Measuring brand equity index in paper industry the case of double a international network company limited

The study attempts to measure brand awareness, brand associations, perceived value, and brand loyalty of Double A and its key competitor- Paper One.. This study aims to contribute to the

MEASURING BRAND EQUITY INDEX IN PAPER INDUSTRY – THE CASE

OF DOUBLE A INTERNATIONAL NETWORK COMPANY LIMITED

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

MEASURING BRAND EQUITY INDEX IN PAPER INDUSTRY – THE CASE

OF DOUBLE A INTERNATIONAL NETWORK COMPANY LIMITED

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

In Marketing By Ms: Nguyen Ly Ai Vy ID: MBA04049 International University - Vietnam National University HCMC

I am grateful to my friends: Ms.Tu Tran, Ms Linh Nguyen, Mr Hai Hoang,

Mr Nho Lu, Ms Chinh Do and those people that I cannot list out here, for assisting

me in finding and introducing me with potential respondents Their enthusiasm and supports help me so much in the data collection part of this thesis.

I also want to say thank you to my friends for assisting me in finding and introducing to me with potential respondents Their supports help me a lot in finishing this paper

Finally, my deep gratitude to my beloved Parents for their eternal love, enduring encouragement and great sacrifice to raise me up to be a mature person today To them I dedicate this thesis

Hochiminh, Aug 2013

Plagiarism Statements

I would like to declare that, apart from the acknowledged references, this

thesis either does not use language, ideas, or other original material from anyone; or

has not been previously submitted to any other educational and research programs or

institutions I fully understand that any writings in this thesis contradicted to the above

statement will automatically lead to the rejection from the MBA program at the

International University – Vietnam National University Hochiminh City.

Table of Contents

CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION 1

1 Background of study 1

2 Problem discussion 2

3 Research Objective: This study aims to: 5

4 Research question 5

5 Research Scope 5

6 Managerial implications 5

7 Structure of the research 6

CHAPTER 2- LITERATURE REVIEW 8

1 Brand building theory 8

1 1 Brand concept 8

1 2 Brand equity definition 9

1 3 Importance of brand equity 9

2 Approaches to measuring brand equity 11

2 1 Three levels to measure brand equity 11

2 1 1 Product market level 11

2 1 2 Financial market level 12

2 1 3 Customer mindset level: 13

2 2 Measures related to customer mindset 14

3 Models of brand equity 17

3 1 Brand awareness 17

3 2 Brand association 17

3 3 Appreciation of quality 18

3 4 Brand loyalty 18

4 Formula to measure general brand equity 19

CHAPTER 3- RESEARCH METHOD 20

1 Conceptual framework: 20

2 Research process 21

3 Measurement design 23

4 Questionnaire design 24

4 1 First draft 24

4 2 Pilot study 29

4 3 Final study 29

7 Validity and reliability 33

CHAPTER 4- PAPER INDUSTRY OVERVIEW AND RELEVANT COMPETITORS 35

1 Paper industry overview 35

2 Overview about Double A International Network Company- Ho Chi Minh branch (DINVN-HCM) 36

2 1 Double A history and background .36

2 2 Product available in Vietnam 38

2 3 Profiled market share 39

3 Review of relevant competitors .41

CHAPTER 5- DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 45

1 SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW: General looks on personal information of sample responder as well as response rate 45

2 RELIABILITY TEST: 47

2 1 Reliability test of Double A 48

2 2 Reliability test of Paper One 48

3 OVERALL BRAND EQUITY 49

3 1 Overall brand awareness 49

3 2 Overall brand association 51

3 3 Overall perceived value 53

3 4 Overall brand loyalty 54

4 Purchasing habit 58

4 1 Normal usage grammage and number of reams per month 58

4 2 Criteria to choose a copy paper 60

4 3 Current usage and changing ratio 61

5 Compare with previous research- Specialize in brand equity 62

5 1 Overall brand equity 63

5 2 Changing in purchasing habits 66

5 2 1 Normal usage grammage 66

5 2 2 Criteria to chose copy paper 67

CHAPTER 6 - CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 68

1 Research summary: 68

2 Recommendation 73

2 1 Foundation of recommendation 73

2 2 Recommendation for Double A’s brand equity 75

2 2 1 Double A’s brand awareness and brand association 76

2 2 1 1 Advertising 77

2 2 1 2 Sale promotion 79

2 2 1 3 PR 81

2 2 1 4 Internet marketing 82

2 2 2 Double A’s perceived quality 83

2 2 3 Double A’s brand loyalty 83

2 3 Recommendation for some other finding 84

2 3 1 Double A’s price strategy 84

2 3 2 Double A’s product 85

2 3 3 Double A’s distribution strategy 86

3 Limitation and future research recommendation 87

References 88

Appendix 93

List of Tables

Table 1- Sale summary in year 2005 to 2012 3

Table 2- List of sum variables and variables 23

Table 3- Questionnaire for paper purchaser 26

Table 4- Questionnaire distribution for paper purchaser 31

Table 5- Key copy paper brands (80sgm) in high price segment 42

Table 6- Market share of 80gsm brands 44

Table 7- Reliability test for Double A’s brand in 3 groups- brand association, perceived value, and brand loyalty 48

