Brand Equity Mba Dissertation G

1
Brand Equity in the Bath Foams Category in

Greece: A descriptive approach

www.grossolatos.com

Submitted in partial IulIilment oI the requirement oI
the degree oI Master oI Business Administration oI the
University oI Strathclyde

THE UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

George Rossolatos

2005

2
ABSTRACT

This dissertation explores the key aspects oI consumer-based brand equity in
the Bath Foams category in Greece. By using a descriptive approach an
attempt is made to carve the equity territory oI the major brands in the
concerned market.

A combination oI secondary and primary research methods are recruited in
order to determine the category`s key value drivers in brand equity terms,
discern key brands` relative positioning, examine the relationship between
market perIormance and brand equity and unearth consumers` associations
with regard to key brands.

The research Iindings are an attestation oI the importance oI brand equity in
the Bath Foams category, based on relevant literature, and the eIIect oI the lack
oI equity Ior certain brands on consumer perceptions.

Finally, by drawing on the Iindings pertaining to the equity status oI the
category`s leading brand, Dove, an attempt is made to demonstrate the eIIect a
'multiple brand personalities syndrome may have on brands, in particular
Palmolive, in terms oI unclear consumer associations and the inability to attain
diIIerential positioning. This comparative outlook points to the importance oI a
coherent brand equity platIorm across all brand communications and new
product development endeavours.

3
Contents

1. Introduction/Chapters Overview ................ 7

2. Industry Overview............. ........ 10
2.1 Introduction 11
2.2 Size, growth and distribution channels oI the Bath Foams category 11
2.3 Market structure and key brand players 11
2.4 New product development and media spending in the Bath 12
Foams category
2.5 Conclusion 13

3. Literature Review....................... 14
3.1 Introduction 15
3.2 What is a brand and why is it relevant to brand management? 15
3.3 The emergence oI the concept oI brand equity 16
3.4 The three categories oI brand-equity measures 20
3.4.1 The Iinancial approach 21
3.4.2 Brand extensions 24
3.4.3 Consumer based brand equity 26
3.5 Conceptual Framework: Brand Equity Pyramid in the Bath 31
Foams category
3.6 Consumer-based Brand Equity and market perIormance 34
3.7 Measuring consumer-based brand equity 35
3.8 Conclusion 39

4. Methodology........................ 41
4.1 Introduction 42
4.2 Purpose oI the study/Research objectives 42
4.3 Research approach 42
4.3.1 Overview oI research methodology 42
4.3.2 Quantitative research 43
4.3.3 Qualitative research 43
4.4 Research design 44
4.4.1 Quantitative method 44
4.4.2 Qualitative method 45
4.4.2.1 In-depth interviews discussion guide 47

4
4.5 Fieldwork 50
4.6 Methods oI analysis 50
4.7 Limitations oI the research methods 56
4.8 Conclusion 58

5. Analysis of Findings..................... 59
5.1 Introduction 60
5.2 Objective 1 Main Findings: Determining the key equity dimensions in
the Brand Equity Pyramid 60
5.3 Objective 2 Main Findings: Determining the relationship between
brand equity and market perIormance 62
5.4 Objective 3 Main Findings: Discerning whether there is
suIIicient diIIerentiation among the key brand players 66
5.5 Objective 4 Main Findings: Descriptive overview oI the
primary and secondary brand associations oI key brand players 67
5.6 Conclusion 81

6. Conclusions and Recommendations for further research.......82
6.1 Introduction 83
6.2 Integrated Marketing Communications as a way oI building and
sustaining brand diIIerentiation, competitive advantage and brand
equity in the Bath Foams category 83
6.3 New product development as a way oI building and sustaining
brand diIIerentiation, competitive advantage and brand equity in
the Bath Foams category 87
6.4 Limitations oI the research 88
6.5 Recommendations Ior Iurther research 89
6.6 Conclusion 90

Appendices...........................91
Appendix I-Bibliography 92
Appendix II- ProIile oI Qualitative Research inIormants 97
Appendix III-Moodboard Technique output (collages) 101
Appendix IV- Brand Maps 112

