; the unique associations
endowed to the brand which might provide competitive advantage for the firm; and,
maybe the benefit of most concern to shareholders, that it is a source of financial
returns.
Banks are special institutions. First and foremost, they are the intermediaries
between lenders and borrowers and thus their operation involves a process of asset
transformation. Second, liquidity is an important service offered to customers who
participate in the payments system (Heffernan, 2005). In so doing, on the one hand,
banks serve different types of customer with differing needs, which in turn makes it
difficult to build a brand that is relevant to all groups ( Stephen Root, 2003; Kapferer,
2008); on the other, by nature, different banks offer similar products and services. As
a result, this similarity makes it critically difficult to create product differentiation.
With banks the question is: is it necessary to build a strong brand? The answer is
twofold. First, in terms of brand as the institution, a banks brand is extremely
important. As intermediaries, banks usually deal with a large sum of money and
therefore banks rely heavily on their reputation, and banking only works if the
customer is willing to trust the bank, argues Uan Percy of Brighten Consultant. This
argument is also partly in line with the argument of Lam et tal (2005) that trust plays an
important role in developing relationships. A good brand is a source of trust as trust is
formed and originates from the result of past experience with the brand (Elena and
Josel, 2005).
Second, as mentioned above, the similarity of products between banks and their
short life cycle makes it very difficult or even impossible to brand an individual bank
product. Thus, building a strong institutional brand (the banks brand) helps banks
increase their competitive advantage and gain more customer loyalty. This is also
consistent with the suggestion of Berry et al (1988) that service brands should be the
firms name and should not be individualized.

10

2.3 Brand equity

Building a strong brand involves creating brand equity. In a common sense, brand
equity is defined as the added value endowed by the brand to the product (Farquhar,
1989). In the last two decades, brand equity has become the most interesting research
topic in marketing for both academics and practitioners. Despite the fact that brand
equity is a potentially important marketing concept, it is not without controversy
(Taylor et al., 2005). It is because brand equity is defined in different ways for different
purposes (Keller, 1998). However, in a general sense, the literature suggests that there
have been two primary perspectives relating to studying brand equity (Keller, 1993;
Taylor et al, 2005; Kapferer, 2008). The first approach is motivated by financial
outcome for the firms. With this perspective, the brand is evaluated financially for
accounting purpose and is usually manifested in the balance sheet. The second
approach is based on the customer-brand relationship. This study adopts the later
approach, customer-based brand equity (hereinafter referred to as CBBE).
There have been also debates on the importance of brand equity for products and
services. Some researchers argue that branding (and thereby brand equity) is more
important for services due to the intangible nature and the so-called credence
attributes of services, which makes it difficult for customers to examine the content and
quality of a service before, during and even after the consumption of the service (Darby
and Karni,1973; Nelson, 1970 - cited in Krishnan and Hartline, 2001). However, the
findings of Krishnan & Hartline (2001) do not support the contention that brand equity
is more important in services than for products.
Aaker (1996a) defines brand equity as a set of assets and liabilities linked to a
brands name and symbol that adds to or subtracts from the value provided by a
product or service to a firm and/or that firms customers. Aaker conceptualizes a
model of brand equity consisting of 4 main components: 1) brand loyalty, 2) brand
awareness, 3) perceived quality, 4) brand associations (which are driven by brand

11

identity: the brand as a product, the brand as an organization, the brand as a person and
the band as a symbol). The fifth component is other proprietary brand assets such as
patents, trademarks and channel relationships.
Keller (1993) generalized the concept of brand equity by the CBBE model. He
defines CBBE as the differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer
response to the marketing of that brand.
According to Keller (1993), a brand is said to have positive CBBE if the
consumer reacts more favorably to the marketing of the brand than they do to an
unknown or fictitious version of the product or service in the same context. On the
other side, a brand is said to have negative CBBE if the consumer reacts less favorably
to the marketing of the brand under the same situation. This effect differs based on how
favorable, strong and unique brand associations are evoked in the customers mind.
Recently, Steven A. Taylor, Gary L. Hunter and Deborah L. Lindberg (2005)
proposed a model of brand equity (customer-based) for financial services. According to
this model, brand equity is derived from the customers perception of the quality and
thereby the brand value. Other components of their brand equity construct are hedonic
brand attitude, utilitarian brand attitude and brand uniqueness. According to the model,
brand satisfaction and loyalty intention are the consequences, and positively relate to
the brand equity.
However, the current study adopts the CBBE model developed by Martensen and
Grnholdt (2004). This model captures aspects closely related to banking services.
Martensen and Grnholdt (2004) categorize brand associations into two types: 1)
rational association and 2) rational and emotional association.
The rational associations are in connection with the customers perceptions about
the functional benefits, tangible aspects or the cost-value evaluation. These
associations are very important in banking services. For example, price is a key factor

12

that affects a customers decision to stay with a bank (Lam et al, 2005; Colgate and
Hedge, 2001; Keaveney, 1995; Bogomolova and Romaniuk, 2005). In other research,
Spiros et al (2003) suggest that, with regard to financial services, consumers tend to
become more involved, they develop the habit of shopping around' to find the best
bargain.
The emotional associations related to either the intangible or tangible aspect. For
example, a customer may feel confident or recognized (social approval) when she or he
deals with a great banks brand (emotional). This emotion, in turn, is the result of
consuming excellent service offered by the bank (performance of the product and
service). These associations will be discussed in details in the below.
2.3.1 Brand associations
2.3.1.1 Rational associations
Though the product quality is a component of the original model of CBBE; however,
banking is a service-dominat industry and all banking products, as termed in the
industry, are actually services or packages of service. Therefore, it is argued here that
the product quality suggested by Martensen and Grnholdt (2004) is not necessarily to
be included in the research model which is soly intended to apply in the banking
service. Instead, this study focus on service quality as a component that speaks for the
quality aspect of the model.
Service quality
Service quality has become an increasingly important factor for success and survival in
the banking sector (Cui, Lewis and Park, 2003). Its a critical factor that affects an
organizations competitiveness and an essential determinant that enable a company to
differentiate itself from competitors (Spiros et al, 2003).

13

Figure 2.3 Original Model of CustomerBased Brand Equity

Rational associations

Brand evaluations

Product quality

Service quality

Rational
Evaluation

Price

Customer-Brand
Relationship

Promise
Emotional
Evaluation
Differentiation

Trust and
Credibility

Rational and emotional associations

Source: Martensen & Grnholdt (2004)

Without doubt, service quality is a key driver of customer satisfaction and thereby
loyalty. Olsen and Johnson (2003) view service quality as a key psychological
reaction to the value that a service company provides. Same as with physical products,
customers perceive service quality differently. This results from the difference between
perceived quality and objective quality and can be expressed by an equation of
performance and expectations, service quality = [performance expectations] (Cronin
and Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al, 1988).

14

Martensen & Grnholdt (2004) measure the service quality by three criteria:
assurance, responsiveness and empathy. However, with a service-dominant industry
like banking, it seems that service quality should be examined from a broader
perspective. Thus, to have an insight into the consumers perception about service
quality in banking, the current study adapted the construct of Spiros et al (2003) for
measuring service quality in banking services.
Price
Price is one of the elements of the traditional marketing mix, and price is often stressed
as a driver in customer satisfaction and loyalty models (Johnson & Gustafsson, 2000;
Johnson et al., 2001 cited in Martensen & Grnholdt, 2004). Keller (1993) views
price as a non-product-related attribute because it does not speak much for the product
performance or service function. However, price is an important attribute association.
In most cases, it is considered an important criterion for purchase.
In their model of CBBE, Netemeyer et al (2004) suggest that willingness to pay a
price premium is a core/primary facet of CBBE. By testing and extending the
Netemeyer et al (2004) CBBE model, Taylor et al (2005) confirm that willingness to
pay a price premium is positively related to the brand value. They also argue that brand
loyalty intention is positively related to the willingness to pay a price premium.
There is another approach to consider price premium. According to Aaker
(1996b), price premium may be negative. Customers might expect a certain level of
price advantage in a brand (for example 10% lower) compared to other higher-priced
brands, and be willing to buy this brand if the advantage was greater 15% for instance.
This negative price premium could reflect substantial brand equity for the lower-priced
brand.
In banking service, price is indicated in terms of loan interest rate, credit interest
rate and other charges and fees that customers pay to use the bank facilities. Price in

15

banking service is a sensitive factor. Research into the small and medium sized
businesses indicates that pricing of a loan facility (e.g. an overdraft) has a strong
impact on customer loyalty (Lam et al, 2005). This is in line with Keaveney (1995)
that one of the three major factors for switching is a pricing problem, including noncompetitiveness of the fee and interest rates, which capture 17% among other reasons.
However, dissatisfied with this result, Colgate and Hedge suggest further research into
the role of pricing. Responding to this call, Bogomolova and Romaniuk (2005) carried
out a study of the business banking industry and found that the top two reasons for
switching to another bank are getting better deal with the other bank and the fees are
too high.
2.3.1.2 Rational and emotional associations
Brand promise
A brand is essentially a marketer's promise to deliver a predictable product or service
performance (Kotler and Keller, 2006). Ambler (1992) defines a brand as the promise
of the bundle of attributes that someone buys which provides satisfaction. The
attributes that make up a brand may be real or illusory, rational or emotional, tangible
or invisible. This is in line with Kapferer (2008) who argues that consumers dont
just buy the brand name; they buy branded products that promise tangible and
intangible benefits created by the efforts of the company.
Why is brand promise important? It is widely agreed in the literature that one
determinant of customer satisfaction is the gap between customers experiences and
their expectations (Oliver, 1980; Parasuraman, 1988; Kapferer, 2008) and brand
promise sets up this benchmark.
Brands thus become credible only through the persistence and repetition of their
value proposition (Kapferer, 2008). In other words, brand promise should be credible
and deliverable. This is in line with Martensen and Grnholdt (2004) that promise

16

should be the hub of value creation for the customer. The unique values should mirror
meaningful promises to the consumer promises that are credible and that the brand
can fulfill.
Take FedEx as an example.
Federal Express burst on the scene in the early eighties. What was it that made Fred
Smiths new company such a sensation? The answer: It got packages where they were
going by 10:30 am the next day, no ifs, ands, or buts. That was Federal Expresss
come-on to a world that previously knew only the Post Office.

It was FedExs

measurable brand promise.

Source: Harnish. V, (2006)

Also according to Martensen and Grnholdt (2004), the brand should merge with
the company and appear in a consistent and credible manner that creates positive and
warm feelings with the consumer.
Brand trust and credibility
Marketing literature has shown that an essential and very important part of a brand is
the trust consumers have in the brand living up to their expectations (Martensen and
Grnholdt, 2004). Trust is a key variable in the development of a stable desire to
maintain a long term relationship (Nadim J. et al, 2009). There are different definitions
about brand trust, for example, brand trust can be defined as the confidence a
consumer develops in the brands reliability and integrity (Chatterjee and Chaudhuri cited in Filo and Funk, 2008). In this perspective, Delgado and Munera (2001) believe
that brand trust is uni-dimensional and driven by a consumers overall satisfaction with
the product and confident expectations of the brand's reliability and intentions in
situations entailing risk to the consumer (Delgado, 2004). Trust is also viewed as a
group of beliefs held by a person derived from his perceptions about certain attributes
(Cruz, Laukkanen and Munoz, 2005). In other words, trust implies that the customers
believe that the brand can deliver both functional and emotional benefits.