Table 8- Reliability test for Paper One’s brand in 3 groups- brand association, perceived value, and brand loyalty 49

Table 9- Mean difference of brand association between two brands: Double A, and Paper One 52

Table 10 - Mean difference of perceived quality between two brands - Double A, and Paper One 54

Table 11- Mean difference of brand loyalty between two brands- Double A and Paper One 56

Table 12- Measure brand equity of four brands: Double A, and Paper One 57

Table 13- Compare brand equity of Double A, and Paper One between year 2010 and year 2013 64

Table 14 - Summary of Double A’s brand equity 69

Table 15- Summary and compare brand equity of Double A, and Paper One 71

Table 16 - TVC plan detail on HTV 78

Table 17- Summary detail of other advertising type 78

Table 18 - Summary mechanic of sale promotion for each channel 80

Table 19 - Summary of schedule of IMC program 82

List of Figures

Figure 1- Sale summary in year 2005 to 2012 4

Figure 2 - Brand equity by Aaker (1991) 19

Figure 3- IMC mix without rigid disciplinary boundaries Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 4- Research model (Adapted from Aaker, 1999) 20

Figure 6- Profiled market share 40

Figure 7- Ho Chi Minh distribution territory 41

Figure 8 - Product positioning .43

Figure 9 - Education profile 46

Figure 10 - Gender profile 46

Figure 11- Position profile 47

Figure 12- Company profile 47

Figure 13- Brand awareness of paper 49

Figure 14 - Measure brand equity of Double A, and Paper One 57

Figure 15 - Type of grammage, Demand using paper and the type of grammage vs Demand using paper 59

Figure 16 - 3 top criteria when choosing a new copy paper brand 60

Figure 17 - Current usage and changing ratio 61

Figure 18: Double A’s brand equity as Aaker model 70

Figure 19- Summary finding and recommendation 74

Figure 20 - The objective for various promotion elements 77

4 DACC: Double A Copy Center

5 IMC: Integrated marketing communication

6 TOM: Top of mind

7 MT: Modern trade

8 GRP: Gross rating point

DEFINITION OF TERMS

1. Cut-size paper: The small sizes of paper generally used by quick printers as

well as desktop printers are called cut sizes Paper products are cut into standard sizes

including: A4, A3, B4, B5, F14, F4,… Two common cut sizes are 8.5x11 (letter size)

or A4 and 11x17 (tabloid) or A3 Most of laser printers, photocopy machines, fax machines, and small presses are designed for the letter size sheets or cut sizes no larger than the 11x17 or A3 sizes These common cut sizes are often sold by the ream

in office supply stores (Retrieved Aug 10, 2012, from The New York Times company,

http://desktoppub.about.com/od/glossary/g/Cut_Sizes.htm)

2. Copy papers: within the limitation of company’s term, copy papers means the

cut-size papers which common use for office such as: photocopy, printing, fax

3 Corporate end-users: as the classification of Double A company, corporate

end-users are end-users which are offices.

4 Corporate resellers: as the classification of Double A company, corporate

resellers are the traders who have 65% of sales volume sold to corporate end-users directly.

5. Converted paper: within the limitation of copy paper and the classification of

Double A company, some operations buy folio (big size roll of paper) and do cutting

in size A4 & A3, then do packaging with their owned brand name These operations don’t have the mill to produce paper.

6. Modern trade: Modern trade as opposed to traditional retail shops refers to a

full range of sales methods based on marketing techniques: for instance in self-service shops you have no more sales attendants behind a counter: now the customer can touch the articles As Double company’s classification: modern trade includes hypermarkets, supermarkets, mini-supermarkets and bookstores.

(Retrieved Aug 10, 2012, from Answers website:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_general_trade_and_modern_trade)

7 Recycled based paper: paper which is produced from recycled paper material.

8 Ream: packaging unit of copy paper A common ream includes 500 paper sheets.

9 Traditional trade: as the classification of Double A company, traditional trade

is intermediary channels which include wholesaler, retailers & photocopy shops (copy

Abstract

Powerful brands create meaningful images in the minds of customers (Keller, 1993), with brand image and reputation enhancing differentiation and having a positive influence on buying behavior (Gordon et al., 1993; McEnally and de Chernatony, 1999) Branding in consumer markets can improve financial performance and long-term competitive position (Mudambi, 2002).