5
List of Figures
Figure 1- Keller`s Brand Knowledge Structure 28
Figure 2- Keller`s and Davey`s Brand Equity Pyramid 30
Figure 3- Rendition oI Keller`s and Davey`s Brand Equity Pyramid in the 31
Bath Foams market
Figure 4- Brand Dynamics Pyramid 38
Figure 5- The Wheel oI Integrated Marketing Communications 85

List of Tables
Table 1 Share oI market oI key brands in the Bath Foams market 12
Table 2- Interbrand`s brand valuation process 24
Table 3- Bath Foams Brand Equity Pyramid Building blocks and attributes 33
Table 4- PerIormance oI key brands in the Bath Foams Category against
Brand Equity Pyramid building blocks 60
Table 5- Correlation coeIIicients ( r ) between awareness/brand salience
and Brand Equity building blocks in the Bath Foams category 61
Table 6- Market perIormance variables by key brand player in the Bath
Foams market 62
Table 7- Correlation between Average Brand Equity and Market share 63
Table 8- Correlation between Average Brand Equity and Volume Sales 63
Table 9- Correlation between Average Brand Equity and Value Sales 63
Table 10- Share oI market/Share oI voice oI key brands in 2004 64
Table 11- Share oI market/Weighted distribution oI key brands in 2004 64
Table12- Output oI Double-centered normalization (DCN) 66

6

CHAPTER 1: Introduction / Chapters Overview

7
Introduction

This chapter provides an overview oI the dissertation chapters` contents. The
dissertation starts with an exposition oI the Bath Foam category`s structure that
constitutes the Irame oI reIerence Ior the brands explored in the Iollowing
chapters. It continues with the literature review oI the main perspectives on
brand equity and the review oI the methodological Iramework and methods oI
data collection and analysis. The research outcomes are then displayed in the
Main Findings chapter and Iurther discussed in the Conclusions and
Recommendations Ior Iuture research chapter.

Chapter 2- Industry Overview
This chapter illustrates the Bath Foams category main characteristics,
alongside a proIiling oI each oI the main brands. It includes an overview oI
growth trends, purchasers` attitudes towards the category and the relative
market shares oI key brand players.

Chapter 3- Literature Review
The main perspectives that have been used by academics and practitioners
alike Ior conceptualizing brand equity are laid out. Consumer based brand
equity is explored at greater length, with a Iocus on K.L.Keller`s Brand
Knowledge Structure and Brand Equity Pyramid, which constitutes the basis
Ior portraying the Brand Equity Pyramid Ior the Bath Foams market.

Chapter 4- Methodology
This chapter presents the purpose oI the study and the main research
objectives, along with the methodological Iramework, and the respective
methods oI data collection and analysis oI brand equity in the Bath Foams
market.

Chapter 5- Main Findings
The Main Findings chapter provides an outline oI the primary and secondary
research Iindings. The exposition oI the data takes place according to the
research objectives and against the background oI the selected methods oI
analysis.

Chapter 6- Conclusions and recommendations for future research

8
Finally, reIlections on the main Iindings, Iocusing on Dove and Palmolive
brands are presented as concluding remarks, with an emphasis on the role oI
brand communications and new product development as sources oI consumer
based brand equity.

Conclusion

This chapter provided a summary oI the main contents that make up the Iabric
oI this dissertation, which will be Iurther explored in the Iollowing chapters.

9

CHAPTER 2: Industry Overview

10
2.1 Introduction

This chapter provides an overview oI the Bath Foams category characteristics
1
.
It starts with a description oI the category`s size in terms oI value and volume
sales, growth, main distribution channels, structure and proceeds with an
exposition oI the market players and key brands` market shares. Then, allusion
is made to the key segments oI the category and competitors` activity in terms
oI new product development and media spending levels.

2.2 Size, growth and distribution channels of the Bath Foams
category

The Bath Foams category constitutes a signiIicant part oI the overall Body care
market that includes all products that relate to body treatment, such as Body
Lotions, Deodorants, Soaps, Liquid Hand Soaps and Anti cellulite Creams.