17

Consumer trust is also important and sometimes is considered a prerequisite for

the development of an attitude-based relation between the consumer and the company.
From a consumer perspective, trust helps to reduce the perceived risk linked to the
purchase or use of a companys products (Feldwick, 1999). According to Martensen
and Grnholdt (2004), trust also provides assurance of quality, reliability, etc. and is
thus a factor in providing the consumer with an experience of dealing with a credible
and reliable company a factor that is important in connection with the consumers
decision process. Hence the company should be aware of communicating values that
they cannot deliver.
In the modern banking industry, internet banking is an indispensable and critically
important part. Some studies have analyzed the importance of trust in internet
relationships and suggested trust is habitually related to security and risk avoidance
(Ganesan, 1994; Anderson and Weitz 1989, Pavlou, 2001; Stewart et al., 2001- cited in
Cruz et al, 2005). In internet banking, trust captures two different aspects: the
customers belief in banker goodwill and the reliability of the internet infrastructure.
Another dimension of this aspect is credibility. As mentioned previously, together
with trust, credibility is especially important in the banking industry, as the bank brand
is in fact the institution. Thus it is important for the bank to have high credibility.
Empirical studies suggest that the consumers perception of a companys credibility
plays a central role in their perception of and attitude to the company, its products and
communication, including ads (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989; Goldberg & Hartwick, 1990;
LaBarbera, 1982 - cited in Martensen and Grnholdt, 2004).
In conclusion, an empirical studyinto the impact of trust on brand equity pointed
out that brand equity is best explained when brand trust is taken into account
reinforces the idea that brand equity is a relational market-based asset (Elena and
Jos, 2005). Martensen and Grnholdt (2004) argue that being a credible company has
a considerabe influence on the consumer attitudes towards the brand and its ads, and

18

eventually the consumers intention to buy the companys products. Therefore, the
company should make a real effort to find out what they need to do to create high
credibility among the consumers.
Brand differentiation
The brand should differentiate itself from its competitors and offer the market
something unique. Uniqueness is defined as the degree to which customers feel the
brand is different from competing brandshow distinct it is relative to competitors
(Netemeyer et al, 2004). However, the differences should be perceived as meaningful
to the consumer (Martensen and Grnholdt, 2004). Creating unique brand associations
is in line with creating points of difference when positioning the brand. Besides
addressing the distinctive benefits a brand will deliver to its consumers, target
consumers must also find these benefits personally relevant and important (Kotler and
Keller, 2006).
Having a bank brand viewed as a corporate brand makes it possible for a bank to
position itself in the minds of the consumers with a broader and more varied image
than it does through a particular product or service. Keller (2000) argues: a corporate
brand is distinct from a product brand in that it can encompass a much wider range of
associations. A corporate brand thus is a powerful means for firms to express
themselves in a way that is not tied into their specific products or services.
2.3.2 Brand evaluations
2.3.2.1 Rational evaluations
Brand value
Brands should create value (Martensen and Grnholdt , 2004). This value is
perceived by comparing the benefit that the consumer expects to receive to their
experience with a particular brand. This benefit is either functional or emotional
(Keller, 1993). If the benefit is less than expected, the consumer will be dissatisfied. In

19

other words, the customer compares the quality that they perceived with their actual
experience with the brand to evaluate the value they receive by consuming the brand.
Another way that value is created is based on the relationship between quality and
perceived price (Martensen and Grnholdt, 2004). In this regard, Zeithaml (1988)
describes four consumers perceptions about value: (1) value is low price, (2) value is
the quality I get for the price , (3) value is what I get for what I give and (4) value is
whatever I want in a product (this is in line with the previous perspective of value).
Regardless of what perspective is taken into account, value is a subjective term
that totally depends on the perception of the customer. [I]t is the individual customers
preferences that determine whether the value is low or high (Martensen and
Grnholdt, 2004).
This evaluation is rational as the customer subjectively judges the value of a
brand based on the benefit that they intentionally expected or the trade-off that they
receive for what they give. According to Martensen and Grnholdt (2004) there exists
a strong relationship between perceived value and customer loyalty. They argue that,
before buying a product or service, a customer usually seeks for possibilities and
considers alternatives that live up to his/her requirements. The one with highest value
will possibly be chosen.
Customer satisfaction
Satisfaction does not always lead to loyalty; however, it is widely agreed in the
literature that satisfaction is the key precursor to customer loyalty. According to Oliver
(1999), satisfaction is defined as pleasurable fulfillment. That is, the consumer senses
that consumption fulfills some need, desire, goal, or so forth and that this fulfillment is
pleasurable.
The above-mentioned definition is in line with Tse & Wilton, 1988; Parasuraman
et al, 1988; Kotler, 2000 that satisfaction results from the difference between prior

20

expectations and the actual performance of the product or service as perceived after the
consumption.1
However, in banking services, with a variety of products and services, it is hard to
evaluate the influence of satisfaction on the customer-brand relationship just through a
single product or service. Thus, for satisfaction to have an affect on loyalty, individual
satisfaction episodes should become aggregated or blended (Oliver 1999). Therefore,
satisfaction mentioned in this study is overall satisfaction.2
2.3.2.2 Emotional evaluations
In most cases, customers buy a brand for not only functional benefits but also
emotional and self-expressive benefit (Aaker, 1996). Martensen and Grnholdt (2004)
argue that Brands should provoke excitement and evoke a higher experience than
simply product-function. Brands should create positive feelings with us we need to
feel touched emotionally. According to these authors, a brand should also create
intensive and fantastic experience to the customer. This feeling helps to consolidate the
customer-brand relationship to a point of connectedness that it is a rare experience for
that customer to purchase anyplace else (feeling evaluation).
In the CBBE model, Martensen and Grnholdt (2004) also include selfexpressive benefits and social approval as a sub component of brand evaluation.
They argue that a brand can help a person to recognize himself or herself (or to be
recognized) within a group that he or she thinks that he or she belongs to, and to show
personal values and attitudes through the brands that that person buy and use.
However, unlike in physical products and other services, the similarity of
1

There is difference between satisfaction and perceived service quality. According to Parasuraman (1988),
perceived service quality is a global judgment, or attitude, relating to the superiority of the service, whereas
satisfaction is related to a specific transaction.
2

Satisfaction with product, interpersonal relation, price, service provider performance (Gregory and Michael ,
2004)

21

products and services between banks may mean that self-expressive benefits are seen
as less important than social approval. The argument is that, as mentioned previously,
the customer may find it important to deal with a great bank brand in order to be
recognized in a certain social status or to generate trust to their partners. With this
perspective, the customer may wants to maintain their relation with the great bank as
they can not find this kind of benefit with less well known brands.
2.3.3 Customer-brand relationship
Research on brand equity generally agrees that the final brand-building step is
developing customer brand relationships or bonding, and that an important element in
this connection is loyalty (Martensen and Grnholdt, 2004).
Aaker (1991) views brand loyalty as a dimension of brand equity. In the CBBE
pyramid developed by Keller (2001), brand loyalty is at the top of the building blocks
and is characterized in term of intensive relationship.
Despite its apparent benefits to any firm, loyalty is viewed quite differently from
different perspectives. This might result from the variety of the customers perceptions
about the value that a brand delivers. Jacoby & Chestnut (1978) define brand loyalty as
a result of two components: 1) A favorable attitude toward the brand, and 2)
Repurchase of the brand over time. (Cited in Martensen and Grnholdt, 2004)
One of the broadest definitions of loyalty is of Oliver (1999) which describes
loyalty as a deeply help commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a preferred
product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or
same brand set purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having
the potential to cause switching behavior.
According to Oliver (1999), customers become loyal in four phases. At the
shallowest level, called cognitive loyalty, loyalty might result from the belief of the
customer in the brand. The brand information is either retrieved from vicarious

22

knowledge about the brand (from communication, word of mouth) or current

experience-based information. At this stage, if the satisfaction does not involve then
the depth of loyalty is merely the brand performance.
Loyalty shifts to the next phase if satisfaction steps in. At this phase, attitudes
toward the brand are formed basing on satisfaction, or pleasure accumulated through
the consumption of the brand. Commitment at this episode is referred as affective
loyalty. Though loyalty in this stage is at deeper level than cognitive loyalty is and not
as easily dislodged, its still venerable to switching.
It is desirable if loyalty moves to a deeper level, the conative loyalty (behavioral
intention). The development of loyalty at this phase is based on repetitive positive
experience with the brand. It reflects the customer favorable intention toward the brand
such as deeply commitment to buy. However, Oliver argues that this desire is rather the
repurchase intention and motivation, and may be anticipated but unrealized.
The ultimate phase of loyalty proposed by Oliver is action loyalty (other authors
refer to as behavioral loyalty Dick and Basu, 1994; Keller, 2001). At this phase, not
only the intention to re-buy is shifted to the action of re-buying (and repeat
purchases, Keller 2001) but also that desire engages in overcoming obstacles
Martensen and Grnholdt

(2004) adapt a more operational point of view:

Customer loyalty has two sides to it, which on the one hand results in an effective
continuation and extension of the business partnership, and on the other hand in a
recommendation of the supplier, the brand, the product or the services for other
potential customers. According to them, customer loyalty takes place when the
customer keeps on maintaining the relation with the company in terms of repurchases
and purchase intention which can predict future behavior, and on the other hand, the
loyalty will result in re-patronizing the company to purchase other products.
However, Martensen and Grnholdt (2004) also agree that loyalty is also portrayed

23

as certain attitudinal loyalty (this is characterized as affective loyalty by Oliver) where

the customer thinks that the company is distinctive and particularly attractive compared
to its rivals. This is also in line with Oliver (1997) that the customers experiences with
the company and its products are accumulated in a positive way as mentioned above
(conative loyalty).
In the banking industry, research by Colgate and Norris (2000) into the reasons
that the customers switch or stay with their bank after a service failure shows that a
majority of customers who felt a strong sense of loyalty to their bank decide to stay.
According Colgate, this loyalty might result from the customers confidence with the
relationship they have shaped with the service provider.
2.4 Generation of hypotheses
Basing on the above literature review and the research questions, to test the model of
CBBE in banking industry, some hypotheses are suggested below:
Brand evaluations
As mentioned previously, rational and emotional evaluations are made basing on the
customers perception about rational and emotional brand associations that they have
with the brand. Therefore, the following hypotheses are produced:
H1: Rational evaluation is positively related to perceived service quality
H2: Rational evaluation is positively related to price competitiveness
H3: Rational evaluation is positively related to brand promise
H4: Rational evaluation is positively related to brand differentiation
H5: Rational evaluation is positively related to brand trust and credibility
H6: Emotional evaluation is positively related to perceived service quality
H7: Emotional evaluation is positively related to price competitiveness
H8: Emotional evaluation is positively related to brand promise
H9: Emotional evaluation is positively related to brand differentiation
H10: Emotional evaluation is positively related to brand trust and credibility
Martensen & Grnholdt (2004) argue that emotional evaluation has positive

24

relationship. i.e when the customers have a high liking for a brand, they tend to be
more satisfied with the brand.
H11: Rational evaluation is positively related to emotional evaluation
Customer- brand relationships
According to this model, customer-brand relationships do not directly relate to brand
associations but through the customers evaluations. Therefore, another set of
hypotheses are proposed:
H12: Customer- brand relationships is positively related to rational evaluation
H13: Customer- brand relationships is positively related to emotional evaluation
2.5 Conclusion
This chapter provides theoretical framework for the research. However, with the
reason regarding the product quality aspect as discussed above, a research model
without the product quality component is suggested below (Figure 2.4). The researcher
also assumes that there should be some adjustments of the measurement scale in order
to make the research model more suitable for the banking industry in Vietnam.
Chapter 3 will discuss this matter in more details.