The study attempts to measure brand awareness, brand associations, perceived value, and brand loyalty of Double A and its key competitor- Paper One Moreover, comparing brand equity scores of Double A and Paper One for current year and year

2010 to evaluate performance of the brand This study aims to contribute to the concrete importance of brand equity management in the paper industry especially by illustrating real analysis and empirical cases of two paper brands- Double A, and Paper One- in Ho Chi Minh market, to adjust brand strategy and improve Double A’s brand performance.

Based on a quantitative survey, consumer’s brand knowledge is examined to confirm the brand value added by these brand equity assets The survey was conducted by purposive and snowball method which distributed to 216 target respondents at these big offices in Ho Chi Minh City The target respondents must be the main decision maker or involved partially in purchase stationary at their company will be qualified.

Data analysis has brought the results that Double A’s brand equity get a higher mean score than Paper One in most of brand attributes, except brand association However, in comparing with the brand equity score in year 2010, Double A’s brand equity in this year was worse than the past while Paper One’s brand performance was better in most of attributes in comparison with current year.

The important of brand strategy and data results have shown that Double A need to adjust and improve its brand strategy An integrated marketing communication strategy was proposed to improve both four brand attributes of Double A.

A clear view of the current brand position will help Double A International network company (DINVN) understand about its situation, to propose a better plan to adjust its brand strategy so that the brand performance can improve year by year

Keywords: Paper industry, Brand, Brand equity, Brand awareness, Brand association,

Perceived value, Brand loyalty, Double A, Paper One.

xiii This page is intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

This chapter will start with a presentation about the subject as to be followed by a research problem The research problem aims to give the reader a better understanding about the problem area and is a base for the purpose and research questions within this thesis The chapter ends with an overall purpose, research questions and a description of the thesis outline.

to firm performance

With these recent advancements in the knowledge of brand equity, there are two needs emerge to address the essential but unanswered questions about how exactly the customer mindset (i.e Brand knowledge) are converted to firm performance First, we

through the “customer mindset-market performance-financial performance” chain (Keller and Lehmann 2003, 2006) Beyond knowing merely that there exists a positive association, brand managers and firm executives are eager to know in more detail how improved brand equity is converted to brand market performance, which in turn drives firm financial performance This expanded knowledge will facilitate the use of brand and marketing strategies to optimize return on investment The second issue is the dearth of empirical evidence supporting the link between brand equity and brand market performance This is an axiom of the brand equity theory with limited empirical validation

2 Problem discussion

Managers and academics are increasingly interested in understanding the linkages between resources deployed in developing marketing assets (such as brands and customer relationships) and the firm’s market effectively (e.g., Share and margin gains) (Vorhies and Morgan 2003) and financial performance (Rust et al 2004) From this perspective, the marketing literature provides a well-developed theoretical rationale (Keller 1993; Srivastava, Shervani and Fahey 1998) and a growing body of empirical evidences (Barth

et al 1998; Madden, fuel, and Fournier 2006; Rao, Agarwal and Dahlhoff 2004) linking brands with competitive advantage for the firms that own them As a result, it is increasingly and widely accepted that brands are important intangible assets that can significantly contribute to firm performance (Ailawadi, Lehman, and Neslin 2003; Capron and Hulland 1999; Sullivan 1998) Among the most important findings from this stream of research is the fact that brand equity is one of the most important determinants

of brand retail performance (Ailawadi, Lehman and Neslin 2003; Keller 2003)

With the 2008 global recession, corporate profits have declined that has resulted from less consumer spending Unemployment increased, and many who continued as

employed earned less income Between 2007 and 2009, household income declined 4.1

percent (Brackey, Williams, & Maines, 2010) These consequences make customers

become more price-sensitive, so they have switched to discount, low-priced retail stores

On average, from 2007 to 2010, they cut spending 55% on entertainment & drinking out,

27% on home appliances and 19% of household utilities “They also spent less on some

groceries, cutting back on items such as fresh milk and cream, as well as seafood”

(Retrieved from TNS research report, 2011)

For that Double A International Network Company – Viet Nam (DINVN) has problem with company sales performance Starting to export paper product at Vietnam in

2003 and officially start up representative office in 2005 At the beginning time, Double

A’s sales performance was very good; the sales performance steadily increases from 10

to 20% each year (Country management report of DINVN) However, in recent year,

during 3 nearly years (from 2010 to 2012), sales performance has dropped continuously

The following chart shows the sales performance in each year (from 2005 to 2012),

which is provided by Double A Country Management report:

