Sources of

Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing
Emerald Article: Sources of brand equity for online companies Rosa E. Rios, Hernan E. Riquelme
Article information:
To cite this document: Rosa E. Rios, Hernan E. Riquelme, (2010),"Sources of brand equity for online companies", Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 4 Iss: 3 pp. 214 - 240 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17505931011070587 Downloaded on: 24-03-2012 References: This document contains references to 113 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com This document has been downloaded 1406 times.
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7122.htm
JRIM 4,3
Sources of brand equity for online companies

Rosa E. Rios
Australian College of Kuwait, Safat, Kuwait, and
214
Received July 2009 Revised October 2009 Accepted November 2009
Hernan E. Riquelme
Kuwait-Maastricht Business School, Salmiya, Kuwait
Abstract
Purpose The purposes of this paper are to test sources of brand equity for online companies and to examine the role of selective internet marketing activities on the brand equity sources. Design/methodology/approach These objectives were pursued by testing the nomological validity of the model using structural equation modelling. Findings The paper nds evidence for the proposed sources of brand equity for online companies based on brand awareness and recognition, brand association (trust) and loyalty. The investigated antecedents namely functionality, fullment and customer service on line, signicantly inuence the sources of brand equity. Research limitations/implications The study is cross-sectional, the dimensions to measure sources and antecedents of brand equity may not be comprehensive enough. The stimuli represent only a few online retailers. Practical implications Businesses are well advised to invest resources in creating brand recognition, customer loyalty and trust. Both of these can be achieved by developing internet marketing efforts around functionality, fullment of the promise and customer service support. Originality/value The nomological validity of the measurement and structural models for companies that operate on the internet, constitute a modest contribution. It is believed that a model, which integrates both, creates a more systemic view of brand equity. Apart from this one, there is no other study measuring the impact of internet marketing activities on brand equity sources. Keywords Brand equity, Marketing, Electronic commerce, Customer services quality Paper type Research paper
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing Vol. 4 No. 3, 2010 pp. 214-240 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2040-7122 DOI 10.1108/17505931011070587
Introduction Notwithstanding the debacle of the dotcom industries in the early 2001, and despite the predictions of the end of brand management as a result of the new electronic market, brands still continue to carry value for the companies that created them. It appears that far from dying, new corporate brands such as Amazon.com, Yahoo!, Google, eBay, Facebook have arisen in the new digital age and command immense brand equity, putting them at the top of many traditional ofine companies. Although a large amount of research has been conducted to understand how brands create revenue for companies in the package industry, little is known about the way in which brand equity is created and measured on the internet. Recent papers suggest that a model of brand equity for packaged goods can be extended to explain brand equity for companies on the internet whereas others propose alternative measurement models. Not many researchers have tested the nomological validity of the measurement models for internet companies, nor have they tested the inuence of internet marketing
activities on the sources of brand equity, a model, which integrates both, creates a more systemic view of brand equity. The aim of this research is to investigate the role of a number of selective internet marketing activities (online customer service, fullment and web functionality) created by online companies to inuence the sources of brand equity. As the market has evolved to encompass a new type of competition, one that involves pure internet companies and many others using a mix of brick and click strategies, it is suspected that companies need more than just a brand. A common view about the internet is that it has the potential to erode brand equity for several reasons: the emergence of new business models on the internet (e.g. name your price), the availability of large amount of information including price, product characteristics and tools (e.g. price comparison) and not least, the access to a large number of suppliers (Chen, 2001; Dussart, 2001). Early studies on the internet market conducted by economists refute the above speculation. Economists found that consumers were willing to pay a premium price of up to 6.8 per cent higher for commodity products such as CDs and books when they were bought from a well-recognised branded online store such as Amazon.com, rather than a less-known online retailer like CDNow (Smith et al., 2000). Other research studies have reported price dispersion for products sold on the internet of up to 33 per cent demonstrating that brand still matters on the internet, even for commodity products (Riquelme, 2001). The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: rst, the concept of brand equity is dened and its importance explained. Second, brand equity models in ofine and online contexts are reviewed. Third, a proposed model is advocated and explained to derive a number of hypotheses that are nally tested. Literature review Brand equity is an important intangible asset of a company therefore creating it is a wise investment. Some companies such as Coca Cola, Amazon.com and eBay, are believed to be worth substantially more because of this intangible asset rather than other measurable tangible benets (Interbrand, 2006). Brand equity Various denitions of brand equity have been proposed, some dened from a psychological point of view under the assumption that brand equity is constructed in the mind of individuals, whilst others dene it from a nancial perspective. Brand equity, as rst dened by Farquhar (1989, p. 24), is the added value to the rm, the trade, or the consumer with which a given brand endows a product, and market facts conceive brand equity, similarly to loyalty, as the willingness for someone to continue to purchase your brand or not. Perhaps the most widespread denitions are those suggested by Aaker (1991) and Keller (2003). The former denes brand equity as:
[. . .] a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a company and/or to that companys customer (Aaker, 1991, p. 15).
Sources of brand equity
215
Keller (2003, p. 60), on the other hand, denes consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) (a term that he coined to separate it from alternative nancial modelling of brand equity),
JRIM 4,3
as the differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer response to the marketing of that brand. Brand equity models How does a company create brand equity? Models of brand equity based on consumer perceptions have been abundant in the past 20 years with disagreements in relation to the dimensions included in the models, the number of dimensions and the denition of brand equity itself. Some researchers argue for a conceptualisation of brand equity based on ve factors, for example, social image, value, performance, trustworthiness and attachment (Lassar et al., 1995). Others represent it in four different concepts like brand loyalty, brand awareness, brand associations and perceived quality (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000). According to Keller (2003) and his CBBE model, brand equity emerges from two sources namely brand awareness and brand image. According to this model, consumers build associations in their minds around a brand as the result of the marketing programs companies develop for their brands. Keller has proposed several observable measures to track the performance of brand building namely salience, imagery, performance, judgements, feelings and resonance. The CBBE model and Aakers model have been extensively tested for their predictability of brand equity for packaged branded products and there is evidence of the validity of observable measures of brand equity across some countries (Buil et al., 2008; Jung and Sung, 2008; Yoon, 2002). Brand equity for online companies Practitioners who have reviewed best practices of outstanding online businesses in the early years of e-commerce concluded that these companies build brand awareness, cultivate customer commitment, create reputation for excellence and deliver outstanding value (Carpenter, 2000). Similarly, McKinsey consultants, based on their own ndings, recommended executives of online companies to create a distinctive value proposition, create a full-edged internet business, or digital brands that can ultimately full consumers expectations (Dayal et al., 2000). Other recommendations to help brand recognition include corporate web site design, content, navigation, graphic design and functionality (Johnson and Grifth, 2002). Academics have also started to explore brand equity for online companies either theoretically or empirically. Some of these studies seem to apply implicitly or explicitly existing conceptualisations of brand equity as dened by Keller (2003) or Aaker (1996), whereas others depart from them. Among the latter is the development of a measurement model of retail brand equity for online companies called online retail/service (Christodoulides et al., 2006). The online retail service (ORS) brand equity model is based on ve sources: emotional connection, online experience, responsive service nature, trust and fullment. In this model, the ORS brand equity is dened as a relational type of intangible asset that is co-created through the interaction between consumers and the e-tail brand. It is important to note that this is the rst attempt to conceptualise brand equity within the relationship paradigm (Rios and Riquelme, 2008). However, their denition of brand equity differs from a more conventional product brand equity that species brand equity as an outcome that accrues to a branded product compared with
216