25

Figure 2.4. Research Model of Customer-Based Brand Equity

Rational associations

Brand Evaluations

Service quality
H1

Rational
Evaluation

H2

Price

H12
H3
H4

H5

Customer-Brand
Relationship

H11
H6
H7

Promise

H8
H9

Differentiation

H13

Emotional
Evaluation

H10

Trust and
Credibility
Rational and emotional associations
Source: Adapted from Martensen & Grnholdt (2004)

26

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1. Introduction
The previous chapter provides theoretical framework for the research. This chapter
provides an overview of business research and introduces research methodology used
to build and assess the measurement scales, the statistical techniques employed to
analyze the data, and testing the research hypotheses and research model as well. The
chapter outline is shown in figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. Outline of chapter 3

3.1

Introduction

3.2

Business research

3.3

Research design

3.4

Item generation

3.5

Pilot test

3.6

Main study

3.7

Conclusion

3.2. Business research

Business research is defined as a systematic inquiry whose objective is to provide
information to solve a managerial problem (Donald R.C & Pamela S.S., 2003). There
are some ways to classify business research. It can be classified based on
characteristics of the data, source of the data, the purpose of research or the frequency
of study.

27

Based on the purpose of research, researchers often use one of the following three
types.
Exploratory study: This is the basic level of research. Researchers use this type
when there is a need to clarify the understanding of a problem, or when the researcher
is uncertain about which theory is relevant or can be applied to explain the nature of
phenomena.
Descriptive study: The objective of descriptive studies is to portray an accurate
profile of persons, events or situations (Robson, 1993). This may be an extension of
an exploratory research. It is necessary to have a clear picture of the characteristics of
which the data will be collected prior to the collection of the data.
Causal study: In this type of research, the emphasis is on studying a specific
situation or a problem in order to explain the relationships between variables.
Basing on the characteristics of data needed and research purpose, researchers can
choose either qualitative or quantitative approach or a combination of these two types.
Data can be acquired via a variety of strategies such as experiment, survey, case
study, grounded theory or action research.
3.3. Research design
The first step in business research is to determine what objectives the researcher wants
to achieve. Research design then enables the researcher to select appropriate methods
in order to meet the research objectives in the most efficient way.
To measure the customer-based brand equity constructs, the current study
employs a descriptive method. This method was chosen because it allows the
researcher to describe the customers attitude towards the marketing elements for a
brand, describe the relationships among variables(Tho & Trang, 2007)
Data for this study was collected using a survey technique. This technique

28

provides a quick, efficient and accurate means of assessing information on a

population, especially in the case of a lack of secondary data (Zikmund, 1997- cited in
Quan, 2006).
The research process of this study is shown in figure 3.2
3.4. Item generation
Measurement scales used to measure the research concept (constructs) in this study
were generated based on previous studies that were discussed in the literature review.
Eight constructs contained in the research model include: 1) service quality, 2) price, 3)
brand promise, 4) trust and credibility, 5) differentiation and 6) customer-brand
relationship. The relationships among these constructs are measured through two
mediating latent variables: 7) rational evaluation and 8) emotional evaluation.
After carefully considering the theories, a pool of 38 candidate scale items to
reflect the dimensions of CBBE ware selected to operationalize the research concepts.
A five-point Likert scale, which ranges from 1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree,
was used in this study.
3.4.1 Scale to measure rational associations
Scale to measure service quality.
As discussed in chapter two, banking is a service-dominant industry and a high contact
service (except electronic banking). The SERQUAL scale is intentionally used to
measure service quality in this study. However, according to Trang & Tho (2003), the
number and content of service quality components, as well as how to measure them,
differ among different types of services and markets. Therefore, to do research in a
specific market, some amendment and complement might be needed.

29

Figure 3.2. Research process

Literature review

The first draft of

questionnaire

Group discussions

Item modifications

The final draft of

questionnaire

Interview

Reliability test

EFA

DROP
Item(s) with item-total
correlation < .3

MLR

DROP
Item(s) with factor
loading < .4

Testing hypotheses

Testing research
model

EFA: Exploratory Factor Analysis

MLR: Multiple Linear Regression

30

To measure service quality in the banking service, this study adapted the scale
developed by Spiros et al (2003) with which they measured the service quality in
banking service in Greece. Some complement and elimination have been done after
discussion with the bank customers in group discussion. The service quality scale
consists of 14 items as follows
SQ_1: Bank [X] has up to date equipments
SQ_2: Bank [X]s physical facilities are visually appealing.
SQ_3: Bank [X]s employees are well dressed and appear neat.
SQ_4: I find it very convenient with the location of bank [X]
SQ_5: Bank [X] provides its services at the time it promises to do so
SQ_6: When I have problems, bank [X] is sympathetic and reassuring
SQ_7: I receive prompt service from bank [X]s employees
SQ_8: Bank [X]s employees are always willing to help me.
SQ_9: I feel safe in my transaction with bank [X]
SQ_10: Bank [X]s employees are polite
SQ_11: Bank [X]s employees know the banks product and service very well
SQ_12: Bank [X]s employees have necessary knowledge to answer my questions
SQ_13: Bank [X]s employees know what my needs are and how the banks products can
satisfy them
SQ_14: Bank [X]s employees give me personal attention

Scale to measure price.

Price is one of the marketing mix elements. Many studies have measured the contribution of price to brand equity in terms of price premium. In the banking industry,
price is a sensitive factor and strongly influences the customers decision to deal with a
bank. Price in banking services can be measured in terms of deposit and loan interest
rates, other service charges, fees and commissions. To capture a general sense of price
in the banking industry, this study does not break down these rates (deposit interest rate
and loan interest rate). The word interest rate means both kinds of interest. However,
the connotation of the term price used in this study indicates the price competitiveness as an association of the brand, not a monetary or financial perspective.

31

Four observed variables measuring price are:

PC_1: Interest rates of bank [X] are very competitive
PC_2: Service fees of bank [X] are very competitive
PC_3: Bank [X] offers me price deals
PC_4: Bank [X] offers me very reasonable price

3.4.2 Scale to measure rational and emotional associations

This study adapts the scale developed by Martensen and Grnholdt (2004) to measure
the rational and emotional associations. Some changes have been made to make the
scale more relevant to the banking services.
Scale to measure brand promise.
PR_1: Bank [X] creates meaningful promises for me
PR_2: Bank [X] lives up to its promises
PR_3: Bank [X] creates positive associations and image

Scale to measure brand differentiation

DF_1: Bank [X] differs from other banks in a positive way
DF_2: Bank [X] is unique compared to other banks
DF_3: Bank [X] offers advantages that other banks can not

Scale to measure brand trust

TR_1: Bank [X] communicates openly and honestly
TR_2: Bank [X] is trustworthy and credible
TR_3: I have great faith in bank [X]

3.4.3 Scale to measure brand evaluations

Brand evaluations consist of two constructs: rational evaluation and emotional
evaluation. These two latent variables, on the one hand, act as dependent variables that
are influenced by the brand associations. On the other hand, they simultaneously play
the roles of independent variables as predictors for customer-brand relationships. This
study adapted the scales developed by Martensen and Grnholdt (2004). Some items
were not used as they seem not to be appropriate for banking services. For example,

32

Brand X is a lifestyle more than a product or I really identify with people who use
brand X.
Rational evaluation scale
RE_1: Bank [X] provides good value for money
RE_2: Bank [X] greatly meets expectations
RE_3: Overall, I am very satisfied with bank [X]

Emotional evaluation scale

EE_1: When thinking of bank [X], I get a positive and warm feeling
EE_2: Bank [X] means a lot to me
EE_3: I am proud to be a customer of bank [X]

3.4.4 Scale to measure customer- brand relationship

Five variables suggested by Martensen and Grnholdt (2004) are used in this study.
RL_1: The next time I am going to transact with a bank, I am going to bank [X] again.
RL_2: I will recommend bank [X] to others
RL_3: Overall, I find bank [X] better than other banks
RL_4: I am very interested in bank [X]
RL_5: It is important for me to maintain the relationship with bank [X] in the future.

3.5. Pilot test

The purpose of pilot test was to refine the questionnaire to help respondents to avoid
problems in answering questions and to increase the quality of data recorded for the
main survey.
This phase was carried out by two steps. In the first step, an exploratory study
was made with the purpose of assessing the first draft of measurement scale. The first
draft of questionnaire was developed in English. It was then translated into
Vietnamese. During the translation, some references to previous researches of brand
equity and service quality in Vietnam market have been made to improve the reliability
and consensus of the items. For example Tho & Trang (2007)s and Trang & Tho
(2008)s.

33

Two mini group discussions were conducted. In the first discussion, four bank
experts including two branch directors and two managers (all were male) from
different banks were invited. The purpose of this step is to examine the clarity the
instrument and to be sure that all survey questions were clear in meaning and sufficient
to cover the research matter in reality, from the perspective of a banking professional.
Some amendments were made after suggestions from bank managers.
The other discussion was conducted with the participation of 5 bank customers,
four male and one female (six were invited but one was absent). The purpose of this
step was the same as that of the first discussion, but in this case from the customers
perspective. Some questions were adjusted on the recommendation of the participants,
for example, to make the terms in the questionnaire more concrete and less negative.
The final version of questionnaire was made in Vietnamese (Appendix 1) and
then was translated back into English (Observed variables).
3.6. Main survey
The main survey was conducted with commercial joint stock banks in Can Tho city,
Vietnam. Firstly, the measures of each constructs were refined by Cronbach alpha
coefficients. The purpose of this test was to provide a preliminary evaluation and
refinement of the measurement scales. Reliability analysis was first used to remove
items with low item-total correlations (<0.3) (Nunnally 1978 - cited in Quan, 2004).
Scales with a Cronbach alpha coefficient equal to or greater than 0.6 are acceptable in
some cases (Nunnally, 1978; Peterson, 1994 quoted in Trong & Ngoc, 2005). Items
those passed the test then were analyzed using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
method to determine the actual dimensions of each construct. In this step, items with
factor loadings less than 0.4 were deleted. Finally, the measures retained were run with
multiple linear regressions (MLR) and the results were used to test the research model
and hypotheses.