Table 1- Sale summary in year 2005 to 2012

Areas

share (total copy paper)

Market share (80gsm)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (Expect) 2013 HCM city

and Southern

provinces

Figure 1- Sale summary in year 2005 to 2012

Looking at the chart, we can see the volume of Double A paper has tended to

decrease Comparing with a sales target from the board of management, Sales

performance of the Double A just meet 90%, lower 10% for expectation In reality,

together with the current Vietnam economy that can be the problem of competition or

decreasing in demand due to recession of the economy or it can be problematic from

weakening in brand equity A various questions were listed out to find out the reason for

a current situation which comes from both internal and external reasons Base on

marketing perspective, the position of Double A brand in customer mind or Double A

brand performance can be a reason for the decreasing in sale performance because when

Double A cannot maintain its position in customer mind, or its brand performance is not

good as the past, customers was forgot about its name or they don’t remember about

these competitive advantages of Double A anymore, instead they remember Double A’s

competitor brand name, Double A’s competitor advantages and their value Therefore,

Last estimates

recognizing this hard circumstance in doing business, a research study is conducted to study on brand equity and brand market performance to adjust and improve brandperformance.

3 Research Objective: This study aims to:

RO 1: To evaluate current company’s brand equity.

RO 2: To compare with current competitors’ brand equity

RO 3: To find out the solution for the company to improve brand performance in

the next year

4 Research question

Based on Research Objectives, we have 2 main research questions (RQ) are:

RQ1: What is the current brand equity of the Double A company?

RQ2: How about competitors’ brand equity in comparing with Double A?

RQ3: How to improve brand performance of Double A?

5 Research Scope

The research studies the brand equity of the Double A International Network Company, Ho Chi Minh branch in comparison with brand performance of Double A’s key competitors – Paper One to measure, evaluate and adjust to improve Double A’s brand performance This research is conducted in the scale within Ho Chi Minh City geographically; therefore, it cannot represent for the performance of Double A and expectation of all consumers in Vietnam

6 Managerial implications

For DINVN: a success of this study will help managers of the company

key competitor From that company will have clearer view about current situation, adjust brand strategy and improve brand performance

7 Structure of the research

The outline of this thesis will be divided into five chapters, which start broad and go deeper into the problem and research questions

Chapter 1: is the Introduction that will provide a background and

understanding of the chosen subject This chapter also includes the problem discussion and describes the purpose of the thesis as well as the research questions

Chapter 2: is the Literature Review which aims to show how this essay

supplement previous studies within the chosen area The chapter will describe and explain which hypothesis our research will test

Chapter 3: Methodology The hypothesis will lead to our research approach,

strategy and the chosen data collection methods The focus here will be to explain the different methods are suitable Here the reader also can get an opinion about the validity and reliability

Chapter 4: Paper industry overview and relevant competitors: Describe

general about paper industry and it current situation Moreover, overview about Double A’s background and its competitor

Chapter 5: Result & Discussion, this chapter will analyze the collected data

and answer the research questions

Chapter 6: Conclusion will be based on my thoughts and will with that

contribute with recommendations for future practice

The next chapter will cover previous studies related to this thesis filed and showwhich hypothesis is used to get the research problems into deeper and state clearer.

CHAPTER 2- LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter is a principal base for the thesis study as it supports the research purpose by relevant concepts, theories and models With available literatures, CBBE framework has conceptualized in a scientist’s base and has narrated with consumer behavior process at a firm’s level.

1 Brand building theory

1 1 Brand concept

In an ideal world the customers choose between different products and services considering a long list of criteria including product features, pricing, availability and flexibility However, when several companies’ products and services are almost similar, the choices go down to the reputation of the respective brands The current interest in the existing brands is more because of the escalating costs of developing new brands, which has led to the prevalent usage of existing brands by way of brand extension (Tauber, 1988) According to the American Marketing Association (1995), a brand is “a name, term, sign, symbol or a combination of them, intended to identify the goods and services

of one seller or a group of sellers and to differentiate them from their competitors” Farquhar (1989) has defined brand equity as an intangible asset that depends on the association made by the consumers However, none of these definitions take into account the contribution / effect of the brand on middlemen This gap in definition has been bridged by Frederick E Webster Jr He defined brand as a guarantee of consistent features, quality and performance to the consumers and is also a pledge of support to the middlemen (Frederick E Webstar, Jr., 2000)