those that would accrue to an unbranded alternative (Keller, 2003). The ORS brand equity model does not include awareness among the sources of brand equity. Unfortunately, there is no explanation as to why this could not be the case given that brand equity models include awareness as their building block (Rios and Riquelme, 2008). It is also unclear why the independent factors in the ORS model such as responsiveness, trust and fullment could not be conceived as brand associations therefore justifying the use of the traditional model of brand equity. Putting these observations aside, the model, resulting from the application of structural equation modelling (SEM), has a good t to the data as demonstrated in goodness of t index (GFI) 0.93, adjusted GFI 0.88, comparative t index (CFI), incremental t index and non-normed t index (NNFI) equal to 0.94, 0.95 and 0.92, respectively. The measurement model has not been tested for its nomological validity, that is, to predict brand equity. In perhaps one the rst brand equity models developed for online companies, Page and Lepkowska-White (2002) proposed that web equity can be created in a similar fashion as ofine product brand equity by inuencing two main sources, as suggested by Keller (2003): brand image and brand awareness, and proposed loyalty as an outcome of web equity. To create web awareness, Page and Lepkowska-White (2002) suggest several marketing communication activities that can be developed by marketers and non-marketers (e.g. word of mouth) to create web equity. Content is one way marketers create awareness about the company, together with more web-specic advertising tools such as interstitials and banners. To build web image, the authors suggests four types of drivers: marketing communication activities, web design features, vendor (customer service, security) and product-related characteristics (e.g. quality, selection and price). Page and Lepkowska-Whites web equity model implies that the main difference between packaged brand equity and web equity is in the marketing program. However, in using loyalty as an outcome of brand equity it is not clear if the model is explaining loyalty rather than brand equity. Loyalty is considered by Aaker (1996) a source of equity rather than an outcome. Furthermore, the web equity conceptual framework seems to assume that online the web site is the brand however; the authors do not provide any justication for this assumption. An alternative brand equity model for online companies has been tested by Rios and Riquelme (2008) following Aakers model. In their study, instead of singling out perceived quality, the authors identied value associations as a more comprehensive term than product quality and trust associations, in addition to the original sources of equity: loyalty and awareness. Consistent with evaluations of SEM, the measurement model proposed has good t to the data (root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) 0.048, p-value 0.56; NNFI 0.99; CFI 0.99; standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) 0.02 and GFI 0.98). It was further tested to predict brand equity measured as the willingness to pay a premium and purchase intention. The structural model indices also indicate a good t to the data: RMSEA 0.065, p 0.34; CFI 0.99; NNFI 0.98; SRMR 0.03 and GFI 0.96. From the application of the structural model, value associations and loyalty emerge as the only main (statistically signicant) sources of brand equity. Trust associations play an indirect role by inuencing loyalty. Brand awareness and recognition associations did not come up as a signicant source of brand equity conrming other studies suggesting brand recall
217
JRIM 4,3
218
and awareness do not necessarily create brand equity (Bravo Gil et al., 2007; Faircloth, 2005; Graebner-Kraeuter, 2002). An alternative explanation to the lack statistical signicance could be that the online retailers were all perceived very familiar except for one, CDNow. Perhaps the model could have included the source brand awareness and recognition as a moderating source since the results show no direct impact of this source on brand equity contrary to expectations. Despite many studies measuring online activities and outcomes such as awareness and attraction to bring customers to a web site, there is no study measuring the impact of online marketing activities on brand equity sources. Thus, this study adds to the body of research in brand equity by incorporating internet and web site features as branding mechanisms and further as antecedents of brand equity sources. The following section explains the conceptual framework, which guides this research. Proposed conceptual model Considering that the paper advocates the application of an existing model of brand equity, we recognise the following as sources of brand equity based on previous models: brand awareness and recognition, loyalty, brand value associations and trust. Unlike Aaker (1996) who treats perceptions of brand quality separate from associations of value, we instead decide to use brand value. There is literature suggesting that consumers make a judgment on value rst and that quality is but one component of all value associations (Holbrook and Cornan, 1985; Netemeyer et al., 2004; Zeithaml, 1988). Furthermore, recent empirical tests (Rios and Riquelme, 2008) conrm the importance of value as a source of brand equity. Given the importance of trust in the context of e-commerce (Ha, 2004; Pennanen et al., 2007; Tan and Sutherland, 2004), we also highlight it as a source of brand equity for online retailers. This brand association has been acknowledged by Aaker in his model of brand equity but only as one of the many possible associations related to an organization. In addition, we propose that certain internet marketing activities namely fullment, functionality and online customer service created by online companies inuence the sources of brand equity. Although these activities do not cover the full range of a marketing program, they represent frequently cited marketing actions and recommendations for online companies (Carpenter, 2000; Lindstrom and Andersen, 1999; Page and Lepkowska-White, 2002). Based on the literature, we hypothesise direct relationships between the internet marketing activities, the sources of brand equity and brand equity itself. Since loyalty and brand awareness/recognition have been extensively substantiated as source of brand equity in the literature (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Keller, 2003) and given the constraint of space, these will not be described in this paper but they are assumed as H1 and H2 in the proposed model in Figure 1. On the other hand, brand associations specically related to the concept of value for the consumer and trustworthiness will be commented upon. The next section justies the relational paths shown in Figure 1. Brand association (trust) Aaker (1996) considers brand-related associations with trustworthiness as one among the many other associations, however, given the importance of the concept for online companies; we believe it should be singled out. Consumers inability to trust web sites
Awareness/ Recognition
H11 Customer service H12 H13 Loyalty H2 Brand equity H3 H9 H5 H7 Functionality H8 H6 Value associations Trust associations H1
219
H10 Fulfilment
H4
Figure 1. Proposed structural model
have been one of the main deterrents to conducting transactions online. This lack of trust emanates from three sources: security/privacy, electronic fraud and disreputable new merchants (Gorriz, 2003). Trust associations in an entity, or a product brand, do not only affect the belief about the entity but has also been suggested to affect the willingness to buy from an online entity (Jarvenpaa et al., 2000), intention to purchase (Bart et al., 2005), willingness to transact (Bhattacherjee, 2002; Pavlou, 2003), pay a price premium (Ba and Pavlou, 2002) and stay with a web site (Li et al., 2006). In a study where Australian and Hong Kong students were asked if they would purchase required course textbooks from an online bookstore, trusting beliefs led to buying intentions among Australians but not Hong Kong students (Sia et al., 2009). And in an experiment where participants were required to buy a travel package from an unknown online travel agency, trust in the brand directly inuenced brand equity and led to provide personal information and to purchase intentions (Delgado-Ballester and Hernandez-Espallardo, 2008). From this evidence, it is advocated that: H3. Trust is positively related to brand equity. Brand association (value) Practitioners and academics agree on the importance of a companys value proposition (Thomas and Kohli, 2009; Tolba and Hassan, 2009) and its relationship with brand equity
JRIM 4,3
220
(Aaker, 1996; Kleindl, 2001; Lassar et al., 1995; Lee and Overby, 2004; Leuthesser, 1988). In a study where 167 undergraduate students reported on measures of perceived quality/value and uniqueness in relation to willingness to pay a premium and purchase from any of three fast-food retailers, Netemeyer et al. (2004) found that perceived quality/value and uniqueness were statistically signicantly in relation to price premium for all three fast-food retailers. In a follow up of Netemeyer et al.s study, Taylor et al. (2007) found that willingness to pay a price premium was positively related to perceived brand value. Companies, regardless of the type of industry, strive to develop strategies that offer value to consumers. There is recent evidence that supply chain managers perceive great value from supply chain responsiveness and that this responsiveness contributes to create brand enquity (Kim and Cavusgil, 2009). Hence, it is hypothesised that: H4. Perceived brand value association is positively related to brand equity. In order to maintain the model relatively simple in terms of number of hypotheses, no specied relationship is described between the sources of brand equity. However, there is empirical evidence that awareness of the brand is positively associated to value and trust and that value associations are positively related to trust and loyalty (Rios and Riquelme, 2008). These relationships are tested and reported in our study under the unspecied relationships column in Table III in the Results section. The following internet marketing activities have been selected to study their impact on the sources of brand equity: fullment, functionality and online customer service. The justication for the selection of each is given below. Web functionality Functionality refers to the web site design elements that make the interaction a fun and enjoyable web experience, where the consumer may be offered various options such as speed of download, graphics, 3D images, video, audio and availability 24/7 (Heeter, 2000). Web functionality is broadly understood as the user interface which includes web site design, ease of use, ease of navigation (Dabholkar, 1996; Kaynama and Black, 2000; Zeithaml et al., 2002) and the order process (Choate, 2000). The different web functionalities have the capacity to create a memorable experience in consumers minds which will generate greater brand awareness (Berry, 2000) and affect sales by creating loyalty (Ranganathan and Grandon, 2002). Navigation aids on a web site proved useful to computer users because it reduces cognitive load, searching steps and confusion, thus creating value to consumers (Chiu and Wang, 2000; Chou and Lin, 1998; Trumbull and Gay, 1992). This last relationship has been conrmed empirically among online consumer purchases of products such as CDs, books, computer hardware, etc. (Semeijn and van Riel, 2005). Given the above evidence, it is proposed: H5. Perceived awareness/recognition is positively inuenced by the functionality of the business web site. H6. Perceived value is positively inuenced by the functionality of the business web site. Some empirical evidence also suggests that web functionality creates loyalty (Roy et al., 2001; Wolnbarger and Gilly, 2003; Yoo and Donthu, 2001). In interviews conducted to determine web site functionality, one of the Piccoli et al.s (2004, p. 445) interviewees
