Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.htm
Brand equity
in higher
education
Christine Ennew
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, and
Wael Kortam
Faculty of Business Administration, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
403
Received December 2010
Accepted December 2010
Abstract
Purpose The potential to provide customers with information about experience and credence
qualities in advance of purchase has resulted in widespread recognition of the significance of brands in
relation to consumer choice in the service sector. Arguably, what is of particular significance in this
process is brand equity the value that the consumer ascribes to the brand. The main objective of this
research is to enhance academic understanding of brand equity in the higher education (HE) sector and
explore the implications for management practice.
Design/methodology/approach Quantitative data collected via a self-completion survey are used
to test a model of brand equity in the context of HE. The empirical setting is Egypt which, following
liberalization, has a mixture of public and private provision and an increasingly competitive
environment. It provides an example of an emerging market where building brand equity is likely to be
an important component of organizational strategy.
Findings The results provide partial support for the proposed conceptual model, with image-related
determinants of brand equity being far more significant than awareness-related determinants.
Practical implications For those involved in marketing service brands, the asymmetric impact of
various determinants of brand equity provides guidance on how and where to focus marketing efforts.
Originality/value The distinctive contribution of this research arises from the examination of brand
equity in the context of an emerging service sector market with a mix of public and private provision.
Keywords Brand equity, Higher education, Services marketing, Egypt, Consumer behaviour,
Emerging markets
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
It is often suggested that marketing in the service sector is relatively challenging due to
the unique characteristics of the service and the dominance of experience and credence
qualities. A particular consequence is that perceived risk is generally higher in a service
selection decision because consumers find services more difficult to evaluate in advance of
purchase (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Laing et al., 2002; Mitchell, 1999). In this situation, the
brand can play an important role as a risk reliever, giving consumers greater confidence in
their decision making and increasing trust (Erdem and Swait, 1998). In essence, the brand
provides a signal or a promise to consumers about the service that will be delivered, thus
mitigating some of the problems associated with experience and credence qualities
(De Chernatony and McDonald, 1998). As well as a risk reliever, because the brand is a
source of information, it can also serve as a tool for differentiation and ease the consumer
choice process by creating distinctiveness (Gabbott and Hogg, 1998). Thus, the brand has
been increasingly recognized as an important determinant of consumer choice in the
service sector (Turley and Moore, 1995).
MIP
29,4
404
Over the past two decades in particular, marketing research and marketing practice
have paid increasing attention to the processes associated with building a strong
relationship between brand and consumer and it is often argued that the brand is the
most valuable asset for any company (Aaker, 1991a, b, 2003; Kapferer, 1997; Blackett,
1993). The concept of brand equity is of particular relevance to consumer choice.
In essence, brand equity measures the value of the brand, both to the organization and to
the consumer. For the consumer, this added value arises from the brands role as an
indicator of desirable attributes and as the basis for building an emotional bond (Teas
and Grapentine, 1996). Although brand equity has been extensively researched in the
context of physical products, rather less attention has been devoted to understanding the
concept in relation to a service sector context. The current study works with existing
models of brand equity and adapts them for use in the service sector and in the specific
context of higher education (HE). The resulting brand equity model is then tested in an
emerging market using both current and prospective HE students.
HE provides an interesting and important context for the research, since
HE institutions across the world have become increasingly marketing oriented and
students increasingly become consumers (Chen, 2008; Mazzarol and Soutar, 2008). The
distinctive contribution of this research arises from an integration of the existing
brand equity models which results in a conceptual multi-dimensional framework for
the determinants of brand equity in service industries. The research makes a novel
empirical contribution through testing the proposed conceptual framework in Egypt as
an example of an emerging HE market.
The paper begins with an overview of relevant literature and then proceeds to
outline the proposed model. The methodology used to guide the research is briefly
reviewed before presenting results and conclusions.
2. Literature review
Aaker (1991a) describes a brand as a logo, name or even a package that differentiates
the products or services of different providers. However, Marconi (1993) stressed that
the brand is not just a name because the name is created to identify the product
whereas the brand is created to add value to the product and give it a personality.
Other researchers have articulated similar definitions and stressed that the buyer must
perceive a unique image and added value for the brand (De Chernatony, 1993b;
De Chernatony and Riley, 1999; McWilliam and Dumas, 1997; Ambler and Styles,
1996). The process of branding are highlighted in Table I presenting several stages
starting from the unbranded stage to the symbolic stage (Stewurt and Burke, 2000;
Wee and Ming, 2003).