34

3.6.1 Brand selection

Two brands were selected for this study, Vietcombank3 and VPbank4. Vietcombank is
one of the largest and most well-known banks in Vietnam. This bank was previously
owned by the Government and was equitized in 2007 and now, the Government still
owns the largest proportion of its shares.
VPbank is a private commercial bank and is a less well-known brand compared to
Vietcombank but it is one of the earliest private commercial banks set up in the
banking system of Vietnam.
3.6.2 Sampling
The basic idea of sampling is that by selecting some of the elements in a population we
may draw conclusions about the entire population. Some considerations for selecting
the scope and methodology for sampling are cost, the accuracy of results, the speed of
data collection and the availability of population elements (Donald & Pamela, 2003).
The first step in sampling is that the population should be correctly defined. A
population is the total collection of elements from which we wish to draw some
conclusion.
After identifying the population, researchers will choose an appropriate sampling
method basing on either requirements of the project, their objective or budget
available. Two most common sampling techniques are probability sampling and nonprobability sampling.
The population for this study is limited to individual customers of Vietnamese
joint stock commercial banks. However, it is impossible to identify all the customers
that make up the whole population, or to establish a sampling frame that includes a
large proportion of the population. Due to the tremendous limitations of time, budget
3
4

Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Foreign Trade of Vietnam

Vietnam Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Private Enterprises

35

and knowledge; this study uses a non-probability sampling technique, specifically,

convenience sampling. This is one of the least reliable sampling techniques, but it is
the cheapest and easiest, and is the most feasible for this study.
Interviewers can interview any individual customer who agrees to take part in the
interview.
For both Vietcombank and VPbank, samples were selected from the branch office
and other two transaction points.
3.6.3 Sample size
According to Donald & Pamela (2003), a good sample should satisfy both accuracy
and precision. On the one hand, it should bring little or no systematic bias in variance,
and on the other, the sampling error should fall within acceptable limits for the studys
purpose.
There is no consensus in the literature on how large the sample size should be to
represent a population. A host of formulas to calculate the sample size are provided,
but they are not easy to apply. The sample size is determined by the level of precision
and confidence desired in estimating the population parameters, as well as the
variability in the population itself (Canava et al., 2001).
The sample size for this study was intended to be 320 (equal 8 times of observed
variables). This number was decided after considering some previous researches. For
example, see Tho & Trang (2008, p.35) or Trong & Ngoc (2005, p263). To obtain the
desired sample size, a total of 625 self-administered questionnaires were distributed to
the respondents by bank employees. Of these, 388 questionnaires were returned; of
which 295 were useable, making effective response rate 47.2%.
3.7. Conclusion
This chapter provides details of the research methodology and research design used in

36

this study. The focus of this chapter was on the development of the questionnaire and
the analytical methods employed for assessment of the measurement scales and for
data analysis as well. The next chapter will provide the research results and the
findings of the study.

37

Chapter 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction
The previous chapter provides the methodology that this study employs and the
parameterization of the nine research concepts contained in the CBBE model. This
chapter presents the analysis of results from the main study. Critical tasks of this
chapter are testing the scales, reliability testing and exploratory factor analysis. The
final qualified variables of each construct will be then be analyzed with MLR to test
the research hypotheses. The structure of Chapter 4 is shown in figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1. Outline of chapter 3

4.1

Introduction

4.2

Descriptions of sample

4.3

Assessment of scales

4.4

Testing hypotheses

4.5

Findings and Conclusion

4.2. Descriptions of sample

As mentioned in the previous chapter, 625 self-administered surveys were distributed
to the respondents who are the customers of Vietcombank and VPbank in Can Tho

38

city. Of these, 388 surveys were returned but 93 questionnaires were discarded because
there were many questions unanswered or scored with the same mark. The final sample
consisted of 295 questionnaires, 185 surveys from Vietcombank (62,7%) and the rest
110 surveys from VPBank (37.3%). The sample details are provided in table 4.1

Table 4.1 Sample characteristics

Gender
Male
Female
Count
Percent Count Percent
151
51.19%
144 48.81%
68
23.05%
55 18.64%
62
21.02%
60 20.34%
17
5.76%
25
8.47%
4
1.36%
4
1.36%
26
8.81%
20
6.78%
26
8.81%
31 10.51%
99
33.56%
93 31.53%
26
8.81%
27
9.15%
49
16.61%
41 13.90%
61
20.68%
64 21.69%
15
5.08%
12
4.07%

Descriptions of sample

Age groups

Time of
transactions

Frequency of
transactions

Under 30
31 to 45
46 to 60
Over 60
Less than 3 months
From 3 months to 1 year
Over 1 year
Very regularly
Regularly
Sometimes
Accidentally

Figure 4.2. Age groups of respondents

46 t o 60
14%

O ver 60
3%
U nder 30
42%

31 t o 45
41%

39

Total
Count
295
123
122
42
8
46
57
192
53
90
125
27

Percent
100%
41.69%
41.36%
14.24%
2.71%
15.59%
19.32%
65.08%
17.97%
30.51%
42.37%
9.15%

Figure 4.3 Frequency of transactions

Accidentally
9%

Very regularly
18%

Sometimes
42%

Regularly
31%

4.3. Scales assessment

4.3.1 Reliability testing
Before being subjected to further analysis, i.e. testing the research model, all scales
were first checked for reliability using Cronbach alpha coefficients. The purpose of this
step is testing the internal consistency within a scale. An alpha value of 0.60 and 0.70
or above is considered to be the threshold indicating internal consistency of new scales
and established scales respectively (Nunnally, 1988 cited in Spiros, 2003). This study
takes the value of 0.6 as the benchmark. The cut-off value of 0.3 for item-total
correlation was applied to delete item(s) that did not meet this criterion. All scales
passed this test. The highest alpha value is of price (0.888) and service quality
(0.88). However, SQ3 was eliminated because even though its item-total correlation
value (0.301) met the standard, it was much lower down the scale than the other
variables. The lowest Cronbach alpha is of trust (0.69). The reliability for each scale
is shown in table 4.2

40

Table 4.2 Reliability of the measurement instrument

Scales

Corrected

Cronbach s

Item-Total

Alpha

Correlation if Item Deleted

Service quality scale ( = .888 )
SQ1 - Bank X has up to date equipment

.488

.884

SQ2 - Bank X 's employees are well dressed and appear neat

.560

.881

SQ4 - Bank [X]' s physical facilities are visually appealing

.469

.886

SQ5 - Bank [X] provides its services at the time it promises to do so

.510

.883

SQ6 - When I have problems, bank [X] is sympathetic and reassuring.

.610

.878

SQ7 - I receive prompt service from bank [X]'s employees

.663

.876

SQ8 - Bank [X] bank employees are always willing to help me

.659

.876

SQ9 - I feel safe in my transaction with the bank [X]

.535

.882

SQ10 - Bank [X]' s employees are polite

.671

.875

SQ11 - Bank [X]'s employees know the bank product and service very well

.589

.879

SQ12 - Bank [X] employees have necessary knowledge to answer my questions

.596

.879

.594

.879

.595

.879

PC1 - Interest rates of bank [X] are very competitive

.756

.856

PC2 - Service fees of bank [X] are very competitive

.725

.868

PC3 - Bank [X] offers me price deals

.764

.854

PC4 - Bank [X] offers me very reasonable price

.785

.848

PR1 - Bank [X] creates meaningful promises for me

.581

.775

PR2 - Bank [X] lives up to its promises

.717

.626

PR3 - Bank [X] creates positive associations and image

.612

.743

.698

.768

DF2 - Bank [X] is unique compared to other banks

.722

.741

DF3 - Bank [X] offers advantages that other banks can not

.667

.800

SQ13 - Bank [X]' s employees know what my needs are and how the bank's products can
satisfy them
SQ14 - Bank [X]'s employees give me personal attention
Price scale ( = .888 )

Brand promise scale ( = .793)

Brand differentiation scale ( = .834)

DF1 - Bank [X] differs from other banks in a positive way

41

Brand trust & credibility quality scale (

= .691)

.384

.765

TR2 - Bank [X] is trustworthy and credible

.566

.527

TR3 - I have great faith in bank [X]

.589

.494

RE1 - Bank [X] provides good value for money

.634

.787

RE2 - Bank [X] greatly meets expectations

.703

.717

RE3- Overall, I am very satisfied with bank [X]

.679

.743

EE1 - When thinking of bank [X], I get a positive and warm feeling

.728

.778

EE2 - Bank [X] means a lot to me

.732

.773

EE3 - I am proud to be a customer of bank [X]

.690

.813

RL1 - The next time I am going to transact with a bank, I am going to bank [X] again

.615

.823

RL2 - I will recommend bank [X] to others

.595

.830

RL3 - Overall, I find Bank [X] better than other banks

.677

.805

RL4 - I am very interested in bank [X]

.698

.800

RL5 - It is important for me to maintain the relationship with bank [X] in the future.

.680

.805

TR1 - Bank [X] communicates openly and honestly

Rational evaluations scale (

= .818 )

Emotional evaluations scale (

= .848)

Customer-brand relationship scale (

= .844 )

4.3.2 Exploratory factor analysis

All variables retained were then put into EFA. The purpose of this step was to
continuously purify the instrument and to identify the components that explain for the
correlation between variables or sets of variables. One of the underlying objectives of
EFA is to reduce a large number of variables to a minimum number that can explain
most of the characteristics of the original variables. Each component extracted from the
original set of variables represents a discriminated aspect of the construct being
studied. These extracted variables then can be used as independent variables in later
analysis. The EFA model is expressed in the following equation:
Fi=Wi1X1+ Wi2X2+ Wi3X3++ WikXk

42

where
Fi : Estimated value of Factor i
Wik : Weight or factor score coefficient

Xk:: variable k
k: Number of variable

There are two common techniques used to extract factors in EFA, principal
components analysis and principal factors analysis. In most cases, these two methods
usually yield very similar results. However, principal components analysis is often
preferred as a method for data reduction, while principal factors analysis is often
preferred when the goal of the analysis is to detect structure (StatSoft, 2008).
The current study employs principal components analysis with varimax rotation
technique. As the ultimate purpose of running EFA in this study is to reduce the
variables for MLR in the later stage, principal component analysis is a better choice.
Principal components analysis with varimax rotation method maximizes the variance
on the new axes; in other words, this combination will minimize numbers of variables
with high factor loading in the same factor, lending itself to easier interpretation (Trong
& Ngoc, 2005).
The results of EFA are shown in table 4.3. There are 10 factors extracted at
Eigenvalues of 1.022 and total explained variance of 70.641. all factor loading are
greater than the cut-off value of 0.4. The result of KMO and Bartlett's Test is also very
high (0.913 at p=0.00). This indicates that EFA is suitable and all measures can be used
for the next analysis.