reports that, ease of use enhances loyalty in our customers; designing it the way they want it to function makes them more loyal to our services. Furthermore, when consumers encounter technical difculties, 52 per cent have split loyalty, that is, consumers will seek an alternative online business. From the above evidence, it is hypothesised that: H7. Perceived loyalty of a brand is related positively to the extent to which the online business web site is perceived as functional. A relationship between trust and functionality is posited in this study because consumers obtain cues from the functionality of the business web site to infer evidence of the online business competence to provide the service (Chau et al., 2006; Gummerus et al., 2004). It is been noted in personal interviews that some consumers need to pre-test e-services to determine how they are functioning before they trust them (Pennanen et al., 2007). This inuence of web functionality over trust is stronger among security-minded consumers than excitement-minded individuals. Finally, it is intuitively true that to develop trust, companies must keep or full their promises. Hence, it is proposed that: H8. Perceived trust of an online business is related positively to the extent to which the brand is perceived as functional. Fullment Simply put, fullment refers to the delivery-related aspects of the purchasing process (Maltz et al., 2005), also referred to as the last mile (Lee and Whang, 2001). From the consumers perspective, fullment means online businesses deliver the product they promised. In many respects, companies did not live up to consumers expectations and this inuenced the trust they had placed in the online business. Tarn et al. (2003, p. 353) quote Krueger to illustrate the importance of fullment over some aspects of functionality; What good is a well-designed web site if it cant deliver the goods? In addition, as obvious as it may sound, strong negative associations can be formed if the product received does not match the order, if it is delivered late, or if it is not delivered at all. Delivery is everything. If your courier lets you down it can spoil all the hard work it takes to get customers to order from you, says Peter Bowman founder of BuyWineOnline.com (Vernon, 2001). Ariely and Carmon (2000) note that the last part of the shopping experience customers face will be determinant in deciding whether these consumers will repeat a purchase. Harrington (2000) raties this belief by linking the debacle of the dot com to the lack of fullment. Some online companies, knowing that some fullment problems can lead to dissatisfaction, mistrust, or relationship extinction, have adopted different levels of service guarantee or remedial measures (Pitta et al., 2006). Toys R Us realised that it could not deliver all its orders before Christmas, closed down its web site and issued $100 certicates to customers whose deliveries would be late (Lee and Whang, 2001). Wolnbarger and Gilly (2003) in the development of their e-tail quality (eTailQ) index concluded that web site design, fullment, privacy/security and customer service are strongly predictive of satisfaction, customer loyalty and attitudes toward a web site. The eTailQ study supports ndings derived from focus group interviews where fullment along with other features determined trust and loyalty (McCole, 2002). Other studies
221
JRIM 4,3
222
have tested the role of several web site characteristics and concluded that navigation, advice, familiarity with the web site and shopping experience were drivers of trust (Bart et al., 2005). Fullment of expectations (keeping promises) is central to relationship marketing and more specically, to service relationships and it has been found to create value for consumers and companies (Brodie et al., 2006; Davis et al., 2000; Gronroos, 1996). Consequently, from the above review, it is hypothesised: H9. The more an online business web site fulls the promise, the more consumers will trust it. H10. Perceived loyalty of an online business is related positively to the extent to which the online business is perceived as fullling the promise. Online customer support service If a business web site is taken as an internet store from the standpoint of building online brand equity and extending Jarvenpaa et al. s (2000) metaphor of the internet store as a sales person, then it could be expected that customer support service can inuence online brand equity sources. This metaphor may not be too far fetched since it has been reported that most lost sales in a store are due to a lack of customer service (Kim and Stoel, 2005). Sometimes the design of an online business web site is not intuitive for customers therefore it is necessary to have an alternative way of supporting consumers throughout the different stages of the purchasing process. Links to frequently asked questions and more importantly, linked to live representatives whether via a free phone number or online are useful in order to assist customers in the process. Customer support service has been stated as reducing the insecurity among consumers when buying on the internet (Gommans et al., 2001). In an information-rich environment such as the internet, information load maybe overwhelming, hence providing a contact with a real person to dissipate doubts can create a bond with the online company thus decreasing the trust barrier and creating loyalty (Pitta et al., 2006). Perceptions of customer service performance have proved to be statistically signicant in previous studies when related to online loyalty, purchase intention and trust (Kim and Lee, 2006; Tih and Ennis, 2006; Zeithaml et al., 2002). Gummerus et al. (2004) found that responsiveness (i.e. a quick response to requests from consumers) was a direct inuence on trust and an indirect inuence on satisfaction and loyalty. Consequently, this study hypothesises that: H11. Perceived loyalty of an online business is related positively to the extent to which the online business is perceived as providing customer service support. H12. Perceived trust of an online business is related positively to the extent to which the online business is perceived as meeting customer service support demands. H13. Perceived value of an online business is related positively to the extent to which the online business is perceived as offering customer service support. No explicit hypotheses are suggested to test the inuence of internet marketing activities on brand equity to simplify the model, however, tests were conducted to check
for model misspecication and are reported in Table III under unspecied relationships column. Methodology Product stimuli selection Three of the online businesses selected in the study belong to the retail sector (Amazon, eBay and CDNow) and one is a manufacturer (Dell) which sells online. This research assumes the companys (web site) brand name (e.g. the brand name Amazon) rather than a product or service brand, since online companies sell different products and consumers main interaction is with the web site. Data collection The instrument (a self-administered questionnaire) contained 27 items that measured the four sources of brand equity and the three antecedents of brand equity sources. Multi-item scales were generated based on previous studies. Some of the measures used in this study have been validated recently for their factor structure and metric invariance across a sample of consumers from the UK and Spain (Buil et al., 2008) and also Americans and South Koreans (Jung and Sung, 2008). All items were measured on seven-point Likert-type scale, with anchors of 1 very strongly disagree and 7 very strongly agree. Table I describes the items used in relation to the various dimensions. Respondents were asked to indicate the level of agreement/disagreement with the statements for each of the four online stores. Sample and procedure Subjects for the study were under graduate and graduate students from a large university in Australia. A total of 1,026 students were contacted in various classrooms to participate in the survey. The use of student samples has been questioned on grounds of external validity (Burnet and Dunne, 1986; Wells, 1993). However, in our case the sample does not require to assume imaginary positions (like a chief executive ofcer) nor is put in situations unfamiliar to them. Finally, a report on Australian internet demographics indicates that there has been signicant normalisation of the online population since 1997 but power users are still predominantly young males (Caslon, 2008). The sample consisted of 795 respondents. A total of 503 of these respondents had bought one of the four online businesses under study. A total of 292 respondents had not purchased from any of the stimuli but assessed an alternative online retailer where they had bought. Of 503 respondents (58 per cent men and 42 per cent women and a large percentage (42) between the ages of 22 and 27) were used as the sample to test the online brand equity measurement and structural models and the rest (292 cases) were used as a validating sample. The sample included individuals who had considerable level of internet experience, i.e. more than seven years (49.6 per cent); they have access to a high-speed connection and use the internet everyday. Data analysis Data were explored in terms of normality and outliers. The data presented moderate deviations from normality, that is, with univariate skewness of two or less and kurtoses of seven or less (Curran et al., 1996). The raw data were submitted to PRELIS
223
224
JRIM 4,3
Dimension Yoo et al. (2000)
Awareness/recognition
Value associations
Competitive price
Shopping convenience
Breadth and depth merchandise
Trust associations
Loyalty
Table I. Operational measures used in the original solution