De Chernatony and McWilliam (1989) attempted to conceptualize a brand by
introducing two dimensions, namely, performance needs (functionality) and personal
expression needs (representation). Subsequently, De Chernatony (1993b) tried to
empirically test this model in both product and service markets and demonstrated that a
brand can be conceptualized by these two dimensions in both types of market. Generally,
as noted by Harris and De Chernatony (2001), there is a shift in the branding literature
from a focus on the concept of brand image, which relates to the consumers perceptions
of brand differentiation, to brand identity which focuses the distinctiveness of the brand
(Kapferer, 1997). Generally, understanding the concept of brand is the first step in order
to understand the concept of brand equity.
Goodyear (1993)
Unbranded goods
Brand as a reference
Brand as a personality
Brand as icon
Brand as company
Brand as policy
De Chernatony
(1993a)
Integrated approach
Differentiation stage
Sign of ownership
Functional stage
Service stage
Brand as legal
device
Shorthand stage
Risk reduction stage
Symbolic stage
Brand
Brand
Brand
Brand
Brand
as
as
as
as
as
a legal instrument
a logo
a company
an identity system
an image
Unbranded stage
Legal stage
Logo and differentiation
Functional stage
Service stage
Brand
Brand
Brand
Brand
as
as
as
as
a personality
a relationship
adding value
evolving entity
Keller (1993), on the other hand, defines brand equity as the effect of the brand on the
consumers response to the marketing activities associated with a particular product. It is
clear from the above definitions that brand equity is a multi-dimensional concept
(De Chernatony and McDonald, 1998, p. 396) and can be considered from a number
of different perspectives, including financial markets, the consumer, the firm, the
employees and the channel of communication (Kim et al., 2003, Vazquez et al., 2002;
Supornpraditchai et al., 2007).
The definition of brand equity from the financial perspective emphasizes the brand as
a name which represents an asset which is of value to the organization because of its
ability to create future earnings/cash flow (Shocker and Weitz, 1988; De Chernatony and
McDonald, 1998; Kim et al., 2003). From a consumers point of view, brand equity
represents attributes such as better product performance, stronger risk reduction, lower
information costs and a positive image of the product. Consumer-based brand equity
represents the added value of the brand to the consumer (Farquhar, 1989) and can be
defined as the overall utility that the consumer associates with the use and consumption
of the brand; including associations expressing both functional and symbolic utilities
(Vazquez et al., 2002, p. 28). From a firms point of view, brand equity represents attributes
such as lower financial risk, incremental cash flow, higher rent, higher entry barriers,
lower marketing and distribution cost for extensions and protection from imitation via
trade marking (De Mooij, 1993). In addition, the brand can create stronger customer
loyalty, reduced price elasticity of demand, increased marketing effectiveness,
opportunities for licensing agreements as well as brand extensions and a stronger
competitive position (Keller, 2001). Finally, employee-based brand equity (EBBE) is
another dimension of brand equity which focuses on the employees perception toward the
organization brand. EBBE reflects uniqueness of company brand associations, brand
consistency, brand creditability and brand clarity (Supornpraditchai et al., 2007, p. 1728).
There are a variety of conceptualizations of brand equity, though relatively
few empirical evaluations in a service context. Aaker (1991a) proposed the first
comprehensive model of brand equity. He identified five dimensions of brand equity,
namely brand name awareness, brand associations, perceived quality, brand loyalty
Brand equity
in higher
education
405
Table I.
Stages of the branding
process
MIP
29,4
406
and other proprietary assets (e.g. patents, channel relationships and trademarks). Keller
(1993) developed a customer-based brand equity model which focused on familiarity and
awareness, and favourable strong and unique brand associations. He argued that brand
equity is determined mainly by brand knowledge which comprises awareness,
attributes, benefits, images, thoughts, feelings, attitudes and experience.
Subsequently, these and other models have been tested in a variety of contexts.
Faircloth et al. (2001) examine the relationship between brand image, brand attitude and
brand equity using Aakers (1991a) and Kellers (1993) models. The results provide some
support for both models in that brand image and attitude create brand equity, although
the role of brand awareness was not explicitly evaluated. Yoo and Donthu (2001)
developed a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale (MBE) based on
Aakers and Kellers models and focused particularly on brand awareness, perceived
quality, associations and loyalty. The study provides a generalized measure of brand
equity and highlights the differential impact of different dimensions of brand equity.
In a comparative study, Cobb-Walgren et al. (1995) examined the effect of the main
dimensions of consumer-based brand equity on purchase intent (based on Aakers
(1991a) and Kellers (1993) conceptual models of brand equity).
Specifically in the service sector, Muller (1998) examined the determinants of brand
equity in the case of the restaurant industry and found that quality of the product or the
service, service delivery and symbolic image were the main determinants of brand
equity. In the hotel sector, Prasad and Dev (2000) investigated brand performance and
brand awareness as dimensions of brand equity and developed a hotel brand equity
index. In financial services, Mackay (2001) used a hierarchy of effects model and
focused on market share as an indicator of brand equity. Kim et al. (2003) used Aakers
(1991a) model in the hotel industry study. The empirical analysis indicated that brand
loyalty, perceived quality and image were more significant in determining brand equity
in comparison with brand awareness.