1 2 Brand equity definition

Numerous definitions of brand equity have been proposed by different authors According to Aaker (1991), brand equity is the set of assets and liabilities linked to a brand that add to or subtract from its value to the consumers and business, while Farquhar (1989) defines brand equity as the monetary value added by the brand to the product Swait et al (1993) defines brand equity as the consumer’s implicit valuation of the brand

in a market with differentiated brands relative to a market with no brand differentiation, whilst Srinivasan, Chan Su Park and Dae Ryun Chang define brand equity as the incremental contribution (in $) per year obtained by the brand in comparison to the underlying product or service with no brand building efforts (March 2005) This incremental contribution is driven by the individual customer’s incremental choice probability for the brand in comparison to his or her choice probability for the product with no brand building efforts From a behavioral viewpoint, brand equity is critically important to make points of differentiation leading to competitive advantages based on non price competition (Aaker, 1991) Somewhat paradoxically, the phenomenon labeled

as brand equity from the perspective of a marketing manager corresponds closely to the state of affairs that economists concerned with social welfare label as ‘market inefficiency’

1 3 Importance of brand equity

Brand’s equity reflects the value that the brand offers to consumers (Aaker 2004; Berthon, Hulbert, and Pitt 1999; Lane and Jacobson 1995) It is believed generally that brands with high levels of equity are associated with superior performance including

expansion into new categories, competitive cost structures and higher profitability (Keller and Lehmann 2003) The marketing literature provides a large number of cases that suggest strong brands have both

It is generally believed that superior brand knowledge (awareness, associations, attitudes, attachment, etc.) provides a brand with a competitive advantage over other products in terms of market performance (Hoch 1996; Hoch, Montgomery and Park 2003; Steiner 2004) The value created in consumer’s mind alters purchasing behavior in favor of the brand by facilitating product identification, reducing search costs, and eliciting repeat purchase (Berthon et al 1999; Keller 2003) These changes create loyal consumers who are inclined to avoid brand-related information search, neglect the marketing efforts of rivals, consider and re-buy only that brand, and eventually reduce the

“churn” among the brand’s customer base (e.g Newman and Werbel 1973; Oliver 1997) This may be particularly relevant for low involvement purchase decisions such as frequently purchased consumer packaged goods (e.g., Hoyer and Brown 1990) The series of empirical findings corroborated the argument that strong brands (e.g Products with superior quality and high prices) are more rewarded by their marketing actions (e.g Pricing, sales promotion, personal selling, etc.) than lower quality competitors (Blattberg and Wisniewski 1989; Sethuraman 1996; Cotterill and Putsis 2000) In particular, cross promotional effects are asymmetric and promoting higher quality brands impacts weaker brands (and private label products) disproportionately (e.g Allenby and Rossi 1991; Blattberg and Wisniewski 1989; Krishnamurthi and Raj 1988, 1991) Accordingly, promoting strong brands generates more switching than is promoting weaker brands (e.g Kamakura and Russell 1989) Moreover, higher market share brands are less deal elastic

(Bemmaor and Mouchoux 1991; Bolton 1989; Vilcassim and Jain 1991) and price sensitive (e.g., Ailawadi, Neslin, and Lehmann 2003; Allenby and Rossi 1991) Finally, brands with high equity are bequeathed with competitive advantages including the opportunity for successful extensions and the creation of barriers to competitive entry (e.g Farquhar 1989) All of these lead the brands with favorable customer state of mind

to enjoy a superior market performance with respect to penetration, loyalty, market share, price premium and revenue premium (e.g Keller and Lehmann 2003, 2006)

2 Approaches to measuring brand equity

2 1 Three levels to measure brand equity

Existing measures of brand equity generally fall into one of the three categories (Keller and Lehmann, 2002) that a product market level, Customer mind set level and financial market level

2 1 1 Product market level

The most commonly measured units is the price premium that the brand commands over a base product (also known as private label products) This approach has been analyzed by Morris B Holbrook, (1991), V Srinivasan, Chan Su Park and Dye Ryun Chung (March 2005) and others Price premium could also be measured by the related concepts of brand clout and vulnerability as measured by the brand’s own and cross price elasticity (Kamakura and Russel, 1993) Other measures of this type include a constant term in sales response model (Srinivasan, 1979) or the residual in hedonic regression, i.e market inefficiency (Hjorth – Andersen, 1984) But they fail to capture the interaction of equity with marketing mix activities like advertising and price However,

the recent works of Erdem, Keane and Sun (2005) have addressed the limitation to some extent