43

Table 4.3 Rotated component matrix

Observed
variables
SQ1
SQ2
SQ4
SQ5
SQ6
SQ7
SQ8
SQ9
SQ10
SQ11
SQ12
SQ13
SQ14
PC1
PC2
PC3
PC4
PR1
PR2
PR3
DF1
DF2
DF3
TR1
TR2
TR3
RE1
RE2
RE3
EE1
EE2
EE3
RL1
RL2
RL3
RL4
RL5
Eigenvalues
Extracted
variance

1
0.094
0.008
0.186
0.151
0.103
-0.049
-0.091
-0.039
-0.043
0.163
0.103
0.138
0.203
0.802
0.831
0.808
0.83
0.188
0.107
0.164
0.081
0.032
0.054
0.163
-0.078
-0.123
0.286
0.334
0.321
0.245
0.205
0.087
0.163
0.063
0.042
0.152
0.102
11.404

2
0.175
0.187
0.179
0.747
0.754
0.739
0.685
0.563
0.365
0.202
0.2
0.154
0.164
0.021
0.012
0.019
0.051
0.028
0.197
0.299
0.194
0.08
0.154
0.117
0.152
0.088
0.127
0.098
0.122
0.098
0.033
0.105
0.042
0.199
0.074
0.117
0.071
3.497

3
0.141
0.051
0.155
0.028
0.181
0.065
0.103
0.272
0.092
0.081
0.141
0.133
0.193
0.133
0.09
0.023
0.113
0.138
0.14
0.134
0.135
0.111
0.068
0.004
0.164
0.135
0.217
0.206
0.193
0.236
0.235
0.222
0.602
0.791
0.713
0.706
0.672
2.181

4
0.083
0.339
0.006
0.043
0.151
0.243
0.225
0.316
0.496
0.782
0.743
0.776
0.488
0.105
0.161
0.03
0.085
0.179
0.15
0.193
0.103
0.102
-0.009
0.113
0.001
0.01
0.167
0.058
0.132
0.115
0.181
0.131
0.123
0.067
0.13
0.109
0.119
1.836

5
0.071
-0.052
0.289
-0.088
0.181
0.123
0.171
-0.033
0.192
0.083
0.087
0.165
0.447
0.118
0.114
0.175
0.072
0.253
0.081
-0.006
0.028
0.098
0.245
0.305
-0.016
0.005
0.231
0.113
0.155
0.742
0.723
0.741
0.205
-0.04
0.188
0.313
0.29
1.472

9.369

8.632

8.557

7.976

7.369

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

44

Component
6
7
0.041
0.067
0.149
0.101
0.132
0.000
0.081
0.058
0.066
0.033
0.138
0.068
0.123
0.248
0.185
-0.05
0.241
0.186
0.14
0.089
-0.027
0.176
-0.004 -0.006
0.137
0.009
0.029
0.175
0.079
0.107
0.047
0.19
0.006
0.164
0.127
0.223
0.25
0.131
0.219
0.048
0.826 -0.009
0.825
0.115
0.737
0.076
-0.04
-0.07
0.156
0.049
0.204
0.12
0.637
0.114
0.731
0.052
0.706
0.066
0.087
0.121
0.203
0.14
0.099
0.229
0.057
0.313
0.02 -0.022
0.158
0.195
0.177
0.05
0.042
0.263
1.319
1.218
6.671

5.703

8
0.131
0.132
-0.075
0.017
0.077
0.14
0.13
0.197
0.083
0.004
0.013
0.072
0.027
0.005
-0.053
-0.007
-0.007
0.018
0.135
0.241
0.1
0.14
0.098
0.636
0.798
0.794
-0.018
0.034
0.103
-0.033
0.156
0.139
0.15
0.092
0.133
0.033
0.021
1.108

9
0.785
0.685
0.691
0.172
0.026
0.149
0.171
0.109
0.325
0.045
0.136
0.057
0.175
0.051
0.024
0.115
0.053
0.081
0.179
0.13
0.063
0.13
0.081
0.03
0.053
0.1
0.05
0.058
0.091
0.11
0.002
0.136
0.1
0.075
0.159
0.079
0.008
1.082

10
0.084
0.075
0.18
0.125
0.175
0.101
0.116
-0.18
-0.028
0.065
0.081
0.263
0.226
0.111
-0.041
0.121
0.16
0.685
0.743
0.618
0.115
0.09
0.233
0.123
0.056
0.073
0.193
0.158
0.056
0.152
0.061
0.033
0.04
0.092
-0.016
0.135
0.202
1.022

5.493

5.472

5.399

The service quality scale was developed basing on the Spiros et al (2004)s scale
which covered all aspects of Parasuraman et al (1988)s service quality measurement.
However, only three components were extracted (see table 4.3). They include three
variables representing the tangible aspects (SQ1, SQ2,SQ4) and the scale is called
tangibles as it was originally termed. The second component (SQ5 to SQ9) is closely
related to the reliability and responsiveness perspective and here referred to as
affectivity. The last component, consisting of 5 variables, SQ10 to SQ14, is
characterized as staff competence.
Factor loading of the variables contained in eight scales (10 components) are all
greater than .4. The lowest is of variable SQ 14 Bank [X]s employees give me
personal attention (0.448). Thus all the variables were then useable. The EFA result for
each scale is provided in table 4.4.
Table 4.4 EFA result for individual measurement scales
Initial Eigenvalues

Scales

Total

% of Variance

Service quality

Extraction/rotation Sums of Squared

Loadings
Total
% of Variance

60.575

60.575

Tangibles

5.730

40.962

3.186

22.756

affectivity

1.464

10.459

3.049

21.779

Staff competence

1.287

9.190

2.246

16.040

KMO=.852 (p=.00)
Price competitiveness

3.008

75.208

3.008

75.208

2.123

70.765

2.123

70.765

2.257

75.24

2.257

75.24

1.888

62.921

1.888

62.921

2.202

73.386

2.202

73.386

2.302

76.722

2.302

76.722

KMO=.839 (p=.000)
Brand promise
KMO=.673 (p=.000)
Brand differentiation
KMO=.720 (p=.000)
Brand trust
KMO=.616. (p=.000)
Rational evaluation
KMO=.712 (p=.000)
Emotional evaluation
KMO=.728 (p=.000)

45

Customer-brand
relationship

3.099

61.988

3.099

61.988

KMO=.852 (p=.000)

4.4 Testing the research model and the hypotheses

4.4.1 Testing correlations between all constructs
It was proposed in chapter 2 that the research model includes 13 hypotheses. To test
those hypotheses, the first step was to test the correlations between dependent variables
and the independent variables and among independent variables as well. Then multiple
linear regressions were run to confirm the relationships among them. The correlation
analysis results shown in table 4.5 temporarily allow us to expect that there are positive
relationships between the brand evaluations and the brand associations (H1 to H 10) as
well as between the customer-brand relationship and the brand evaluations (H11, H12,
H13).
4.4.2 Testing research model
4.4.2.1 The relationship between rational evaluation and the brand associations.
Hypotheses from H1 to H5 assume that the rational evaluation positively relate to the
brand associations (see figure 4.4). The correlation analysis results preliminarily let us
be aware of these relationships. However, to ascertain that they truly exist, or in other
words, to confirm that all those hypotheses are statistical significant, the first MLR
Model (Model I) was run. The rational relationship component extracted in the
previous step then played the role of a dependent variable. The enter method was
employed to select all independent variables that would be put into the model.

46

Figure 4.4. Relationships between rational evaluation

and the brand associations

Service quality

H1

Price
H2

Rational
Evaluation
H3

Promise
H4
Differentiation

H5

Trust and
Credibility

The MLR results are presented in table 4.5a and table 4.5b. The regression coefficient
R square (adjusted) is .424. ANOVA results showed that this model had a F value of
31.946. at sig. = .000 These results allowed us to reject the null hypothesis that all the
regression coefficients equal zero ( 1 = 2= 3 == k. =0). However, the adjusted R
square value is rather low, indicating that the models goodness of fit for the population
is not so high.

47

Table 4.5 Correlation matrix

Tangibles

Tangibles

Affectivity
Staff
competence

Price

Brand promise

Differentiation
Trust &
credibility
Rational
evaluation
Emotional
evaluation
Customer-brand
relationship

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

Affectivity

Staff
competence

Price

Brand
promise

Differentiatio
n

Trust &
credibility

Rational
evaluation

Emotional
evaluation

Customerbrand
relationship

.311**

.316**

.206**

.167**

.262**

0.000
1.000

0.000
1.000

0.012
0.833

.308**

0.000
1.000

0.000
1.000

.308**
0.000

.369**

0.000
1.000

0.000
1.000

.218**
0.000

.319**

0.012
0.833

.308**
0.000

.218**

.373**

.308**
0.000

.369**
0.000

.319**

.311**
0.000

.192**
0.001

.269**

.316**
0.000

0.104
0.073

.163**

.206**
0.000

.341**
0.000

.243**

.167**
0.004

.404**
0.000

.279**

.262**
0.000

.339**
0.000

.272**

0.000

0.104
0.073
.163**

.373**
0.000

0.005

0.003

0.017
0.767

.174**
0.003

.478**

0.000

0.017
0.767

.338**

0.005

.570**
0.000

.465**

0.000

.438**

0.000

.416**
0.000

.438**

0.000

.330**
0.000

.478**

.338**
0.000

.341**

.349**

.301**
0.000

0.000

.195**

0.000

.438**

.362**

0.000
.354**

0.000
.264**

0.000
.316**

0.000
.515**

0.000
.543**

0.000
.515**

0.000

0.000
.575**

0.000
.543**

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

.316**
0.000

.330**

.438**

.195**

0.000

0.000

0.001
.264**

.354**

.416**

0.001

0.000
.362**

.272**

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

.301**

.339**

.279**

.570**

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

.404**

.465**

.349**

0.004

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

.243**

0.000
.174**

0.000

48

0.001
.269**

0.000

0.000

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

0.000

.192**
0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000
.575**

0.000

1
0.000

Table 4.5a. Model summary

Model I

0.662

R Square

Adjusted R Square

0.438

Std. Error of the Estimate

0.424

0.759

a. Predictors: (Constant), Trust & credability, Price, Staff competence, Tangibles, Affectivity,
Differentiation, Brand promise

To decide which hypothesis is statistically significant, partial regression

coefficients were tested with t value. The results in table 4.5b show that four latent
variables (representing three associations) are statistical significant5. In other words,
only three hypotheses, out of six, are supported. (see figure 4.5)

Table 4.5b Coefficients a

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model I
1

Coefficients

Std. Error

(Constant)

-2.80E-16

0.044

Tangibles

0.124

0.05

Affectivity

0.135

Staff competence

Sig.