HE represents a context in which brand image potentially plays a major role
in reducing the risk associated with such service largely because the assessment of
quality takes place after consumption (Byron, 1995; Binsardi and Ekwulugo, 2003; Chen,
2008). Hence, having a strong brand is important as a risk reliever that simplifies
the decision-making process (Erdem and Swait, 1998; Chen, 2008). That is to say, the
brand represents a differentiation tool that gives cues to the consumers during the
decision-making process (Temple, 2006; Lockwood and Hadd, 2007; Chen, 2008).
In addition, there are a number of other factors that directly influence the evaluation
of the educational quality and hence the perception of the university brand
(Kurz et al., 2008). These factors include the quality of the staff, location, size, history
and international agreements (Mazzarol and Soutar, 2008; Binsardi and Ekwulugo, 2003;
Chen, 2008; El Mahdy and Mourad, 2008; Mourad, 2010). It was noted that many
universities adopt a brand management strategy in order to improve their ranking in the
HE market (Brunzel, 2007). Finally, the social image of the educational institution as well
as its overall position in the market are important in influencing the HE brand and thus
impact on the selection process (Paden and Stell, 2006).
The existing research in brand equity demonstrates a degree of commonality in terms
of the drivers of brand equity although there are some inconsistencies and overlap in
terms of the relationships between key variables and some inconsistencies in terms
of structuring models (i.e. distinguishing between determinants and dimensions).
It is also apparent that there is relatively little research that focuses on the service sector.
The following section synthesizes existing research to develop a brand equity
framework which is then tested in a service sector context.
3. Conceptual framework
The model used in this paper builds on the work of Keller and to a less extent of Aaker.
Following Keller (1993) brand equity is presented as a two-dimensional construct-based
around brand awareness and brand image. Brand loyalty is treated as an outcome of
brand equity rather than one of its dimensions. Aaker (1991a) defined brand awareness
as the ability of a potential consumer to recognize the brand as a member of a specific
product category and emphasized that awareness and recognition are essential before
attaching attributes to the brand. While brand awareness is about the ability to link the
brand to a product category, brand image is concerned with the associations that an
individual makes with the brand. A brand association is anything linked in memory to
a brand (Aaker, 1991a, p. 109) and collectively, these brand associations define a brand
image (De Chernatony, 2001; Keller, 1993). Brand associations may include a variety of
attributes such as perceived quality, brand name and product attributes.
A broad range of factors have been identified as determinants of brand equity,
recognizing that some attributes may be relevant to the awareness dimension while
others may be relevant to the image dimension. Using a modification of the approach
suggested by Vorhies (1997), these determinants have been categorized under a number
of distinct headings:
(1) Consumer attributes. These relate to the consumers own socio-economic
characteristics and experience with the brand. In the proposed model, these
attributes represent student-related factors in terms of academic qualification,
motivations, occupational interest and previous experience with the service
provided, etc. (Keller, 1993; Lockwood and Hadd, 2007).
(2) Provider attributes. These relates to the attributes of the organization itself, the
staff providing the service and other attributes such as location (Booth, 1999;
Scott, 2000; Chen, 2008; Kurz et al., 2008), country of origin, size (Cheng and Tam,
1997; Kent et al., 1993; Scott, 2000; Smith and Ennew, 2000) and history. In the
proposed model, these attributes include the relationship between
students/parents and the faculty/staff (Scott, 2000; Chen, 2008).
(3) Marketing activities. This covers all the marketing activities conducted by the
HE institutions as well as word of mouth communication (Booth, 1999; Chen,
2008; Kent et al., 1993; Scott, 2000).
(4) Product attributes. These relate to attributes such as the perceived quality
of the education service (Cheng and Tam, 1997; Kent et al., 1993; Scott, 2000;
Smith and Ennew, 2000; Kurz et al., 2008; Chen, 2008), tuition fees (Booth, 1999;
Keller, 1993; Chen, 2008), guarantees and after sales service (Vorhies, 1997;
Kent et al., 1993). Also included are university-related factors in terms of the
availability of the courses, admission criteria, tuition fees, graduate
employment rate, etc.
(5) Symbolic attributes. This encompasses associations relating to brand
personality and identity and in our proposed model, represents the overall
image and reputation of the university (Byron, 1995; Cheng and Tam, 1997;
Brand equity
in higher
education
407
MIP
29,4
408
Keller, 1993; Kent et al., 1993; Scott, 2000; Smith and Ennew, 2000; Chen, 2008;
Temple, 2006).
The model for service brand equity developed in the current study focuses directly on
the determinants of brand equity and is shown in Figure 1.