In Greece, category related consumer spending amounted to 44.000.000 t
value sales and 5.610.000 liters volume sales in 2004. During the last year, the
bath Ioams market grew slightly by 1, while during the last 4 years the
market increased on average by 2 per year.

The main distribution channels through which the category is sold are the
Iollowing:
Supermarkets/ Hypermarkets (80 oI the category`s sales)
Pharmacies/ Drugstore (10 oI the category`s sales)
Department Stores (such as Hondos, Beauty Shop) that absorb the rest
10 oI the category`s sales.

2.3 Market structure and key brand players

As regards structure, the Bath Foams market is rather Iragmented, considering
that the leading brand`s value share (Johnson`s and Johnson`s) is 14,
Iollowed by Dove and Palmolive with 11 market share. However, Johnson
and Johnson`s largest proportion oI market share stems Irom the baby and

1
All data contained in this chapter stem Irom AC Nielsen`s Body Care category report (Greece) 2004

11
Iamily segments. In terms oI market perIormance in the Iemale Bath Foams
segment, Dove is the leading brand.

Table 1 - Share of market of key brands in the Bath Foams market
2004
J&J 13,8%
DOVE 11,0%
PALMOLIVE 10,8%
BADEDAS 7,8%
LUX 7,3%
SANEX 5,1%
FA 4,9%
NIVEA 2,8%
ALL OTHERS 36,5%
Share of market

Source: AC Nielsen ScanTrack database 2004

The main companies and respective brands that compete in the Bath Foams
market are the Iollowing:
Unilever with Dove, Lux and Axe brands
Procter & Gamble with Camay and Noxzema brands
Henkel with Fa brand
Colgate Palmolive with Palmolive brand
Sare Lee with Badedas, Sanex, Proderm, Inco and Fissan brands
Johnson & Johnson with Johnson & Johnson brand
BDF with Nivea brand

As regards market segmentation, the Iemale segment has the highest
contribution in the category`s sales, with Dove and Palmolive being the major
competitors. Finally, certain brands, such as Axe and Gillette target solely the
male segment. The majority oI the above mentioned brands (Dove, Axe, Fa,
Palmolive, Sanex, Johnson & Johnson, Nivea) also compete in other body care
categories (e.g Deodorants, Liquid Hand Soaps).

2.4 New product development and media spending in the Bath
Foams category

The Bath Foams market is characterized by intense new product development
(more than 15 new products/line extensions are introduced every year) on

12
behalI oI all competitors in their eIIort to enhance their competitive position in
the market. New products` elements include new Iragrances, end beneIits
(advanced moisture, relaxation, sensuality, exIoliation etc.) and pack
aesthetics. With an increased interest in personal treatment, consumers appear
to be keen on trying new products and adopting those that oIIer innovative
attributes or enhancement oI existing oIIerings. In addition, consumers appear
to be repertoire purchasers, being inIluenced by media communication and
value-adding promotions
2
.

With regard to media support, the category is highly advertised, considering
that the media to sales ratio is more than 15, with reported media
expenditures oI around 6.000.000 $ in 2004. Various communicative vehicles
are used to communicate the category by the majority oI competitors, such as
television, radio, the internet, magazines, outdoor.

2.5 Conclusion

This chapter provided the Irame oI reIerence Ior this dissertation in terms oI
market structure and characteristics. InsoIar as the market is characterized by a
proliIeration oI new products and Iragmentation, the sustainability oI
distinctive product propositions in terms oI brand equity is an issue that merits
exploration, as the next chapter will attempt to illustrate.

2
These behavioral characteristics stem Irom company Iunded Usage & Attitudes studies.

13

CHAPTER 3: Literature Review

14

3.1 Introduction

This chapter provides an overview oI the main perspectives whereby brand
equity has been conceptualized. It opens up with a brieI deIinition oI 'brand,
which constitutes the very Ioundation oI brand equity and proceeds with an
exposition oI the concept oI brand equity, how it emerged and why it is useIul
to a wide range oI business-related proIessions, including accountants and
marketers.