0.124

2.489

0.013

0.05

0.135

2.713

0.007

0.078

0.049

0.078

1.588

0.113

Price competitiveness

0.448

0.05

0.448

9.013

0.000

Brand promise

0.143

0.059

0.143

2.402

0.017

0.05

0.053

0.05

0.933

0.351

0.056

0.05

0.056

1.13

0.259

Differentiation
Trust & credability

a. Dependent Variable: Rational evaluation

Beta

All hypotheses in this study were tested at significance level of 0.05

49

Table 4.6 Summary of hypotheses testing results (Model I)

Hypotheses

Confirmed

H1: Rational evaluation is positively related to perceived service quality

YES

H2: Rational evaluation is positively related to price competitiveness

YES

H3: Rational evaluation is positively related to brand promise

YES

H4: Rational evaluation is positively related to brand differentiation

NO

H5: Rational evaluation is positively related to brand trust and credibility

NO

Figure 4.5. Results of model I

Adjusted R square =.424
F value = 31.946
Sig. = .000

Service quality

H1
=0.259 (sig.=.013)

H2

Price

= 0.448 (sig.= .000)

H3
Promise

=0.143 (sig.=.017)

Differentiation
Trust and
Credibility

50

Rational
Evaluation

4.4.2.2 The relationship between emotional evaluation and the brand associations.
The same way as above, the second regression model (model II) was run to test the
hypotheses between emotional evaluation and the brand associations (see figure 4.6).
The adjusted R square of the second model is .358, F value is 24.434 at .000
significance. These results also allow us to conclude that the model fits with the data.
Yet the goodness of fit is also quite low.( Table 4.6a)
Figure 4.6. Relationships between emotional evaluation
and the brand associations

Service quality

H6
H7

Price

Emotional
Evaluation

H8
Promise
H9
Differentiation

H10

Trust and
Credibility

Table 4.6a - Model II Summary

Model II
1

R Square
.611

Adjusted R Square

.373

.358

Std. Error of the Estimate

.80123111

a. Predictors: (Constant), Trust & credibility, Price competitiveness, Staff competence, Tangibles,

Affectivity , Brand differentiation, Product quality, Brand promise

51

Hypotheses from H6 to H10 were tested with this model and the results are shown in
Table 4.6b and are summarized in table 4.7. Figure 4.7 is used to visually illustrations
for the hypotheses testing results.
Table 4.6b - Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model II
1

Coefficients

Std. Error

2.38E-16

0.047

0.061

0.052

0.26

Staff competence

Beta

Sig.

0.061

1.169

0.243

0.053

0.26

4.959

0.00

0.145

0.052

0.145

2.813

0.005

Price competitiveness

0.248

0.052

0.248

4.733

0.00

Brand promise

0.082

0.063

0.082

1.302

0.194

Differentiation

0.132

0.056

0.132

2.347

0.02

Trust & credability

0.116

0.053

0.116

2.207

0.028

(Constant)
Tangibles
Affectivity

a. Dependent Variable: Emotional evaluation

Four hypotheses are supported by the results in model II.

Table 4.7 Summary of hypotheses testing results (Model II)
Hypotheses

Confirmed

H6: Emotional evaluation is positively related to perceived service quality

YES

H7: Emotional evaluation is positively related to price competitiveness

YES

H8: Emotional evaluation is positively related to brand promise

NO

H9: Emotional evaluation is positively related to brand differentiation

YES

H10: Emotional evaluation is positively related to brand trust and credibility

YES

52

Figure 4.7. Results of model II

Service quality

Adjusted R square =.358

F value = 24.434
Sig. = .000

H6
=0.405 (sig.=. 005)

H7

Price

=0.248 (sig.=. 000)

Emotional
Evaluation

=0.132 (sig.=. 02)

Promise
H9
=0.116 (sig.= .028)

Differentiation

H10

Trust and
Credibility

4.4.2.3 The customer-brand relationships.

Before testing the hypotheses assuming the relationship between customer-brand
relationships construct and brand evaluations, this step first tests the assumption that
the rational evaluation is positively related to the emotional evaluation (H11). The third
regression was run (Model IIIa).
Table 4.7a - Model III a Summary
Std. Error of the
Model III a
1

R Square
.515

Adjusted R Square
.266

.263

a. Predictors: (Constant), Emotional evaluation

53

Estimate
.85840387

Table 4.7b - Coefficientsa

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model IIIa
1

(Constant)

Std. Error

-4.701E-16

.050

.515

.050

Emotional evaluation

Coefficients
t

Beta

.515

Sig.
.000

1.000

10.295

.000

a. Dependent Variable: Rational evaluation

This model was also proved fit with data. The R square is .266, F value is 105.992
at sig.=.000. Thus Null hypothesis: R square= 0 can be rejected. This model has beta of
.515 (positive), t value = 10.295 at sig. = .000. As the result, hypothesis H13 was
confirmed (figure 48.a).

Figure 4.8a Hypothesis 11 Testing result

Rational
Evaluation

= .515 (sig. =000)

H11

Emotional
Evaluation

The fourth regression model (model IIIb) then was run to test the last two
hypotheses ( H12 & H13). The results are shown in table 4.8a, 4.8b and figure 4.8.

54

Table 4.8a - Model III b Summary

Model III b
1

R Square
.643

Adjusted R Square

.414

Std. Error of the Estimate

.410

.76824887

a. Predictors: (Constant), Emotional evaluation, Rational evaluation

Table 4.8b Coefficients a

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model (IIIa)
1

(Constant)

Std. Error

1.594E-16

.045

Rational evaluation

.336

.052

Emotional evaluation

.402

.052

Coefficients
t

Beta

Sig.
.000

1.000

.336

6.431

.000

.402

7.685

.000

a. Dependent Variable: Relationship

Figure 4.8b. Results of model III b

Adj. R square = .410
F=103.065
Sig. = .000
Rational
Evaluation
H12
= .336 (sig. =000)

Customer-Brand
Relationship
= .402 (sig. =000)

H13
Emotional
Evaluation

The results from this model indicate that the model fitted the data with F value =
103.06; sig.=.000. Hypotheses H12 and H13 are both supported with = .336 and .402

55

respectively and all at significance level of .000.

Table 4.9 Summary of hypotheses testing results (Model IIIa,b)

Hypotheses

Confirmed

H11: Rational evaluation is positively related to emotional evaluation

YES

H12: Customer-brand relationship is positively related to rational evaluation

YES

H13: Customer-brand relationship is positively related to emotional evaluation

YES

4.5 Findings and conclusion

4.5.1 Findings
MLR results in this chapter have brought out some unexpected outcomes. Brand
differentiation (H4) and trust & credibility (H5) were not supported in their
relationship with rational evaluation. The contention might be that in the rational
perspective, customers make their judgment based on what they see, feel or touch
(service quality). It might be more important that a real rational evaluation, the
cost/benefit evaluation (price) and/or what they expect to receive is satisfied by the
bank (brand promise). In this perspective, emotion-based associations, like
differentiation or trust and credibility, might not make sense. The results shown in table
4.5b clearly support this argument.
Regarding the relationships between emotional evaluation and the brand
associations, only four hypotheses were confirmed, H6 (service quality), H7 (price
competitiveness), H9 (differentiation) and H10 (trust and credibility).
If there is evidence that tangible aspect had an impact on rational evaluation
(=.123, sig=.014), it does not have an emotional impact. Only affectivity and staff
competence were significantly correlated to the customer emotional appraisal. The

56

reasoning might be that the appearance of banking equipment and facilities may result
in a professional image of the bank which may then generates trust from the customer
for their rational consideration. However, it might not touch their emotion. But
affectivity and employee competence are important factors that strongly influence
customers sentimental preferences to the bank.
By comparing the results in table 4.6b with those in table 4.5b, we can see price
competitiveness is relevant to both rational and emotional evaluations. However, it
plays a more important role in rational assessment (=0.448, sig.=.000) than it does in
the emotional perspective (=0.248, sig.=.000). From this standpoint, service quality
makes a larger proportion (= 0.405, sig.=.005) than the price competitiveness
(=0.248, sig.=.000). Brand differentiation and brand trust and credibility also
contributed to the emotional judgment of the customer.
In sum, by comparing the results between model I and model II, we can conclude
that, from a rational perspective, price competitiveness dominates the customers
judgment. From the emotional angle, service quality takes over.
From a causal-effect perspective, this study ultimately examines the contribution
of rational evaluation and emotional evaluation to the customer-brand relationship. As
the results in table 4.8b show, the statistical evidence lets us conclude that the
customers emotional evaluation contributes more than the rational consideration to the
customer loyalty to a brand (customer-brand relationship). This is in line with Berry
(2000)s argument that great brands always make an emotional connection with the
intended audience. They reach beyond the purely rational and purely economic level to
spark feelings of closeness, affection, and trust. The relationship is expressed in the
following simple equation:
RL = 0.402 EE + 0.366 RE
Where
RL : Customer-brand relationship

57

EE: Emotional evaluation

RE: Rational evaluation
(to simplify , no constant and residual are put in the equation)

4.5.2 Conclusion
This chapter provides the analysis results and main findings of the study. The statistical
evidence revealed some unexpected results. Several arguments that explain the
research results are also presented in this chapter. Not all hypotheses from the research
model were supported and therefore, an adjusted model is suggested below (Fig. 4.9).
Figure 4.9. Adjusted model of CBBE in banking service

Rational associations

Brand evaluations

Service quality
H1

Rational
Evaluation

H2

Price

H12
H3

Customer-Brand
Relationship

H11
H6
H7

Promise

H13

Emotional
Evaluation

H9

Differentiation

H10

Trust and
Credibility

Rational & emotional associations

58

Chapter 5:
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
5.1 Introduction
Chapter 4 presented the analysis results and the main findings of the study. A modified
model was also proposed in the chapter. This chapter summarized all hypotheses that
will be used to answer for the research questions in this chapter. Some implications are
suggested for academics and practitioners as well. The limitations of this study and
some suggestions for further research are also presented in this chapter. The structure
for chapter five is showed in figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 Outline of chapter 5
5.1

Introduction

5.2

Conclusions of the study

5.3

Implications of the study

5.4

Limitations and recommendations

5.5

Conclusion

5.2 Conclusions of the study

5.2.1 Summary of all hypotheses
To draw the conclusion for this study, the hypotheses testing results are repeated in
table 5.1 for easier reference.