Recognizing that brand equity has an awareness dimension, it is argued that
awareness is largely driven by marketing activities including advertising, publicity,
Experience
Consumer
attributes
Socio-economic factors
Educational level
Gender
Age
Level of income
Brand
awareness
attributes
Promotion activities
Brand equity
Word of mouth
Service attributes
Price
Perceived quality
After sales service
Brand
image
attributes
Symbolic attributes
Personality
Social image
Positioning
Provider attributes
Figure 1.
Proposed conceptual
model of brand equity in
HE service
Relationships
Location
Country of origin
Staff
word of mouth and that these attributes will therefore serve as an important potential
influence on overall brand equity. Similarly, with respect to the brand image dimension,
key drivers of image and therefore of brand equity include product attributes (Agarwal
and Rao, 1996; Aaker, 1991a, b, 1996, 2003), provider attributes (De Chernatony and
McDonald, 1998; Marconi, 1993) and symbolic attributes (Yoo and Donthu, 2001;
De Chernatony, 2001). Consumer attributes are treated as a final set of determinants
of brand equity (Goodyear, 1993) but are not specifically grouped with either
awareness-based determinants or image-based determinants on the grounds that they
might be expected to have a more generic impact.
4. The Egyptian HE market
The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of the HE market in Egypt which
provides the empirical setting for this research. Egypt provides an interesting context
for research on brand equity in HE. HE in Egypt is facing a challenging marketing
environment due to the emergence of private universities and while marketing practice
suggests an increasing focus on the role of brands there has been no systematic
academic research to understand the role played by brand equity within the HE sector.
The demand for HE in Egypt is growing and the sector is undergoing considerable
change, with a range of new, private providers joining established publicly funded
universities. This has created considerable uncertainty in the market place in relation to
assessments of the quality of different providers. The limited capacity of the established
public universities meant that they have been unable to satisfy the growth in demand
(Khaled et al., 2001). This fact encouraged the government in 1996 to give permission to
private universities to operate in Egypt. The emergence of the new private universities
introduced to the market the concept of competition among universities as each of the
new private universities had to build brands in order to communicate their service offer
to the marketplace. It should be noted that the competition was not only among the
private universities but also between them and the public universities.
5. Research method
The current study concerns itself with the service sector and particularly, with HE. There
is little empirical work addressing brand image or brand equity in HE (Palacio et al.,
2002), despite the potential significance of HE brands in student choice and the
importance of credence qualities as well as experience qualities. Given the difficulties
associated with evaluating quality prior to consumption, a strong brand which signals
high quality can decrease the perceived risk associated with choice (Davies and Ellison,
1997; Vazquez et al., 2002; Biel, 1992).
The empirical setting is Egypt which has recently liberalised HE resulting in
mixed public and private provision and an increasingly competitive environment. In such
competitive environment, brands have an important role to play in communicating the
investment that has been made to ensure high-quality provision (Konrad, 1995). Since
education service as with other professional services is characterised by high perceived
risk (Mitchell, 1999), brand equity potentially plays a major role in reducing the risk
associated with the selection of such a service (Byron, 1995). Accordingly, managing
brands and building brand equity in HE plays a key role in HE marketing.
The sample chosen for the current study targeted 150 actual (university students) and
150 potential university students (high school students) in Egypt. University students
Brand equity
in higher
education
409
MIP
29,4
410
were selected from the most popular universities in Cairo categorized according to the
types of ownership (public, private or foreign), with between 15 and 20 students targeted
from a broad range of institution types. The unit of the analysis was the university brand,
and each current student was asked to evaluate two brands (a first and last choice).
The method of data collection was based on group-administered questionnaire where
200 questionnaires were distributed among high school students in their classes who
evaluated two brands, and another 220 were distributed among students of ten different
universities in Cairo, also in their classrooms. The final response rate of high school
students 67.5 percent (135 questionnaire completed) and for university students
75 percent (165 questionnaire completed), forming the total of almost 71 percent valid for
the analysis. The data were collected parallel to each other in almost six weeks starting
from 5 December 2003 to 9 January 2004.
Accordingly, a total of 600 units of analysis were available. Two distinct samples
were identified to accommodate the fact that current students would have experience of
the actual service whereas high school students would not and so current students might
be expected to make better judgements of experience qualities. Respondents were asked
to identify their first choice and last choice university and then provide ratings for brand
equity and also for the determinants of brand equity. The reason for collecting data from
two extremes was to ensure a sufficient degree of variability in the data and to test the
relevance of the model across a broad spectrum of evaluations. The questionnaire was
designed primarily using a range of established scales from previous studies. It was
extensively pre-tested on both groups within the sample prior to administration.
Considering the brand image dimension of brand equity and following the
categorisation discussed earlier, the independent variables were:
.