2 1 2 Financial market level

Superior financial performance and shareholder value creation are additional outcomes of brand equity One of the most dramatic financial market changes over the last 30 years concerns the proportion of stock market capitalization accounted for by intangible assets Comparing the 1970 to the 2000 stock market price-to-book ratio, one would find that in 1970 intangible assets accounted for 50% of that ratio, while in 2000 intangibles accounted for 80% of the ratio’s value Additionally, financial markets have consistently valued firms with brand assets above their net book value Therefore, understanding how intangible assets translate into financial performance is a critical component of assessing brand equity outcomes Considerable anecdotal evidence suggests that brand equity impact on corporate-level business performance Strong brands were shown to be positively associated with a larger return on investment (ROI) (Aaker and Jacobson 1994) The same authors also found that brand equity is positively associated with accounting profits (Aaker and Jacobson 2001)

Additionally, Simon and Sullivan (1993) studied the nature and impact of brand equity on stock performance, and found that brand equity account for a large portion of intangible assets owned by the firm Finally, researchers have studied the risk relevance

of brand equity and linked it to systematic and unsystematic financial risks that investors and managers are dealing with (Rego, Billett and Morgan 2009)

2 1 3 Customer mindset level:

Finally, at the customer mindset level, academics and consultants agree that the value of a brand derives from customers’ brand perceptions and their subsequent actions The customers decide what to purchase and what not to purchase based on their preferences and their perceptions of brands (Villas-Boas 2004) The customer level process by which these preferences emerge and impact observed behavior can be captured using a hierarchy of effects models (Keller and Lehmann 2006) and can be appropriately summarized via the following aspects: (1) brand awareness; (2) brand associations; (3) attitudes toward the brand; (4) brand attachment; and, (5) brand-related purchases and post-purchase behaviors Brand awareness ranges from simple recognition

to brand recall (Laurent, Kapferer and Roussel 1995) Brand associations are the pieces

of information into consumers’ memories that are activated by the brand name (Keller 2003) Customer attitudes towards the brand can range from negative effects such as hatred of simple acceptability or attraction (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Mittal 1990) Brand attachment ranges from disinterest to higher levels of the loyalty hierarchy such as advocacy, love, and even addiction (Fournier 1998) Finally, customer activity is the ultimate behavioral outcome of brand equity, namely purchase, consumption frequency, involvement, price sensitivity, word-of-mouth communications, etc (E.g Fullerton 2005)

Three types measure above has both own advantages, disadvantages In addition, depending on objective and capacity, measurement type can be selected For product market level, they do not break down the estimated equity into its components that can be related to factors such as favorable biased perceptions This empirical results based on

these methods will have somewhat limited managerial usefulness in terms of understanding the sources of brand equity and suggesting directions for enhancing it With financial measurement, this technique produces biased and inconsistent estimates of brand equity due to its usage of historical data, which do not accurately translate to future earnings Furthermore, reliance on the individual’s judgment makes it difficult to apply the technique consistently in different time periods or across different companies The product market level cannot provide suggesting direction to enhance situation due to its limitations Furthermore, for objective and capability, financial measure was not suitable for kind of research Based on that, the customer mindset quite fits and used for this research

2 2 Measures related to customer mindset

Keller (2001) proposed the Consumer Based Brand Equity (CBBE) model, which provides a yardstick by which the brands can assess their progress in their brand building efforts In addition, a critical application of the CBBE model is in planning, implementing and interpreting brand strategies

While reflecting a consumer or a marketing perspective, brand equity is referred to as Consumer Based Brand Equity (CBBE) Mackay et Al (1997, p 1153) stated that ‘ the marketing approach (also referred to as consumer based brand equity) refers to the added value of the brand to the consumer Subscribers to this approach refer to the value created

by marketing activities as perceived by the customers’

Several researchers (e.g Crimmins, 1992; Farquhar, 1989) has argued in favor of a consumer-based measurement of brand equity “There is value to the investor, the manufacturer and retailer only if there is value to the consumer.” (Cobb Walgren et al,

1995, p 26) Several brand equity measurement methods have been suggested based on the marketing or consumer perspective, both by researchers (e.g Aakar, 1996c; Green and Srinivasan, 1978, 1990; Kamakura and Russel, 1989, 1993; Srinivasan, 1979; Swait

et al, 1993) and marketing professionals and practicing firms (Winters, 1991, for a list of the methods)

Cobb - Walgren were the pioneering researchers to measure consumer based brand equity on the conceptualization of Aakar (1991) and Keller (1993) These researchers treated consumer based brand equity as asset of four dimensions, viz Brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty Sinha et al (2000) and Sinha and Pappu (1998), measured the consumer based brand equity in a similar fashion, but used Bayesian model Yoo et al used confirmatory factor analytic methods to measure consumer based brand equity However, Yoo et al treated consumer based brand equity

as a three dimensional construct, combining brand association and brand awareness as one dimension