Sources Zeithaml (1988), Alba et al. (1997), Arnold et al. (1988), Burke (2002), Lennon and Harris (2002), Kleindl (2001), Anckar et al. (2002) Burke (2002), Suppehellen and Nysveen (2001), Urban et al. (2000), Wang et al. (2004) Yoo et al. (2000) (continued)
Items
I know what [X online business] looks like I can recognise [X online business] among other competing online businesses I can quickly recall the name of [X online business] Some characteristics of [X online business] come quickly to mind I have difculty in imagining [X online business]
I prefer [X online business] because price deals are frequently offered I have a preference for [X online business] because it frequently offers an updated list of product promotions (sales) In [X online business] I can make the most for the least money In [X online business] I can nd the lowest prices for a quality brand I cannot nd quality products at an affordable price in [X online business] I have a preference for [X online business] because it allows the comparison of product prices across online stores I like [X online business] because it allows to track my orders I like [X online business] because it offers alternative forms of payments: cash on delivery, credit cards, money order I like [X online business] because one can nd the broadest range of products I have a preference for [X online business] because it provides the deepest specialised assortments
It feels safe to disclose personal information in [X online business] It feels safe to conduct transactions in [X online business] [X online business] has my condence
It makes sense to buy from [X online business] instead of any other online business, even if they are the same
Dimension
Items
Sources
Even if another online business has same features as in [X online business] I would prefer to buy from [X online business] I would denitely recommend [X online business] to friends, neighbours and relatives Netemeyer et al. (2004), Yoo and Donthu (2001), Faircloth (2005)
Brand equity
I am willing to pay a premium price of up to 10 per cent when purchasing from [X online business] as opposed to a less well known I would denitely buy from [X online business] Abels et al. (1999), Suppehellen and Nysveen (2001), Szymanski and Hise (2000)
Functionality
I do not like [X online business] because it is particularly slow in downloading pages I like [X online business] because it is easy to navigate (i.e. content organised around users needs) I like [X online business] because it offers consistent accessibility, (i.e. it is up and running at all times) I have a preference for [X online business] because it is easy to order products from I like [X online business] because it remembers my preferences I prefer this [X online business] because it saves shipping/billing information Burke (2002), Lennon and Harris (2002), Kleindl (2001)
Customer service
I have a preference for [X online business] because it responds quickly to customers I like [X online business] because it offers alternative customer support (call centre, toll free, email, live individuals I have a preference for [X online business] because it offers specialised customer support Burke (2002), Chow (2004), Christodoulides and de Chernatony (2004)
Fullment
I like [X online business] because items are delivered in the time expected I have a preference for [X online business] because items delivered match the order I like [X online business] because items delivered match the product description
Source: Adapted from Rios and Riquelme (2008)
225
Table I.
JRIM 4,3
226
to obtain the covariance matrix that was subsequently run in LISREL V8.72 ( Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996), a software that allows analysis of SEM. SEM has almost been used in all conceivable eld of studies and marketing has not escaped this practice since its introduction by Bagozzi (1984). SEM is more attractive than other multivariate statistical techniques such as multiple regression, factor analysis, multivariate analysis of variance and canonical analysis because of three reasons: (1) it allows the examination of a series of dependence relationships simultaneously; (2) its ability to assess relationships comprehensively providing a transition from exploratory to conrmatory analysis; and (3) it has been deemed a suitable technique to test theory (Hair et al., 1998). Results A completely standardised solution produced by LISREL 8.8 method (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996) was performed to test the measurement and structural models. The measurement model t indices seem to be adequate except for the x2 (x2 267.54, df 111) and p 0.0000. Inspection of the RMSEA (0.053) appears to be reasonably well tting the covariance matrix and with 90 per cent condence that the upper limit is not beyond 0.06. The CFI 0.99, NNFI 0.99, GFI 0.94 and SRMR 0.03, all seem to be adequate. Discriminant validity Correlations among the rst-order constructs ranged between 0.39 and 0.88 below the suggested value of 0.90 (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993) or below 0.70 (Hair et al., 1998). Given that the correlation between brand equity and loyalty is 0.88 a test of x2 difference was performed (Bagozzi and Phillips, 1982). The resulting x2 (88.08) with one degree of freedom (x2 355.62-267.54) and p-value (0.000) suggests the constructs are correlationally distinct, thus conrming discriminant validity. The correlation between fullment and functionality was also high and suggested that items were not unidimensional thus lacking discriminant validity. A merged construct named functionality/fullment was formed with some items of web functionality and fullment. Convergent validity Convergent validity of the overall measures in the model is demonstrated in several ways. See Table II for summary statistics. Structural model The results of the structural relationships and standardised parameters are reported in Table III. The x2 of this model is 281.04 with 121 degrees of freedom and RMSEA 0.051, 90 per cent condence interval for RMSEA 0.043-0.059, CFI 0.99, NNFI 0.99, SRMR 0.03 and GFI 0.94. All these indices, except for the statistically signicant x2 probability, are indicative of a reasonable well-tting model.
Dimension 1.0a 0.93 * 29.49 23.66 0.90 1.00a 0.82 * 16.482 17.228 0.83 1.00a 0.90 * 23.81 0.90 1.00a 0.87 24.15 0.038 0.90 1.00a 0.86 * 22.56 0.87 0.77 (continued) 0.81 0.040 0.81 0.63 0.061 0.070 0.79 * 0.77 0.040 0.036 0.81 *
Items
Loadings
t-value
SE
Composite reliability
Average variance extracted
Awareness/recognition q1 I know what [X online business] looks like q2 I can recognise [X online business] among other competing online businesses q3 I can quickly recall the name of [X online business]
Association value q5 In [X online business] I can nd the lowest prices for a quality brand q6 I like [X online business] because it one can nd the broadest range of products q7 I have a preference for [X online business] because it allows the comparison of product prices across online stores
Association trust q22 [X online business] has my condence
q23
It feels safe to conduct transactions in [X online business]
Loyalty q24
q25
It makes sense to buy from [X online business] instead of any other online business, even if they are the same Even if another online business has same features as in [X online business] I would prefer to buy from [X online business]
Customer service q12 I like [X online business] because it offers alternative customer support (call centre, toll free, e-mail, live individuals q13 I have a preference for [X online business] because it offers specialised customer support
227
Table II. Overall measurement model statistics
228
JRIM 4,3
Dimension 1.00a 0.87 * 19.44 19.35 19.07 0.90 1.00a 0.80 * 20.58 0.81 0.86 * 0.85 *
Functionality fullment) q17 I like [X online business] because items delivered match the product description q18 I like [X online business] because it is easy to navigate (i.e. content organized around users needs) q19 I like [X online business] because it offers consistent accessibility (i.e. it is up and running at all times) q20 I have a preference for [X online business] because it is easy to order products from
Brand equity outcome q26 I am willing to pay a premium price of up to 10 per cent when purchasing from [X online business] as opposed to a less well known q27 I would denitely buy from [X online business] again
Notes: *Parameter is signicantly different from zero; aitem is xed to 1.0 for reasons of model identication
Table II. Loadings t-value SE Composite reliability Average variance extracted 0.69 0.69
Items
Hypothesis Awareness ! brand equity (BE) (H1) Value ! BE (H4) Trust ! BE (H3) Loyalty ! BE (H2)
Unspecied relationships
Parameter p-value Conclusion 0.000 0.96 0.01 0.000 0.000 0.36 0.86 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.60 0.73 0.000 0.27 0.06 0.005 0.000 0.43 Supported Not supported Supported Supported Supported Not supported Not supported Supported Supported Supported Not supported Not supported Supported Not supported Not supported Supported Supported Not supported
b 0.12 b 0.00 b 0.15 b 0.73 b 0.60 Awareness ! value Awareness ! trust b 0.04 Value ! trust b 0.01 b 0.69 Trust ! loyalty Value ! loyalty b 0.19 Functionality/full ! awareness (H5) g 0.54 g 0.00 Functionality/full ! value (H6) Functionality/full ! loyalty (H7) g 0.01 Functionality/full ! trust (H8) g 0.45 Functionality/full ! BE Customer service ! loyalty (H11) g 0.13 Customer service ! trust (H12) g 0.21 Customer service ! value (H13) g 0.33 Customer service ! BE -