Service attributes used by consumers to evaluate a service. Attributes chosen were
price, quality, benefits and after sales service (Gabbott and Hogg, 1998; Teas and
Grapentine, 1996; Lemon, 2001). Scales for the first two attributes were selected
from existing studies while scales for the last two attributes were developed from
exploratory research.
.
Provider attributes focused on the features of the provider that will influence
consumer perceptions of the value they received. Chosen attributes were the
quality of staff and their relationship with customers (De Chernatony and
McDonald, 1998), location, size, history and international reputation (Kim et al.,
2003). Existing scales were used except in the case of size and location.
.
Symbolic attributes were defined as social image, market position and
personality (Lovelock, 1991, De Chernatony, 2001) and these were measured
using a set of established scales.
In terms of the brand awareness dimension, the marketing activities that were identified
as important were promotional activities and word of mouth (Aaker, 1991a, 1996, 2003).
Given the context-specific nature of both of these activities, exploratory work was used
to support the development of appropriate scale items. Finally, consumer attributes were
separated from the image and awareness dimension and included age, income,
experience, gender and level/type of education. The dependent variable, brand equity
was measured using a six-item scale from Yoo and Donthu (2001).
School
University
Combined
0.8767
0.8720
0.9683
0.8617
0.9683
0.9556
0.9070
0.9307
0.4749
0.8860
0.8754
0.9678
0.8208
0.9691
0.9458
0.8858
0.9517
0.3809
0.8812
0.8737
0.9680
0.8419
0.9687
0.9503
0.8959
0.9432
0.4199
0.9748
0.9651
0.9698
Brand equity
in higher
education
411
Table II.
Reliability tests:
Cronbachs alpha
MIP
29,4
412
Table III.
The brand equity model
(whole sample)
Model summary
Adjusted R 2
F (Sig.)
Determinants of brand equity
Awareness dimension
Marketing activities
Word of mouth
Promotion
Image dimension
Symbolic attributes
Social image
Personality
Market position
Service attributes
Service quality
Benefits
Price
After sales
Provider attributes
Relationship
History
Staff
International relations
Location
Size
Consumer attributes
Age
Family experience of university
Gender
Income level
High level
Average level
Low level
Controls
High school vs university
First choice vs last choice
0.906
214.250 (0.000)
Standardized coefficients
b
Sig.
VIF
20.016
20.001
0.297
0.961
2.051
1.272
0.173
0.084
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.998
9.114
7.302
6.253
0.168
0.079
0.065
20.078
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.001
9.452
7.651
2.249
4.761
0.108
0.038
0.061
0.031
0.004
20.003
0.000
0.048
0.026
0.056
0.758
0.864
6.869
3.264
6.813
2.370
1.428
1.945
20.013
0.000
20.001
0.405
0.985
0.920
2.153
1.149
1.068
20.034
20.030
20.029
0.090
0.143
0.104
3.645
3.838
2.957
0.000
0.328
0.979
0.000
2.117
8.641
In spite of the existing literature (Aaker, 1991a, 1996, 2003), there is no evidence to
suggest that marketing activities whether controlled in the form of managed
marketing communications or uncontrolled in the form of word of mouth have any
impact on the extent to which the brand is valued. However, important awareness may
be, it has no direct impact on consumers assessments of the value of the brand. In
contrast, a range of symbolic, service and provider attributes are significant, as is the
dummy variable for first or last choice.
Of the symbolic attributes, social image (i.e. the extent to which the university is viewed
positively) and personality (i.e. the extent to which the university is seen as displaying
attributes such as honesty, sincerity, etc.) both have a positive impact on brand equity.
Interestingly, market position (in terms of market leadership) does not impact on brand
equity. All service attributes were found to be significant; price (measured in term of value
offered), high quality and benefits (enhancing employment opportunities)
all had a significant and positive impact on brand equity. This result is consistent with the
literature review as price, quality and benefits are determinants of the overall image of the
service provided (Aaker, 1991a, b; Gabbott and Hogg, 1998; Teas and Grapentine, 1996;
Lemon, 2001).
Unusually, after sales service based around the idea of alumni relations had a
significant and negative impact on brand equity which is inconsistent with the
literature review (Aaker, 1994; Gabbott and Hogg, 1998; Teas and Grapentine, 1996;
Lemon, 2001). Precise explanations for this are difficult but such a counter-intuitive
finding could be a product of a lack of familiarity with this type of attribute.
Finally, among the provider attributes, all except location and size were significant or
marginally significant. The quality of the relationship with the provider (in terms of
ability to trust) has a positive impact on brand equity as does the quality of the staff.
Tradition and history have a positive impact on brand equity while the universitys
international reputation has a marginally significant impact. This is strongly supported
by the existing literature (De Chernatony and McDonald, 1998; Kim et al., 2003).