59

Table 5.1. Summary of hypotheses

Hypotheses

Confirmed

H1: Rational evaluation is positively related to perceived service quality

YES

H2: Rational evaluation is positively related to price competitiveness

YES

H3: Rational evaluation is positively related to brand promise

YES

H4: Rational evaluation is positively related to brand differentiation

NO

H5: Rational evaluation is positively related to brand trust and credibility

NO

H6: Emotional evaluation is positively related to perceived service quality

YES

H7: Emotional evaluation is positively related to price competitiveness

YES

H8: Emotional evaluation is positively related to brand promise

NO

H9: Emotional evaluation is positively related to brand differentiation

YES

H10: Emotional evaluation is positively related to brand trust and credibility

YES

H11: Rational evaluation is positively related to Emotional evaluation

YES

H12: Customer-brand relationship is positively related to rational evaluation

YES

H13: Customer-brand relationship is positively related to emotional evaluation

YES

5.2.2 Conclusions of the study

From the analysis outcomes and the findings presented in chapter 4, with reference to
the above tested hypotheses, this study concludes that the first research question is not
fully positively answered. This means that the original model of CBBE developed by
Martensen & Grnholdt (2004) can not be applied in the Vietnamese banking service
without any adaptation. As argued in chapter 2, product quality was not included in the
model. As the results, only five brand associations are confirmed in the model. They
consist of service quality, price, brand promise, brand differentiation and trust &

60

credibility. A modified model is proposed for the CBBE in the Vietnamese banking
perspective. The relationship between emotional evaluation and rational evaluation;
and those between these evaluations and customer-brand relationship were
significantly supported. This result is consistent with the original model.
To answer the second research question, the results in Table 5.1 reveal that,
instead of six, only three parameters, service quality, price and brand promise correlate
positively with customers rational evaluation. From the emotional perspective, there
are only four parameters proved to be positively related to the emotional evaluation.
These associations consist of service quality, price, brand differentiation and trust and
credibility.
5.3 Implications of the study
5.3.1 Theoretical implications
The aim of the current study is to test a general model of customer-based brand
equity into the banking service perspective. The findings suggest that the theoretical
model is not fully supported. However, the modified model can be used as a point of
departure for those who intend to study the CBBE in the banking industry in Vietnam.
As there is no specific model of CBBE for banking services in Vietnam so far, this
model is the first that provides a clear image of the dimensions that contribute to the
brand equity in banking service.
Secondly, this study contributes to the marketing literature a measurement scale
as a useful instrument to measure the brand equity in banking service. The advantage
of this instrument is that it can be used flexibly. For example, most of the observed
variables presented in this study might also be useful for those who would follow
Aakers approach to measure brand equity of banking service in an emerging economy
like Vietnam.

61

5.3.2 Practical implications

This study provides an insight into brand equity in banking industry. And thus, it can
furnish bank managers a structured approach to formulate their branding strategies.
The weight of the relationship between each of the brand equity dimensions or that of
the sub components and the loyalty formation helps them to prioritize and allocate
limited resources across brand equity dimensions/components to reach their objectives
in a most efficient way. This is consistent with a study of banking system in New
Zealand conducted by Macpherson Publishing (1999) whose argument is banks need
to understand what drives satisfaction and loyalty, and where there is greatest
opportunity for improvement. For example, maybe the bank management would
rather maintain a reasonable price level while increase the service quality (affectivity,
employee competence) to achieve more customer loyalty than merely use a price cutdown or promotion campaign.
The modified CBBE model can be also used as a guideline for customer
relationship management in banking service. By better understanding the contributions
of brand equity components to the customer attitude towards the brand, bank managers
might set up criteria to classify customers into different groups, for instance price
sensitive group or rationally-based group and emotionally-based group. Then the
bank can have different policy for each group.
At the beginning of this study it was expected that the rational perspective (in
terms of low price) would be most important for the banking industry. But interestingly
the findings of this study do not support this view. Even though price competitiveness
dominates the customer rational evaluation and is also involved in the emotional
evaluation, the emotional evaluation finally contributes a larger proportion to the
customer loyalty. On the one hand, it positively impacts on the rational perceptions, i.e.
the more the customers mentally prefer the brand, the higher they perceive the brand
value and the greater their satisfaction with the brand. On the other hand, emotional

62

perceptions play a larger role in forming customer loyalty to the brand.

Understanding the way that customer loyalty is formed, bank managers might
need to inspire emotions in the customers mind by offering superior service
performance, differentiating the brand from competitors by providing customers with
advantage that other banks would find hard to copy, generating trust from the target
audience with consistent service quality and never communicating a value or service
that the bank can not deliver.
5.4 Limitations and recommendations for further research
Like any other research, this study has many limitations. The first one is in the
sampling. Samples were selected by the convenience method. This is the least reliable
form of non-probability sampling. Respondents were bank customers who are currently
in transaction with the selected banks. Many of them are very familiar with the bank
therefore they might over-rate the bank. In addition, the sample consists of individual
customers only. This may not fully reflect all aspects of customer perception about
bank operations, as others, for example business customers, may have very different
views.
Second, only two brands were selected in Can Tho city. Even though the banking
industry is a very systematical industry (i.e. the consistence within a system nationwide
is very high), this study needs to be repeated elsewhere, especially in bigger cities like
Ho Chi Minh or Hanoi, and with more bank brands involved.
Another limitation of the study is the lack of brand awareness in the model.
Though brand awareness was not found significant in the model of CBBE in the
financial service industry (Taylor et al, 2007) or in the hotel industry (Kayaman and
Arasli, 2007), brand awareness is a critical dimension for brand equity (a key task of
brand management is to get the brand in the target consumers consideration set)
(Kayaman and Arasli, 2007). Therefore, it is suggested that brand awareness be

63

included as a parameter in an extended model of customer-based bank equity for

banking services.
Finally, readers are advised to interpret these research results with caution. As
pointed out in chapter 4, the goodness of fit of the regression models were all
acceptable but not so high.

64

List of References
Aaker, D. A. (1996a). Building Strong Brand. New York: Free Press.
Aaker, D. A. (1996b). Measuring brand equity across products and markets.
California Management Re view, Spring 38, 3
Berry L.L. (2000), Cultivating Service Brand Equity, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, volume 28, No. 1, 128-137
Chernatony, L.D and Cottam, S. (2006), Why are all financial brands not great?,
Journal of product and brand management, February, 88-97
Colgate, M. & Norris, M. (2000). Why customers leave or decide not to leave their
banks, Business Review , Volume 2, No. 2 , University Of Auckland.
Colgate et al (2007), Back from The Brink: Why Customers Stay?, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, February, 211-228
Cruz, P.P; Laukkanen, T. and Munoz, P.A (2005), Trust In E-Bank: A Cross-National
Study, ANZMAC Conference: Pricing and Financial Issues in Marketing
Cui, C.C.; Lewis, B.R. and Park W. (2003), Service quality measurement in the
banking sector in South Korea, International Journal of Bank Marketing,
April, 191-201
Donald R.C & Pamela S.S.(2003), Business research methods 8th Ed., Mc GrawHill/Irwin, New York
Filo, K. & Funk, D.C. (2001), Exploring the role of brand trust in the relationship
between brand associations and brand loyalty in sport and fitness,
International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, Vol. 3, No. ,
39-57.
Elena D.B. and Jos L.M.A. (2005), Does brand trust matter to brand equity?,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14/3, 187196
Gregory M. K. and Michael W. P. ( 2004), Effects of components of satisfaction on
overall satisfaction in industrial markets, Journal of the Academy of
Business and Economics

65

Harnish, V. (2006). The Brand Promise. Identifying the Single Most Important
Measurable in Building Value, available at http://www.gazelles.com/
columns/Brand%20Promise.pdf
Hong Trng & Chu Nguyn Mng Ngc (2005), Phn Tch D Liu Nghin Cu Vi
SPSS, NXB Thng K
Kapferer , J.N. (2008), The New Strategic Brand Management, 4th Ed, Kogan Page,
London
Keller, K.L. (1993), Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based
Brand Equity, Journal of Marketing, January, Vol. 57, p.1-22
Keller, K.L. (2001), Building Customer-Based Brand Equity: A Blueprint for Creating
Strong Brands, Working Paper, Report no. 01-107. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, USA: Marketing Science Institute (MSI)
Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and
Managing Brand Equity. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA: Pearson
Education, Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P. & Pfoertsch, W. (2007), B2B Brand Management, Springer, Berlin.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K. (2006), Marketing Management 12th Ed, Prentice Hall
Krishnan, B.C. and Hartline, M.D. (2001), Brand Equity: Is It More Important in
Service?, Journal of service marketing. Vol.15, 328-342
Lam, R.; Lo, H.P. and Burton, S. (2005), Investigating The Drivers Of SMEs Banking
Loyalty In Hong Kong, ANZMAC Conference: Consumer Behaviour.
Leiser M. (2004), Understanding brands value: advancing brand equity tracking to
brand equity management, Handbook of Business Strategy, Vol.5 No. 1,
217-221, MCB UP Limited.
Martensen A. & Grnholdt L., (2004), Building Brand Equity: A Customer-Based
Modelling Approach, Journal of Management Systems, Vol.16, No. 3
Myers, C.A. (2003), Managing Brand Equity: A Look at The Impact of Attributes,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 12, No.1, 39-51
Netemeyer, R.G. et al (2004), Developing and validating measures of facets of
customer-based brand equity, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57,
p.209 224

66

Nguyn t Lai (2008), Tha ngn hng, nhng thiu sn ph m!, available at:
http://www.vneconomy.vn/20080822122359943P0C6/thua-ngan-hangnhung-thieu-san-pham.htm
Nguyn nh Th & Nguyn Th Mai Trang (2007). Nghin Cu Khoa Hoc
Marketing: ng Dng M Hnh Cu Trc Tuyn Tnh SEM. NXB i hc
quc gia TP. HCM.
Nguyn nh Th & Nguyn Th Mai Trang (2008). Nghin Cu Th Trng. NXB
i hc quc gia TP. HCM.
Olive, R.L. (1999), Whence Customer Loyalty, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63
(Special Issue 1999), 33-44
Quan, Tran Ha Minh (2006), Retailers Perceptions Of Product Brand Equity: An
Empirical Study Of Vietnamese Independent Grocers, Doctorial thesis,
Southern Cross University.
Rhan Kayaman and Huseyin Arasli (2007), Customer based brand equity: evidence
from the hotel industry, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 17 No. 1, 2007
pp. 92-109
Shelagh, H. (2005), Modern banking, Jonh Willy & Son Inc
Spiros P.G. , Vlassis S. and Antreas D. A. (2003), Antecedents to perceived service
quality: an exploratory study in the banking industry, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, April, 168-190
Statsoft, Principal Components and Factor Analysis: available at: http://www.
statsoftcom/textbook/stfacan.html#index
Stephen R. (2003), Branding your Bank, UBS News For Bank, Vol.3, Prophet,
London
Tam, J.L.M. (2005), Brand familiarity: its effects on satisfaction evaluations,
Journal of Services Marketing, January, 312
Taylor, S.A. ; Hunter, G.L. and Lindberg, D.L. ( 2005), Understanding (customerbased) brand equity in financial services, Journal of Services Marketing,
21/4, 241252
Zeithaml, V.A., Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, And Value: A Means-end
Model and Synthesis of Evidence, Journal of Marketing, Jul, Vol.52/3, 2-22

67

Appendix 1 Questionnaire (Vietnamese version)

Xin knh chao qu v
Xin chan thanh cam n qu v a nhan li tham tra li phong van. Bang cau hoi nay ch tap
trung tm hieu qu v ngh g ve thng hieu ngan hang [X] va moi quan he gia qu v va thng hieu
nay. Do vay, khong co cau tra li ung hay sai ma moi thong tin c cung cap bi qu v eu rat co
gia tr oi vi nghien cu cua toi. Rat mong qu v tra li AY U cac cau hoi va mc o chnh xac
cao nhat co the. Moi thong tin ca nhan cua qu v eu c gi kn. Thong tin do qu v cung cap se ch
c trnh bay trong bao cao di dang tong hp. Khong co bat ky mot bang cau hoi nao c cong
bo rieng le ra ngoai.
Tran trong knh chao

I. Thong tin chung (phan nay do phong van vien ghi)

Ten ngan hang: .... .(di ay ky hieu la [X])
Ten phong van vien: ................................................... Ngay phong van:
........./....../2009
M s :

II. Cau hoi ve gia tr thng hieu ngan hang

Xin vui long cho biet mc o ong y hoac khong ong y cua qu v oi vi cac phat bieu di ay bang
cach khoanh tron vao MOT con so theo qui c sau:
1 = rat khong ong y

1.
2.
3.
4.