Susan Schwartz McDonald (1990) proposed to measure brand equity by the extendibility of the brand He opined that if consumers answer positively such questions,

as “Would a line of ‘X’ products by company Q make you think better of the company”, less or have no effect, it is a fairly strong indication that the equity of the brand is higher But as per the researcher himself, this is the ‘thorniest’ issue of all types of consumer based brand equity measurement Two of the key measures relating to brand association and hence consumer based brand equity are 1) Creating appropriate brand meaning through strong, favorable and unique brand associations; 2) eliciting positive, accessible brand responses, hence the brand personality inferences drawn by consumers are of

paramount importance G.V Johar et al (2005) has tried exploring the updating of brand personality inference and updating people who are chronic vs non chronic on a trait Chronics were defined as people who tend to activate and use specific personality traits to

a higher degree while non-Chronics are people for whom the trait is not accessible Their results suggested important differences in the way new brand information is incorporated, even when similar initial personality impressions have been formed The chronics lowered their initial positive personality ratings only when they were exposed to information containing negative trait associations In contrast, non-chronics receiving incoming information updated their beliefs on the basis of an evaluative inference mechanism, whereby information is examined for overall evaluative implications rather than for trait related inferences This pattern of results was robust across decision contexts, personality domains and different measures of chronicity

In addition, in type of measure by customer mindset, Aaker is a guru in this field, his theory was modified, develop, test and apply by many researchers and research company

in reality In this research, research model was used model brand equity of Aaker (1999) that brand equity consists of four attributes: brand awareness, brand loyalty, brand association, and appreciation of quality However, the research just used the main structure of Aaker model The detail component in each attributes used in the research,develop by other researchers who also used model of Aaker to modify, test and apply for reality case One more thing, this detail attributes also apply in reality by AC NielsenVietnam (2010), specializes in paper industry

3 Models of brand equity

According to Aaker (1991& 1996) and Keller (1993), brand equity consists of four attributes: brand awareness, brand loyalty, brand association, and appreciation of quality These attributes are antecedents of brand equity that have been commonly used and accepted by many researchers (Keller, 1993; Hague and Jackson, 1994; Quelch and Harding, 1996; Wood, 2000; Berry, 2000; Yoo, and Donthu, 2001)

3 1 Brand awareness

Brand awareness is defined as the ability for a buyer who can recognize or recall that

a brand is a member of certain product category (Aaker, 1991) Brand awareness includes consumer recognition, brand recall, top-of-mind awareness, and knowledge dominance, recall performance of brands, and brand attitude (Keller, 1993) Brand awareness influences consumer decision-making by affecting the strength of this brand Thus, brand awareness consists of both brand recognition and brand recall (Rossiter and Percy, 1987; Keller, 1993) The several researchers argue that positive brand awareness has significant influence on marketing activities related to a product/service brand and support to successful brand equity Brand awareness is antecedent that influences the creation of brand equity through successful customer relationships (Kim, and Kang, 2008; Yoo and Donthu, 2001)

3 2 Brand association

Brand association is defined as anything linked in memory to a brand and brand image as a set of associations, usually in some meaningful way (Aaker, 1991) Moreover, brand association involving attributes, benefits, and attitudes can be stored in consumer's

benefits of service linked in memory to a brand, suitable to the customer's characteristic and encourage to better attitudes for service brand The association has a level of strength link to a brand will be stronger when it is based on many experiences (Aaker, 1991; Aaker and Keller, 1990) Brand association is an antecedent that influences the creation

of brand equity through successful customer relationships (Kim and Kang, 2008)

3 3 Appreciation of quality

Appreciation of quality is defined as the consumer's perceived quality and value of product/service brand and impressive of brand that obtains to superior product/service quality more than expectance In addition, the consumer's judgment definitely creates a product's overall excellence or superiority (Zeithaml, 1988) It therefore is based on consumer's or users' subjective evaluations of service quality Kim and Kim, 2005 indicate to the appreciation of quality is a dimension that positively influences the creation of brand equity in service firm It has the most important antecedent of brand equity

3 4 Brand loyalty

Brand loyalty is defined as a deeply held commitment to repurchase or repertoire

a preferred product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive brand or same brand set purchases, despite situational influence and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior (Oliver, 1997) Chaudhuri (1997) has proposed that brand loyalty is the preference of a customer to buy a single brand, or to buy a particular brand name in a product class regularly The consumer repurchases the brand and resists switching to another A high level of brand loyalty indicates a tendency

same-to buy only a signal brand in a product category, not a multi-loyalty purchase intention

In this study, brand loyalty is antecedent that influences the creation of brand equity in service firm's (Kim and Kim, 2005).