Overall, then, the evidence would suggest that consumer attributes do not impact on
brand equity in HE, although it may be worth noting that a degree of homogeneity
among respondents (i.e. all were part of the universities target market) may partially
explain this result. Marketing activities which were primarily expected to increase brand
equity by increasing awareness were also found to be insignificant. Brand image-related
factors namely symbolic, provider and service-related attributes were generally but
not universally significant which suggested that at least in relation to HE and in keeping
with the literature (Lovelock, 1991, De Chernatony, 2001), image-related dimensions were
far more important as drivers of brand equity than awareness-related ones.
Finally, it is important to note the significance of the dummy variable used to capture
whether the university being rated was the first or the last choice. This dummy variable
was highly significant and had the largest impact of any single variable. This suggested
that some aspects of the evaluation of brand equity might differ between first and last
choice brands. Accordingly, the brand equity model was re-estimated for first and last
choice brands. The results are shown in Table IV. To mitigate the problems created by
multi-collinearity and to simplify interpretation, a stepwise procedure was used. Both
models were highly significant with respectable explanatory power. The values for R 2
were noticeably lower, although this is essentially an artefact of the data and the way in
which R 2 is calculated.
Only relationship and social image are significant in evaluations of the value of both
first and last choice brands. A range of other determinants of brand equity appear to
have a more asymmetric impact. For example, word of mouth has a significant
negative effect on last choice brand but no impact on first choice brand. A strong
market position contributes to the value of first choice brands but its absence does not
appear to detract from the value of last choice brands. Conversely, personality has no
impact on first choice brands but will tend to improve the value associated with last
choice brands. Service quality and price both contribute to the value of first choice
brands whereas benefits contribute to the value of last choice brands. History/tradition
adds value to last choice brands but not to first choice ones while size adds to the value
of first choice brands but not to last choice ones.
Finally, it is worth noting that whether a respondent was a school or university
student has no impact in relation to last choice brands but does impact on the equity
Brand equity
in higher
education
413
MIP
29,4
414
Table IV.
The brand equity model
(first and last choices)
Awareness dimension
Marketing activities
Word of mouth
Promotion
Image dimension
Symbolic attributes
Social image
Personality
Market position
Service attributes
Service quality
Benefits
Price
After sales
Provider attributes
Relationship
History
Staff
International relations
Location
Size
Control
High school vs university
Consumer attributes
None reported as significant
0.405
30.064 (0.00)
b
Sig.
0.134
0.011
0.107
0.043
0.239
0.000
0.145
0.003
0.262
0.000
0.111
0.019
20.124
0.007
0.441
34.667(0.00)
b
Sig.
2 0.102
0.026
0.250
0.173
0.000
0.002
0.135
0.022
0.156
0.155
0.144
0.019
0.001
0.030
associated with first choice brands, but negatively. That is to say students at
university tend to have lower ratings of the brand equity associated with their first
choice brand when compared with high school respondents. This may reflect the
impact of the reality of the student experience relative to initial expectations.
7. Conclusions
This paper presents the results of an analysis of the determinants of service brand equity
in the context of a relatively high-credence service HE. Although there is a growing
body of research which examines brand equity from the consumer perspective in
relation to physical goods, comparatively few studies have explored brand equity in a
service context. A modified brand equity model was proposed, based on Kellers (1993)
and Aakers (1991a, b) models. This model emphasized two main dimensions of brand
equity: brand awareness and brand image. The awareness dimension is created by word
of mouth and promotion while the image dimension is created by symbolic attributes
(brand personality, social image of the brand and positioning in the market), service
attributes (price, perceived quality, after sales service, benefits from consuming the
service) and provider attributes (relationship between the provider and the staff, location
of the service organization, internationalization of the service, staff, historical image,
size). In addition, the model highlights the role of consumer attributes in terms
Brand equity
in higher
education
415
MIP
29,4
416
In other areas of Egypt, there is only one big university which most students are forced to
enter because this is where they reside. Third, the selected sample is a convenience
sample and in spite of the advantages of selecting such sample, this can cause some
measurement problems. Fourth, the researchers focus on only one type of brand equity
which is customer-based brand equity and other studies could focus on brand equity
from different perspectives, such as the financial or employer perspectives. Fifth, the
research focuses on the students perspective of the determinants of brand equity and
ignored the universitys point of view, which should be analysed in future research.
Finally, the research did not monitor whether the potential students in the sample joined
the university that they perceived as the best brand in the market.
Clearly, the model has been tested only in the context of HE and in one specific
country, so caution must be exercised in generalizing from these findings, but the
analysis in this paper provides at least a framework to guide further studies of service
brand equity.