229
Table III. Summary of structural model hypotheses
Direct effects of brand equity sources on brand equity One of the hypothesised direct relationships between brand equity sources and brand equity did not reach statistical signicance, namely perceived brand value associations (b 0.00, p 0.96). As hypothesised, the constructs perceived awareness/ recognition, trust and loyalty are positively related to brand equity b 0.12, p 0.000, b 0.15; p 0.01; and b 0.73, p 0.000, respectively. From inspection of the standardised b values, it can be concluded that loyalty is the strongest determinant of brand equity, followed far behind by trust and awareness. Direct effects of internet marketing activities on brand equity sources It was expected that web functionality/fullment would inuence positively online business awareness/recognition, associations of value, trust and loyalty. However, web functionality/fullment seems to have an inuence on awareness (g 0.54, p 0.000) and trust (g 0.45, p 0.000) only and not on value (g 0.00, p 0.60) or loyalty (g 0.01, p 0.73). In relation to perception of customer support, the data support two of the hypothesised relationships: customer support services strongly and positively inuence perceptions of value (g 0.33, p 0.000) and trust (g 0.21, p 0.00). The data does not support a relationship with brand awareness/recognition (g 0.07, p 0.23) or loyalty (g 0.11, p 0.06). The proposed model explains quite a substantial percentage of the variance (R 2 0.81) of brand equity. This is mainly determined by three sources of brand equity: brand awareness/recognition (0.12), brand trust associations (0.15) and loyalty (0.73). The latter accounting for the majority of the variance. Alternative models. It has been suggested that it is important to account for potential relationships (either directly of indirectly) that were not theoretically justied, nor specied a priori, but that could have an impact in the structural model
JRIM 4,3
230
(McDonald and Ho, 2002). These are summarised in Table III under the column unspecied relationships. Although a direct relationship between customer service and brand equity was not hypothesised, the comparison of the baseline model with the alternative model with one constraint test conrmed that there is not a statistically signicant relationship ( p 0.43), therefore, there was no model mis-specication in this case. Similarly, there is no mis-specication in omitting a direct link between web functionality/fullment and brand equity ( p 0.27). Model cross-validation. The x 2 difference between a model with no equality constraints imposed (H1) and one with equality constraints (H0) resulted in x 2 30.56 and with 23 degrees of freedom is not statistically signicant ( p 0.13). The expected cross-validation index (ECVI) 1.17 compared to ECVI (saturated model) 0.431 and ECVI (independence model) 37.61. In summary, it can be concluded that the structural model is equivalent across the validation sample. The power estimate for the test of close and exact t is 1.000. For the test of close t RMSEA values of e0 0.05 and ea 0.08 are considered, where e 0 is the null value of the RMSEA. Thus, both power estimates indicate that the analysis conducted for this study is sufciently powerful considering that the recommended value is 0.80. Discussion and implications The main goals of this research were to: . test sources of brand equity for online companies; and . test for the inuence of internet marketing activities (web functionality, fullment and customer service support) on brand equity sources. The discussion of the ndings is broken down in two sections. First, the effect of brand equity sources (awareness/recognition, value, trust and loyalty) to create brand equity is discussed. Second, the effect of the internet marketing activities on brand equity sources is analysed. Sources of brand equity It was hypothesised that brand equity, expressed both as the willingness to pay a price premium for shopping on a particular online business web site versus another less well-known online business and by the intention to re-purchase from the same business would be inuenced by consumer awareness/recognition of the business web site, perceived value and trust associations with the business and loyalty towards it. As expected and supporting some previous academics and brand management practitioners, brand awareness/recognition is a relevant source of brand equity. It contributes to brand equity, both directly and indirectly, by inuencing other associations customers make with the brand, specically associations of value and loyalty. Notwithstanding the direct relationship, its importance is considerably less than the impact of trust and loyalty as brand equity sources. This result is consistent with Yoo et al.s (2000) nding of a statistically signicant, but weak relationship, between brand awareness/associations and brand equity. However, given that Yoo et al.s methodology does not report on indirect effects and knowing that they did not test hierarchical effects either, the inuence of awareness/ recognition may have been underestimated in their case.
Perceived value association of an online business does not appear to be a relevant source of brand equity. One plausible explanation is the narrowly conceived measure of customer value in the model. The dimensions measuring the value source that remain in the study (after uni-dimensionality depuration) relate mainly to price, except for one dimension that reects value in the form of the broadest range of products. In this context, price-related value may do little to create brand equity. In fact, if brand equity is dened as a differential in the price given as a result of the brand name, it is expected that loyal consumers will be less sensitive to price than brand-non loyal consumers (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006). Value associations, being more specic evaluative construct than the loyalty source, inuence brand equity only through loyalty. This result may not be surprising since consumers may have rich associations in conjunction with a brand, but these may not be necessary to create brand equity (Graebner-Kraeuter, 2002). Still another explanation of the lack of importance of value as a source of brand equity is that in the internet space, where functional product features are becoming commodities, it is relationship benets that increasingly drive brand equity. Trust association with a brand, as expected, has proved to have a direct effect on brand equity and an indirect one through loyalty. There is no surprise that so much research has been devoted to studying this source, especially in the online environment. Trust has been deemed crucial for online businesses because without it, e-commerce development will not reach its potential (Yang and Peterson, 2004). Trust only exists in uncertain and risky environments (Reichheld and Schefter, 2000) such as in a computer-mediated environment where customers cannot physically inspect or touch a product, nor can they see the salespersons gestures. This research provides support of previous claims of the relationship between trust and brand equity (Keller, 2003). It has been noted that strong brands are a safe place for customers and that this safety can be cultivated by associating their brands with trust (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000, p. 17), this study corroborates the importance of this source in building brand equity. The construct is explained largely (R 2 0.40) by customer support and the mix of functionality and fullment activities. Together with trust association, loyalty is the most important source of brand equity online. In regression terms, an increment of one unit of loyalty has an increment in brand equity of 0.73 units. This nding is consistent with models of brand equity developed by Baldauf et al. (2003), Yoo et al.s (2000) and Keller (2003) and reinforces Aaker and Joachimsthalers (2000) assertion that brand loyalty is at the heart of brands value. In e-commerce in particularly, loyalty is deemed a major driver of success (Davis and Dunn, 2002) and even more valuable than ofine because of the higher costs of acquiring customers (Yang and Peterson, 2004; Yoo et al., 2000). The ndings from the present study conrm its importance in creating brand equity and of managing loyalty as part of the brand management strategy (Christodoulides and de Chernatony, 2004; Oloughlin, 2006; Page and Lepkowska-White, 2002). This study, although it cannot prove causality, does suggest conrmation of the hypothesised hierarchical effects of brand equity sources (Bart et al., 2005; Harris and Goode, 2004). Brand awareness inuences the association customers make about brand value and in turn, these associations inuence loyalty, which ends up creating brand equity.
231
JRIM 4,3
232