Figure 2 - Brand equity by Aaker (1991)

4 Formula to measure general brand equity

Many researchers have tried to develop a numeral form for every attribute whose total sum would define an overall consumer-based brand equity level The model integrated both attributes important for consumer and attributes important for companies that respectively reflects perceptual and behavioral consumer-based brand equity dimensions discriminated in literature (Myers, 2003; Keller et al., 1999) Brand awareness, brand association, perceived value were discriminated as attributes important for consumers, loyalty for a brand was marked as attribute important for the company According to this model, the overall consumer based brand equity (Q) can be expressed by a formula (1):

Q = [5 × (Awareness) + 4 × (Brand association) + 4 × (Perceived value) + 5 × (Brand loyalty)]/18 (1)

CHAPTER 3- RESEARCH METHOD

In this chapter, the methodology for this research is outlined and discussed The purpose is to get an overview of how primary data be observed compared with secondary data This chapter starts with the purpose of research, follows by research approach, data collection methods, the sample and finally is the data analysis.

1 Conceptual framework:

The conceptual framework based on the research model which was mentioned in literature theory above of Aaker (1999) The model attempts to measure how well brand equity built from 4 attributes As the model, four components include brand awareness, brand association, brand loyalty and appreciation of quality that contribute to a strong brand equity or weak brand equity

Figure 4- Research model (Adapted from Aaker, 1999)

The research model base on the model of Aaker (1999) about brand equity However, the elements of each attribute were built by another author and researcher which already build, modify and apply in reality by renowned research company- AC

Nielsen- to measure brand equity of a brand Moreover, a formula to calculate the total brand equity was developed by Myers, 2003; Keller et al., 1999 to have precise compare between two paper brand- Double A and Paper One.

2 Research process

In the research study, the process is divided into four steps:

 Step 1: Based on the problem statement, literature was reviewed and research model was constructed A questionnaire was designed and test by pilot test

 Step 2: Distributed survey to collect 216 samples

 Step 3: Base on data analysis, some significant finding was explored to satisfy research objective 1 and research objective 2

 Step 4: Combine from finding from 2 research objectives, and secondary data (industry and company background), find out solutions to improve brand performance was

The figure 5 has summary the research process as below

Figure 5- Research process

Industry & company background

-Company data source-Internet searching data

DA brand RO 2: Compare DA brand with key competitor

(current and past)

RO 3: Find out the

Chapter 2: Literature review

Questionnaire design & pilot test

Data collection

- Sample: Main decision maker/ partially

involved in purchasing stationary

- Sample size: 216

- Sampling: Snowball, purposive

Chapter 3: Research methodology

Chapter 5: Data analysis

Chapter 4: Industry & company overview

Chapter 6: Recommendation

3 Measurement design

To give a structure to the survey is the questions were grouped according to themes.The structure of the survey is presented in the form of a list of variables in the table First, paper brands were evaluated with 4 brand attributes, which were based on the literature The questions were formulated in the same way and direction in order to avoid confusion

or misunderstandings that a reversed question might cause However, brand awareness is

a special case In brand awareness, it was measured by 100 percentages instead of 5 of mean scale like other attributes After measured, brand awareness will be standardized to the same scale like other attribute's base on the follow formula

Kapferer (2005), Keller (2003)Farquhar & Herr (1993) , Chen, (1996) , Brown & Dacin (1997) , Biel (1992) , Chen (2001)

Perceived This brand has high whiteness Aaker (1991), Kapferer (1991),

value

(PE)

This brand has high smoothness

This brand can photo both sides

This brand doesn’t cause jamming

Kamakura and Russell (1991), Martin and Brown (1991), Feldwick (1996)

Brand

Loyalty (BL)

Your satisfy with the paper brandYou're frequently buying with the paper brandHow about your price elastic with the paper brand

How about your willing referent the paper brand with your family/ friend

Aaker (1996a), Grembler and Brown (1996), Chaudhuri & Holbrook (2001), Oliver (1997, 1999)

4 Questionnaire design

4 1 First draft

Based on literature review and secondary data, we consider factors that most influence on brand equity and design a questionnaire to specifically uncover the insights and underlying reasons for her purchasing behavior

This questionnaire for paper users are divided into 6 parts:

1) General information

2) Evaluate about brand awareness of Double A brand and Double A’ key competitor

in the consumer's mind

3) Evaluate about brand association of Double A brand and Double A’ key competitor in the consumer's mind

4) Evaluate about the perceived value of the Double A brand and Double A’ key competitor of consumers

5) Evaluate about the brand loyalty of Double A brand and Double A’ key competitor

of consumers

6) Personal information

Both the multiple responses and the 5-point Likert scale are used with the questionnaires After having in depth interview combined with pre-test of the questionnaires, some of the identical variables were deleted The questionnaires were finally redesigned and reformed to conduct the quantitative research