A number of directions for future research exist. For instance, there is scope for a
comparison between search, experience and credence qualities in terms of their effects
on the perception of brand equity in the service industry. Future research could also
monitor the changes in consumer perceptions of the determinants of brand equity
when they move from pre-purchase to post-purchase. There are also considerable
opportunities to apply the modified framework of the determinants of brand equity in
service industries adopted in this research to another service other than HE.
It is also noted that in spite of the range of studies that focus on brand extension
strategy as a main outcome of brand equity in the product market, the role of brand
equity in developing brand extension strategies in service industries is still in a need of
further research. In addition, the new retro brands strategy, which is re-launched
historical brands with updated features (Brown et al., 2003, p. 19), needs to be
empirically tested. Finally, research should investigate the growth in international HE
market and its direct effect on brand perception and hence students choice (Altbach and
Knight, 2007).
References
Aaker, D. (1991a), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D. (1991b), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of Brand Name,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D. (1994), Building a brand: the Saturn story, California Management Review, Vol. 36,
pp. 114-33.
Aaker, D. (1996), Measuring brand equity across products and markets, California
Management Review, Vol. 38, pp. 102-20.
Aaker, D. (2003), The power of the branded differentiator, MIT Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 83-7.
Agarwal, M.K. and Rao, V.R. (1996), An empirical comparison of consumer-based measures of
brand equity, Marketing Letters, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 237-47.
Altbach, P.G. and Knight, J. (2007), The internationalization of higher education: motivations
and realities, Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 11, pp. 290-305.
Ambler, T. and Styles, C. (1996), Brand development versus new product development: towards a
process model of extension decision, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 10-20.
Biel, A.L. (1992), How brand image drives brand equity?, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 6-12.
Binsardi, A. and Ekwulugo, F. (2003), International marketing of British education: research on
the students perception and the UK market penetration, Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 318-27.
Blackett, T. (1993), Brand and trademark valuation whats happening now?, Marketing &
Research Today, May, pp. 111-13.
Booth, J. (1999), Choosing a place of higher education: some preliminary analysis of student
response to marketing efforts, Academy of Marketing Annual Conference Proceedings,
University of Stirling, Scotland, UK, 7-9 July.
Brown, S. Jr, Sherry, J.F. and Kozinets, R.V. (2003), Teaching old brands new tricks: retro branding
and the revival of brand meaning, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 19-33.
Brunzel, D.L. (2007), Universities sell their brands, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 152-3.
Byron, S. (1995), Brand equity and market-based assets of professional service firms, Journal of
Professional Services Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 3-7.
Chen, L.-H. (2008), Internationalization or international marketing? Two frameworks for
understanding international students choice of Canadian universities, Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-33.
Cheng, Y.C. and Tam, W.M. (1997), Multimodels of quality in education, Quality Assurance in
Education, Vol. 5 No. 1.
Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N. (1995), Brand equity, brand preference, and
purchase intent, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 25-40.
Davies, B. and Elllison, L. (1997), Strategic Marketing for Schools: How to Integrate Marketing
and Strategic Development for an Effective School, Pitman Publishing, London.
De Chernatony, L. (1993a), Categorizing brands: evolutionary processes underpinned by two
key dimensions, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 9, pp. 173-88.
De Chernatony, L. (1993b), New direction understanding the dynamic of brands as molecules,
Admap, February, pp. 21-3.
De Chernatony, L. (2001), From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation: Strategically Building and
Sustaining Brands, Butterworth Heineman, Oxford.
De Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (1998), Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer, Services
and Industrial Markets, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
De Chernatony, L. and McWilliam, G. (1989), The strategic implications of clarifying how
marketers interpret brands, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 153-71.
De Chernatony, L. and Riley, F.D. (1999), Experts views about defining services brands and
principles of service branding, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46, pp. 181-92.
De Mooij, M. (1993), Brand Equity, Education Directorate of the International Advertising
Association, Amsterdam, September.
El Mahdy, M. and Mourad, M. (2008), Higher Education in Egypt. Higher Education in Africa:
Internationalization Dimensions, Co-published by the Association of African Universities
(AAU) and the Centre for International Higher Education (CIHE), Boston College, Chestnut
Hill, MA.
Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (1998), Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 131-57.
Brand equity
in higher
education
417
MIP
29,4
418
Faircloth, J.B., Capella, L.M. and Alford, B. (2001), The effect of brand attitude and brand image
on brand equity, Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. P61-P76.
Farquhar, P.H. (1989), Managing brand equity, Marketing Research, Vol. 1, pp. 24-33.
Gabbott, M. and Hogg, G. (1998), Consumers and Services, Wiley, Chicester.
Gardial, S., Clemons, D., Woodruff, R., Schumann, D. and Burns, M. (1994), Comparing
consumers recall of pre-purchase and post-purchase product evaluation experiences,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp. 548-60.