2 = khong ong y

3 = trung lap

4 = ong y

Phat bieu
Trang thit b ca ngan hang [X] rt hin i
Trang phuc cua nhan vien ngan hang [X] rat ep va lch s.
V tr cua ngan hang [X] rat thuan tien oi vi toi.
C s vat chat cua ngan hang [X] trong rat hap dan

5. Ngan hang [X] thc hien dch vu ung thi iem nh a ha

6. Khi toi gap van e, ngan hang [X] the hien s quan tam chan thanh trong giai
quyet van e.
7. Nhan vien cua ngan hang [X] phuc vu toi nhanh chong, ung han.
8. Nhan vien ngan hang [X] luon luon san long giup toi.
9. Toi cam thay an toan khi giao dch vi ngan hang [X].
10. Nhan vien cua ngan hang [X] bao gi cung to ra lch s, nha nhan.
11. Nhan vien cua ngan hang [X] hieu rat ky ve san pham va dch vu cua ngan

68

5 = rat ong y

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5

hang.
12. Nhan vien cua ngan hang [X] co kien thc e tra li cac cau hoi cua toi.
13. Nhan vien ngan hang [X] hieu c nhu cau cua toi va san pham, dch vu
nao co the ap ng c nhng nhu cau o
14. Ngan hang [X] the hien s quan tam en ca nhan toi

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

15. Lai suat cua ngan hang [X] rat canh tranh
16. Ph dch vu cua ngan hang [X] rat canh tranh
17. Ngan hang [X] cho toi c thng lng gia
18. Mc gia cua ngan hang [X] a ra cho toi rat hp ly

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

19. Ngan hang [X] mang lai ha hen rat co y ngha

20. Ngan hang [X] thc hien ung nhng g ma [X] ha hen mang lai cho toi.
21. Ngan hang [X] tao c nhng lien tng va an tng tot

1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4
4

5
5
5

22. Ngan hang [X] khac biet hn cac ngan hang khac (theo ngha tch cc)
23. Ngan hang [X] co nhng net oc ao khi so sanh vi cac ngan hang khac
24. Ngan hang [X] tao c nhng thuan li cho khach hang ma cac ngan hang
khac khong co c

1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4
4

5
5
5

25. Ngan hang [X] giao thiep mot cach trung thc va ci m
26. Ngan hang [X] rat ang tin tng va tin cay
27. Toi rat tin tng vao ngan hang [X]

1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4
4

5
5
5

28. Ngan hang [X] mang lai cho toi gia tr xng ang ong tien
29. Ngan hang [X] ap ng rat tot nhng ky vong (mong muon) cua toi?
30. Nhn chung, toi rat hai long oi vi ngan hang [X]

1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4
4

5
5
5

31. Khi ngh ve ngan hang [X], toi co cam giac rat am cung
32. Toi cam thy ngan hang [X] rt co y ngha oi vi toi
33. Toi thay hanh dien khi la khach hang cua ngan hang [X]

1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4
4

5
5
5

34. Lan ti khi co y nh giao dch vi mot ngan hang, toi se lai giao dch vi
ngan hang [X]
35. Toi se gii thieu ngan hang [X] vi nhng ngi khac
36. Nhn chung, toi thay ngan hang [X] rat hap dan so vi cac ngan hang khac
37. Toi rat quan tam ti ngan hang [X]
38. Viec tiep tuc duy tr moi quan he vi ngan hang [X] trong tng lai la rat
quan trong oi vi toi

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

69

III.

Thong tin ca nhan

1. Xin ong (ba) vui long cho biet ten:

So T: . a ch (hoac ni cong tac): .. .
.. (neu co the cung cap)
Gii tnh:
Tuoi:

Nam
- 1
Di 30 tuoi
T 31 45
T 46 60
Tren 60 tuoi

N
- 2

-1

-2

-3

-4

4. Xin vui long cho biet thi gian ong(ba) a giao dch vi ngan hang [X]
1. Di 3 thang

-1
2. T 3 thang en mot nam
- 2
3. Tren mot nam

-3
5. Xin vui long cho biet mc o thng xuyen ong (ba) giao dch vi ngan hang [X]
1. Rat thng xuyen ( t nhat 5 lan/tuan)

-1
2. Thng xuyen (1- 3 lan/tuan)

-2
3. Kha thng xuyen (1-2 lan/thang)

-3
4. Vang lai (ngau nhien hoac ch khi can thiet)

-4

Xin cam n qu v a danh thi gian hoan tat bang cau hoi nay!

70

Appendix 2 Observed variables

Service quality
1. Bank [X] has up to date equipments
2. Bank [X]s physical facilities are visually appealing.
3. I find it very convenient with the location of bank [X]
4. Bank [X]s employees are well dressed and appear neat.
5. Bank [X] provides its services at the time it promises to do so
6. When I have problems, bank [X] is sympathetic in solving them
7. I receive prompt service from bank [X]s employees
8. Bank [X]s employees are always willing to help me.
9. I feel safe in my transaction with bank [X]
10. Bank [X]s employees are polite
11. Bank [X]s employees know the banks product and service very well
12. Bank [X]s employees have necessary knowledge to answer my questions
13. Bank [X]s employees know what my needs are and how the banks products can
satisfy them
14. Bank [X]s employees give me personal attention
Price
15. Interest rates of bank [X] are very competitive
16. Service fees of bank [X] are very competitive
17. Bank [X] offers me price deals
18. Bank [X] offers me very reasonable price
Brand promise
19. Bank [X] creates meaningful promises for me
20. Bank [X] lives up to its promises
21. Bank [X] creates positive associations and images
Differentiation
22. Bank [X] differs from other banks in a positive way
23. Bank [X] is unique compared to other banks
24. Bank [X] offers advantages that other banks can not
Trust and credibility
25. Bank [X] communicates openly and honestly
26. Bank [X] is trustworthy and credible
27. I have great faith in Bank [X]
Rational evaluation
28. Bank [X] provides good value for money
29. Bank [X] greatly meets expectations.
30. Overall, I am very satisfied with bank [X]
Emotional evaluation
31. When thinking of bank [X], I get a positive and warm feeling
32. Bank [X] means a lot to me

71

33. I am proud to be a customer of bank[X]

Customer-brand relationships
34. The next time I am going to transact with a bank, I am going to bank [X] again
35. I will recommend bank [X] to others
36. Overall, I find bank [X] more attractive than other banks?
37. I am very interested in bank [X]
38. It is important for me to maintain the relationship with bank [X] in the future

72

Appendix 3 - Descriptive Statistics of variables

Observed
variables

Std.
N

Minimum Maximum

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Mean

Deviation

Statistic

Statistic

Skewness
Statistic

Kurtosis

Std. Error

Statistic

Std. Error

SQ1

295

1.00

5.00

3.8407

.75483

-.587

.142

.886

.283

SQ2

295

1.00

5.00

4.1492

.76806

-.987

.142

1.704

.283

SQ3

295

1.00

5.00

4.0034

.88255

-.634

.142

.143

.283

SQ4

295

1.0

5.0

3.617

.8283

-.197

.142

.060

.283

SQ5

295

1.00

5.00

4.0407

.67389

-.653

.142

1.584

.283

SQ6

295

1.00

5.00

4.0237

.74422

-.537

.142

.507

.283

SQ7

295

1.00

5.00

4.1729

.69542

-.797

.142

1.591

.283

SQ8

295

1.00

5.00

4.1627

.72419

-.906

.142

1.648

.283

SQ9

295

1.00

5.00

4.1932

.78243

-1.040

.142

1.848

.283

SQ10

295

1.00

5.00

4.1966

.77063

-.892

.142

1.210

.283

SQ11

295

1.00

5.00

4.0305

.68195

-.492

.142

.979

.283

SQ12

295

1.00

5.00

3.9966

.71189

-.337

.142

.274

.283

SQ13

295

1.00

5.00

3.9186

.73782

-.535

.142

.943

.283

SQ14

295

1.00

5.00

3.7492

.80694

-.178

.142

-.270

.283

PC1

295

1.00

5.00

3.0814

1.05953

-.267

.142

-.615

.283

PC2

295

1.00

5.00

3.2169

1.08502

-.312

.142

-.500

.283

PC3

295

1.00

5.00

2.9051

1.12386

-.232

.142

-.799

.283

PC4

295

1.00

5.00

3.3119

.96417

-.362

.142

-.019

.283

PR1

295

2.00

5.00

3.6576

.66604

-.107

.142

-.127

.283

PR2

295

1.00

5.00

3.8712

.68289

-.348

.142

.666

.283

PR3

295

1.00

5.00

3.9559

.65576

-.392

.142

1.021

.283

DF1

295

1.00

5.00

3.8712

.73101

-.164

.142

-.056

.283

DF2

295

1.00

5.00

3.8305

.77706

-.177

.142

-.225

.283

DF3

295

1.00

5.00

3.7864

.81555

-.270

.142

-.031

.283

TR1

295

1.00

5.00

3.8441

.79288

-.786

.142

1.374

.283

TR2

295

2.00

5.00

4.2136

.69875

-.500

.142

-.181

.283

73

TR3

295

1.00

5.00

4.1661

.71157

-.651

.142

.837

.283

RE1

295

2.00

5.00

3.7186

.72292

-.170

.142

-.170

.283

RE2

295

1.00

5.00

3.6373

.74731

-.429

.142

.224

.283

RE3

295

1.00

5.00

3.7695

.78750

-.367

.142

.064

.283

EE1

295

2.00

5.00

3.6136

.76475

.003

.142

-.393

.283

EE2

295

2.00

5.00

3.7661

.74883

-.029

.142

-.484

.283

EE3

295

2.00

5.00

3.8068

.73305

.006

.142

-.557

.283

RL1

295

2.00

5.00

4.0373

.66647

-.181

.142

-.282

.283

RL2

295

1.00

5.00

3.8441

.81405

-.735

.142

.900

.283

RL3

295

1.00

5.00

3.8000

.77635

-.207

.142

-.132

.283

RL4

295

2.00

5.00

3.7831

.72870

-.172

.142

-.218

.283

RL5

295

2.00

5.00

3.8915

.75261

-.204

.142

-.400

.283

74