Internet marketing activities. Web functionality (a combination of fullment activities and web functionality) contribute to create awareness and trust directly and help, indirectly, in building loyalty and brand equity. Part of the results are concordant with literature that suggest online companies that provide consistent, reliable accessibility to businesses web sites (Page and Lepkowska-White, 2002) and simple purchasing processes (Pitta et al., 2006) create awareness and develop associations of trust (Li et al. (2006). Web functionality/fullment does not inuence the perception of value in our study perhaps because of the narrow operationalization of the value source. In this context web functionality does little to create a perception of value for money. Web functionality/fullment does not create loyalty directly either as it was hypothesised. Perhaps, once customers learn to navigate and order products from a business web site and receive the products as expected, these functionalities are taken for granted and consumers do not become loyal as a result. It may be that web functionality/fullment are so essential to any company nowadays that their value as an antecedent is neutralized: without it a company is not even in the game (Barber, 1983). Although no hypotheses were specied between web functionality/fullment and brand equity directly, such effect was assessed by exploring alternative links in the structural model and by judging the importance through their indirect effect. This indirect effect is measured by adding the product of web functionality/fullment through all possible routes to brand equity. The result of this exercise conrms the importance of web functionality/fullment as indirect inuence on brand equity through the value and loyalty sources. Therefore, one cannot under estimate its effect. Customer support service, another common internet marketing activity, creates value and trust directly but does not inuence web site awareness or loyalty. These results are consistent with theoretical literature that suggest customer service is a critical factor affecting online purchase behaviour (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000) and that the difference between a successful online company and one that is not, is based on the level and value-added service they provide for customers (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). This research also corroborates a survey by Jupiter Communications that found that 91 per cent of online consumers want human contact at one point in time while making online transactions (Page and Lepkowska-White, 2002). The possibility to contact a company representative and obtain specialised support is widely used in the travel industry, where sometimes retired personnel work from home to provide advice to passengers around the clock all over the world (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Other industries like nancial and healthcare are also providing these services to enhance value. Apart from adding value, online customer service support also boosts trusting beliefs. This is consistent with suggestions that regular communication is a necessary condition for the formation, development and maintenance of trust (Bart et al., 2005). It is also possible that online customer support is signalling to consumers that the online business is trustworthy since often technical or professional competence of the trusted party generate trust relationship (Piccoli et al., 2004). Customer service support does inuence loyalty and brand equity but only indirectly. The total indirect effect of customer service support on brand equity outcome is not negligible (0.25).
Overall, managing customer support and functionality/fullment activities are considerably signicant to secure trust. No wonder, some successful online retailers like Jeff Bezos, Amazon.coms founder, suggests investing money in developing and implementing efcient delivery mechanisms rather than advertising, which is easy to copy (Jiang and Rosembloom, 2005). Implications Our study aimed at identifying the sources of brand equity and their antecedents to create brand equity for online companies. The study contributes with some evidence as to the relationship of some web site associations as branding and brand equity mechanisms. Marketing managers are well advised to dedicate resources to develop web site functionality, fullment and customer service online. Although web site attributes and online customer service do not contribute directly to create brand equity, they do inuence the associations customers make with an internet brand like amazon.com. Marketer and web site developers should be conscious that functionality and fullment features inuence recognition and awareness of an online company. If the features do not satisfy consumers that navigate through a web site (experience it), they will certainly be aware and recognise an internet brand but for the wrong reasons. Functionality and fullment also have a direct impact on the level of trust consumers infer from an online company. This effect supports Berrys (2000) claim for service branding that strong brands increase customers trust of invisible products. The internet brand is akin to a service due to its intangibility, the experience of the mediation of technology and the deferred benet all contributing to a degree of trust dependency ( Jevons and Gabbot, 2000). In addition to the functionality and fullment experienced by customers online, customer support on line also creates trust in the internet brand. Marketers and web site managers should realise that in a technologically-mediated environment, consumers are alone in front of a computer and when something goes wrong they will try to communicate with somebody representing the brand online. According to our study, managers should provide customer support to create have the sense of trust and also value. Brand awareness and recognition are the pillars to creating brand equity according to various brand equity models. Our study raties the importance and resources aiming at creating awareness and brand recognition are well spent. However, brand awareness and recognition are only the rst step in the pyramid to creating brand equity. Hence, resources must also be allocated to creating trust and loyalty. This study corroborates the importance managers should give to developing trust in the case of internet brand because of its direct impact on brand equity. It is advised that managers go beyond privacy and security policies online but contemplate trust in a broader sense, perhaps condence. Conclusions The main goals of this research were to test the predictability of sources of brand equity and the inuence of selected internet marketing activities as antecedents of the sources. The brand equity sources were derived from traditional models based on knowledge consumers have of an internet brand measured in terms of awareness/recognition, trust, value associations and loyalty.
233
JRIM 4,3
234
The empirical test supports a reduced model based on just three brand assets: brand recognition, trust association and loyalty. These sources are inuenced by creating activities related to customer support online and web functionality and fullment. The model cross-validation, although across subjects that had not bought products from the retailers under study, performed reasonably well. From this perspective, the structural model serves also as a strong support for the nal model derived from respondents who had bought from the online retailers under study. Taking all evidence provided, the study supports the use of a traditional approach to explain brand equity. The brand associations customers make in relation to brand recognition and trust, together with brand loyalty, create brand equity for internet brands such as Amazon.com, eBay. These sources of brand equity can be built by developing marketing activities that create fullment, web functionality and customer service online. Limitations of the study This research posed some challenges common to social science research and is subject to some limitations. First, the study may have limited generalisations as a result of the use of students. This purposeful sample will certainly not reect a sample of the whole population. However, this sample may be appropriate for theory testing purposes and development. Second, because this study is cross-sectional and there was no variable manipulation, it is not possible to draw cause-effect inferences. A longitudinal study would be preferred since the importance of brand equity sources may change over time as a result of being satised. Third, a companys web marketing efforts (e.g. customer service and functionality/fullment) are measured at the perceptual level rather than using actual company data for these efforts. Fourth, the dimensions or observable variables that were used in this study may not be deemed comprehensive enough. Different researchers have dened and measured the sources in different ways, some with more observable variables than others; some have dened broader concepts in scope than those used in this study, still others have summed multiple items and used the sum as a measure of the source.
References Aaker, D. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, The Free Press, New York, NY. Aaker, D. (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY. Aaker, D. and Joachimsthaler, E. (2000), Brand Leadership, The Free Press, London. Abels, E., White, M. and Hahn, K. (1999), A user-based design process for websites, OCL Systems and Services, Vol. 15 No. 10, pp. 35-44. Alba, J., Linch, J., Weitz, B., Janiszewski, C., Lutz, R., Sawyer, A. and Wood, S. (1997), Interactive home shopping: consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to participate in electronic marketplaces, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 38-53. Anckar, B., Walden, P. and Jelassi, T. (2002), A user-based design process for websites, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 211-21. Ariely, D. and Carmon, Z. (2000), Gestalt characteristics of experiences: the dening features of summarized events, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 191-2.