Goodyear, M. (1993), Reviewing the concept of brands and branding, Marketing & Research
Today, May, pp. 75-9.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Harris, F. and De Chernatony, L. (2001), Corporate branding and corporate brand performance,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 441-56.
Kapferer, J.N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management, Kogan Page, London.
Keller, K. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K. (2001), Building customer-based brand equity, Marketing Management, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 14-19.
Keller, K. (2003), Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 595-600.
Kent, W.E., Lian, K., Khan, M. and Anene, J. (1993), Colleges hospitality programs: perceived
quality, Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 90-7.
Khaled, H., Said, M. and Kortam, W. (2001), Modernization of education and scientific research
in Egypt, Cairo University Vision, Part II, December, pp. 179-204.
Kim, H., Kim, W. and An, A. (2003), The effect of consumer-based brand equity on firms
financial performance, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 335-51.
Konrad, H. (1995), State and university the Austrian example, Higher Education
Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 165-70.
Kurz, K., Scannell, J. and Veeder, S. (2008), Willingness to pay: making the best case for
institutional value and return on investment, University Business, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 31-2.
Laing, A., Lewis, B., Foxall, G. and Hogg, G. (2002), Predicting a diverse future: directions and
issues in the marketing of services, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 478-97.
Lemon, K.N. (2001), What drives customer equity?, Marketing Management, Vol. 10 No. 1.
Lockwood, R.C. and Hadd, J. (2007), Building a brand in higher education: why business
practice-particularly brand strategies are becoming essential in todays universities,
Gallup Management Journal Online, 12 July, pp. 1-6.
Lovelock, C. (1991), Services Marketing, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
McWilliam, G. and Dumas, A. (1997), Using metaphors in new brand design, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 13, pp. 265-84.
Mackay, M.M. (2001), Application of brand equity measures in service markets, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 210-21.
Marconi, J. (1993), Beyond Branding: How Savvy Marketers Build Brand Equity to Create
Products and Open New Markets, Probus Publishing Company, Chicago, IL.
Mazzarol, T. and Soutar, G. (2008), The Global Market for Higher Education: Sustainable
Competitive Strategies for the New Millennium, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Mitchell, V. (1999), Consumer perceived risk: conceptualizations and models, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 33 Nos 1/2.
Mourad, M. (2010), Internationalisation: a new positioning strategy in the higher education
market, International Journal of Management in Education, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 185-200.
Muller, C.C. (1998), Endorsed branding, Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 39, pp. 90-6.
Paden, N. and Stell, R. (2006), Branding options for distance learning programs: managing the
effect on university image, International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance
Learning, Vol. 3 No. 8, pp. 45-54.
Palacio, A.B., Meneses, G.D. and Perez, P.J. (2002), The configuration of the university image
and its relationship with the satisfaction of students, Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 486-505.
Parasuraman, A., Zethaml, V. and Berry, L. (1985), A conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 41-50.
Prasad, K. and Dev, C.S. (2000), Managing hotel brand equity: a customer-centric framework for
assessing performance, Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 41
No. 3, pp. 22-31.
Scott, M.B. (2000), Adolescent pupil decision making: marketing schools/colleges to potential a
level students in new millennium, paper presented at the Academy of Marketing Annual
Conference, University of Derby, Derby, 5-7 July.
Shocker, A.D. and Weitz, B. (1988), A perspective on brand equity principles and issues,
Defining, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity (Rep. No. 88-104), Marketing Science
Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Smith, R. and Ennew, C. (2000), Service quality and its impact on word of mouth communication
in higher education, paper presented at the Academy of Marketing Annual Conference,
University of Derby, Derby, 5-7 July.
Stewurt, D. and Burke, R. (2000), A synthesis of brand typologies, paper presented at the
Academy of Marketing Annual Conference, University of Derby, Derby, 5-7 July.
Supornpraditchai, T., Miller, K.E., Lings, I.N. and Jonmundsson, B. (2007), Employee-based
brand equity: antecedents and consequences, AMZMAC, Conference Proceedings,
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, 3-5 December.
Teas, K. and Grapentine, T. (1996), Demystifying brand equity, Marketing Research, Vol. 8
No. 2, pp. 24-30.
Temple, P. (2006), Branding higher education: illusion or reality?, Perspectives: Policy and
Practice in Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 15-19.
Turley, L.W. and Moore, P.A. (1995), Brand name strategies in the service sector, The Journal
of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 42-50.
Vazquez, R., Ro, A.B. and Iglesias, V. (2002), Consumer-based brand equity: development and
validation of a measurement instrument, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 18, pp. 27-48.
Vorhies, D.W. (1997), Building strong brands, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 260-1.
Wee, T. and Ming, M. (2003), Leveraging on symbolic values and meanings in branding,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 208-18.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), Developing and validating a multi-dimensional consumer-based
brand equity scale, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Brand equity
in higher
education
419
MIP
29,4
420
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.