Arnold, S., Oum, T.H. and Tigert, D.J. (1998), Determinant attributes in retail patronage: seasonal, temporal, regional, and international comparisons, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 149-57. Ba, S. and Pavlou, P.A. (2002), Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in electronic markets: price premiums and buyer behavior, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 243-68. Bagozzi, R.P. (1984), A prospectus for theory construction in marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 11-29. Bagozzi, R.P. and Dholakia, U. (2006), Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer participation in small group brand communities, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 23, pp. 45-61. Bagozzi, R.P. and Phillips, L.W. (1982), Representing and testing organizational theories: a holistic construal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3. Baldauf, A., Cravens, K. and Binder, G. (2003), Performance consequences of brand equity management: evidence from organizations in the value chain, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 220-36. Barber, B. (1983), Logic and Limit of Trust, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. Bart, Y., Shankar, V., Sultan, F. and Urban, G.J. (2005), Are the drivers and role of online trust the same for all web sites and consumers? A large-scale exploratory empirical study, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 133-52. Berry, L.L. (2000), Cultivating service brand equity, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 128-37. Bhattacherjee, A. (2002), Individual trust in online rms: scale development and initial test, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 211-41. Bravo Gil, R., Fraj Andres, E. and Martinez Salinas, E. (2007), Family as a source of consumer-based brand equity, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 188-99. Brodie, R.J., Glynn, M.S. and Little, V. (2006), The service brand and the service-dominant logic: missing fundamental premise or the need for stronger theory?, Marketing Theory, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 363-79. Buil, I., de Chernatony, L. and Martinez, E. (2008), A cross-national validation of the consumer based brand equity scale, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 384-92. Burke, R.R. (2002), Technology and customer interface: what consumers want in the physical and virtual store, Academy of Marketing Science Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 411-32. Burnet, J.J. and Dunne, P.M. (1986), An appraisal of the use of student subjects in marketing research, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 14, pp. 329-43. Carpenter, P. (2000), eBrands: Building an Internet Business at Breakneck Speed, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Caslon, A. (2008), Caslon analystics metrics and statistics, available at: www.caslon.com. au/metricsguide14.htm (accessed 7 September 2009). Chau, P., Hu, P., Lee, B. and Au, A. (2006), Examining customers trust in online vendors and their dropout decisions: an empirical study, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 171-82. Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M. (2001), The chain effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93.
235
JRIM 4,3
Chen, S. (2001), Assessing the impact of the internet on brands, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 8 Nos 4-5, pp. 288-302. Chiu, C.-H. and Wang, F.M. (2000), The inuence of navigation map scope on disorientation of elementary students in learning a web-based hypermedia course, Journal of Educational Computing Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 135-44. Choate, T. (2000), Make sure you convert web browsers into buyers, iMarketing News, Vol. 2, p. 10. Chou, C. and Lin, H. (1998), The effect of navigation map types and cognitive styles on learners performance in a computer-networked hypertext learning systems, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 151-76. Chow, W.S. (2004), The quest for e-fullment quality in supply chain, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 319-28. Christodoulides, G. and de Chernatony, L. (2004), Dimensionalising on-and ofine brands composite equity, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 168-79. Christodoulides, G., de Chernatoni, L., Furrer, O., Shiu, E. and Abimbola, T. (2006), Conceptualising and measuring the equity of online brands, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22, pp. 799-825. Curran, P.J., West, S.G. and Finch, J.F. (1996), The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specication error in conrmatory factor analysis, Psychological Methods, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 16-29. Dabholkar, P.A. (1996), Consumer evaluation of new technology-based self-service options: an investigation of alternative models of service quality, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 29-51. Davis, S. and Dunn, M. (2002), Building the Brand-Driven Business: Operationalize your Brand to Drive Protable Growth, Josey Bass, San Francisco, CA. Davis, R., Buchanan-Oliver, M. and Brodie, R.J. (2000), Retail service branding in electronic-commerce environments, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 178-86. Dayal, S.H., Landesberg, H. and Zeisser, M. (2000), Building digital brands, The McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. 2, pp. 42-51. Delgado-Ballester, H. and Hernandez-Espallardo, M. (2008), Building online brands through brand alliances in internet, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 9/10, pp. 954-76. Dussart, C. (2001), Transformative power of e-business over consumer brands, European Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 629-37. Faircloth, J.B. (2005), Factors inuencing non-prot resource provider support decisions: applying the brand equity concept, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 1-15. Farquhar, P. (1989), Managing brand equity, Marketing Research, Vol. 1, pp. 24-33. Gommans, M., Krishnan, K. and Scheffold, K. (2001), From brand loyalty to e-loyalty: a conceptual framework, Journal of Economics and Social Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 43-58. Gorriz, C. (2003), Electric Commerce and Trust on the Internet, SRIC-BI, Menlo Park, CA. Graebner-Kraeuter, S. (2002), The role of consumers trust in online shopping, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 39, pp. 43-50. Gronroos, C. (1996), Relationship marketing logic, Asia-Australian Marketing Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 7-18.
236
Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Pura, M. and van Riel, A. (2004), Customer loyalty to content-based web sites: the case of an online health-care service, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 175-86. Ha, H.-Y. (2004), Factors inuencing consumer perceptions of brand trust online, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 329-42. Hair, J.J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Harrington, L.H. (2000), What do 3PLs bring to the e-tailing party?, Material Handling Management, Vol. 55 No. 12, pp. 77-85. Harris, L. and Goode, M. (2004), The four level of loyalty and the pivotal role of trust: a study of online services dynamic, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 139-58. Heeter, C. (2000), Interactivity in the context of designed experiences, Interactive Advertising, Vol. 1 No. 1, available at: www.jiad.org Holbrook, M.B. and Cornan, K.P. (1985), Quality and value in the consumption experience: Phaedrus rides again, in Jacoby, J. and Olsen, J. (Eds), Perceived Quality, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 31-57. Interbrand (2006), Best global brands 2006. A ranking by brand value, available at: www.i nterbrand.com/best_brands_2006.asp Jarvenpaa, S., Tractinski, N. and Vitale, M. (2000), Consumer trust in an internet store, Information Technology and Management, Vol. 1 Nos 1/2, pp. 45-71. Jevons, C. and Gabbot, M. (2000), Trust, brand equity and brand reality in internet business relationships: an interdisciplinary approach, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 16, pp. 619-34. Jiang, P. and Rosembloom, B. (2005), Customer intention to return online: price perception, attribute-level performance, and satisfaction unfolding over time, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 1/2, pp. 150-74. Johnson, T. and Grifth, D. (2002), 5 steps online success, Marketing Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 35-9. Joreskog, K. and Sorbom, D. (1996), LISREL 8: Users Reference Guide, 2nd ed., Scientic Software International, Chicago, IL. Jung, J. and Sung, E. (2008), Consumer-based brand equity. Comparisons among Americans and South Koreans in the USA and South Koreans in Korea, Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 24-35. Kaynama, S.A. and Black, C.I. (2000), A proposal to assess the service quality of online travel agencies: an exploratory study, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 63-88. Keller, K.L. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22. Keller, K.L. (2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 2nd ed., Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Kim, D. and Cavusgil, E. (2009), The impact of supply chain integration on brand equity, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 496-505. Kim, M. and Stoel, L. (2005), Salesperson roles: are online retailers meeting customer expectations?, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 284-97.
237
JRIM 4,3
238
Kim, S. and Lee, Y. (2006), Global online marketplace: a cross-cultural comparison of website quality, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 533-43. Kleindl, B. (2001), Strategic Electronic Marketing: Managing e-Business, South Western Publishing, Cincinnati, OH. Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995), Measuring customer-based brand equity, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 11-19. Lee, E.J. and Overby, J.W. (2004), Creating value for online shoppers: implications for satisfaction and loyalty, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 17, pp. 54-67. Lee, L.H. and Whang, S. (2001), Winning the last mile of e-commerce, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 54-62. Lennon, R. and Harris, J. (2002), Customer service on the web: across-industry investigation, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 325-38. Leuthesser, L. (1988), Dening, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity. A Conference Summary, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA. Li, D., Browne, G. and Wetherbe, J. (2006), Why do internet users stick with a specic web site? A relationship perspective, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 105-41. Lindstrom, M. and Andersen, T.F. (1999), Brand Building on the Internet, Hardie Grants Books, South Yarra. McCole, P. (2002), The role of trust for electronic commerce in services, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 81-7. McDonald, R. and Ho, R.M.-H. (2002), Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 64-82. Maltz, A., Rabinovich, E. and Sinha, R. (2005), Order management for prot on the internet, Business Horizons, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 113-23. Morgan, R. and Hunt, S. (1994), The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38. Netemeyer, R.G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J. and Wirth, F. (2004), Developing and validating measures and facets of customer-based brand equity, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 209-24. Oloughlin, S. (2006), Net worth, Brandweek, Vol. 47 No. 33, pp. 22-8. Page, C. and Lepkowska-White, E. (2002), Web equity: a framework for building consumer value in online companies, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 231-48. Pavlou, P.A. (2003), Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk with the teschnology acceptance model, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 101-34. Pennanen, K., Tiainen, T. and Luomala, H. (2007), A qualitative exploration of a consumers value-based e-trust building process: a framework development, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 28-47. Piccoli, G., Brohman, K., Watson, R. and Parasuraman, A. (2004), Net-based customer service systems: evolution and revolution in web site functionalities, Decision Sciences, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 423-55. Pitta, D., Franzak, F. and Fowler, D. (2006), A strategic approach to building online customer loyalty: integrating customer protability tiers, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 421-9.
Ranganathan, C. and Grandon, E.E. (2002), An exploratory estimation of factors affecting online sales, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 87-93. Reichheld, F.F. and Schefter, P. (2000), E-loyalty: your secret weapon on the web, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 105-13. Rios, E.R. and Riquelme, E.H. (2008), Brand equity for online companies, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 719-42. Riquelme, H. (2001), An empirical review of price behaviour on the internet, Electronic Markets, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 263-72. Roy, M.C., Dewit, O. and Aubert, B.A. (2001), The impact of interface usability on trust in web retailers, Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 388-98. Semeijn, J. and van Riel, A. (2005), E-services and ofine fullment: how e-loyalty is created, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 182-94. Sia, C.L., Lim, K.H., Leung, K., Lee, M. and Huang, W.W. (2009), Web strategies to promote internet shoppping: is cultural-customization needed?, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 491-512. Smith, M., Bailey, J. and Brynjolfsson, E. (2000), Understanding digital markets: review and assessment, in Brynjolfsson, E. and Kahin, B. (Eds), Understanding the Digital Economy: Data, Tools and Research, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Suppehellen, M. and Nysveen, H. (2001), Drivers of intention to revisit the websites of well-known companies: the role of corporate brand loyalty, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 341-52. Szymanski, D.M. and Hise, R.T. (2000), E-satisfaction: an initial examination, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 309-22. Tan, F.B. and Sutherland, P. (2004), Online consumer trust: a multidimensional model, Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 40-58. Tarn, M., Razi, M., Wen, J. and Perez, A. (2003), E-fulllment: the strategy and operational requirements, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 350-62. Taylor, S., Hunter, G. and Lindberg, D. (2007), Understanding customer-based brand equity in nancial services, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 241-52. Thomas, S. and Kohli, C. (2009), A brand is forever! A framework for revitalizing declining and dead brands, Business Horizons, Vol. 52, pp. 377-86. Tih, S. and Ennis, S. (2006), Cross-industry analysis of consumer assessments of internet retailers service performances, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 34 Nos 4/5, pp. 290-307. Tolba, A. and Hassan, S. (2009), Linking customer-based brand equity with brand market performance: a managerial approach, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 356-66. Trumbull, D. and Gay, K.G. (1992), Students actual and perceived use of navigational and guidance tools in a hypermedia program, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 315-28. Urban, G.J., Sultan, F. and Qualls, W.J. (2000), Placing trust at the center of your internet strategy, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 339-48. Vernon, M. (2001), Satisfaction guaranteed, available at: www.computerweekly.com/Articles/ Article.aspx?liArticleID180091&PrinterFriendlytrue
239
JRIM 4,3
240
Wang, S., Beatty, S.E. and Foxx, W. (2004), Signaling the trustworthiness of small online retailers, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 53-69. Wells, W.D. (1993), Discovery-oriented consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp. 489-504. Wolnbarger, M. and Gilly, M. (2003), eTailQ: dimensionalising, measuring and predicting quality of the e-tail quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 183-98. Yang, Z. and Peterson, R. (2004), Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: the role of switching costs, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 799-822. Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52, pp. 1-14. Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 195-211. Yoon, S.-J. (2002), The antecedents and consequences of trust in online purchase decisions, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 47-63. Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), Consumer perception of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22. Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Malhotra, A. (2002), Service quality delivery through web sites: a critical review of extant knowledge, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 362-75. Corresponding author Hernan E. Riquelme can be contacted at: hernan@kmbs.edu.kw
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Sources of

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sources of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing

Sources of brand equity for online companies

Sources of brand equity

Sources of brand equity

Sources of brand equity

Figure 1. Proposed structural model

Sources of brand equity

Sources of brand equity

Dimension Yoo et al. (2000)

Breadth and depth merchandise

Table I. Operational measures used in the original solution

Source: Adapted from Rios and Riquelme (2008)

Sources of brand equity

Average variance extracted

Association trust q22 [X online business] has my condence

It feels safe to conduct transactions in [X online business]

Sources of brand equity

Table II. Overall measurement model statistics

Sources of brand equity

Table III. Summary of structural model hypotheses

Sources of brand equity

Sources of brand equity

Sources of brand equity

Sources of brand equity

Sources of brand equity

You might also like