Pursuant to the deIinition oI brand equity, the chapter hinges upon the three
broad perspectives that have been used so Iar by academics and practitioners
alike in the process oI conceptualizing and putting brand equity in practice.
Since the main area oI practice with which the authors are concerned is
marketing, particular emphasis is laid on the consumer-based brand equity
perspective. K.L.Keller`s Brand Knowledge Structure and Brand Equity
Pyramid are drawn upon in greater detail.

3.2 What is a brand and why is it relevant to brand management?

According to the American Marketing Association, a brand is 'a name, term,
sign, symbol or design or a combination oI them intended to identiIy the goods
and services oI one seller or group oI sellers and to diIIerentiate them Irom
those oI competition (quoted in Keller, 1998, p.2).

The key concept in the above deIinition is differentiation. Hence, a brand is
primarily what makes otherwise undiIIerentiated commodities look diIIerent to
the eyes oI consumers and more importantly, being perceived as such. This
constitutes the integrated deIinition oI a brand, as 'a mechanism Ior achieving
competitive advantage through diIIerentiation (Wood, 2000, p.667). InsoIar
as diIIerentiation is a key source oI sustainable competitive advantage, the
importance oI branding can hardly be overlooked by today`s businesses. 'The
strongest brands are those brands that have developed unique, meaningIul
diIIerences that set them apart in the mind oI the consumer (Biel, 1997).
'Brands, especially strong ones, have a number oI diIIerent types oI
associations and marketers must account Ior all oI them in making marketing
decisions (Keller, 1998, p.5).

15
Hence, insoIar as branding is concerned with sustaining diIIerences among
otherwise similar products and given that these diIIerences are substantiated in
the Iorm oI the associations that consumers make about them, the management
oI a brand should be concerned with systematically managing brand
associations. As KapIerer (1999, p.25) notes, 'the value oI a brand comes Irom
its ability to gain an exclusive, positive and prominent meaning in the minds oI
a large number oI consumers. Pursuant to the deIinition oI 'brand, the
concept oI brand equity is explored in the ensuing sections.

3.3 The emergence of the concept of brand-equity

'The origins oI measuring brand equity as a corporate asset lie in the takeover
battles oI the 1970s, where a ledger value was Iound useIul as a way oI
recording intangible assets on the balance sheet (Morgan, 1993).
'In a wave oI mergers and acquisitions, triggered by attempts to take up
advantageous positions in the single European market, market transactions
pushed prices way above what could have been expected (KapIerer,1999,
p.15).
Flat growth rates and the increasing concern with cost cutting initiatives and
aggressive market share acquisition paved the way Ior new ways oI corporate
thinking, while the need Ior leveraging brands Ior enhancing proIits emerged
to the IoreIront. 'As support Ior this alternative, studies oI consumer brands in
diIIerent markets Iound that successIul brand extensions spent less on
advertising than comparable new products (Pitta & Katsanis, 1995, p. 51). As
these rather extensive methods oI reducing costs reached their apex, proIit
boosting mechanisms were actively sought by businesses. One oI the
mechanisms that were put Iorward was the application oI Iinancial measures to
corporate assets, both tangible and intangible. In this context, marketing
managers and researchers alike sought to attach a monetary value to brands
(Dyson, Farr, and Hollis, 1996). Prior to that critical turn, the concept oI brand
image was peripheral; it was seen by many advertisers and researchers as oI
little relevance to the real task oI brand communications, that is to
communicate brand messages, induce brand switching or retaining the current
consumer Iranchise and increase sales. The emergence oI the brand equity
concept was inextricably linked to the recognition oI brands as primary agents
oI cash generation.

16
Feldwick (1996) suggests that brand equity has three diIIerent aspects, that is
the value oI a brand as a separable asset when sold or included in a balance
sheet, the string oI associations, belieIs and Ieelings consumers have about the
brand and the strength oI consumers' associations about a brand. In a nutshell,
the three main dimensions oI brand equity, according to Feldwick, consist in
brand value, brand strength and brand image.

Despite the proliIeration oI research papers and models that have been
constructed in order to tackle this complex topic, there is no one widely
accepted deIinition oI brand equity (Keller, 1999; Ehrenberg, 1997). The term
means diIIerent things to diIIerent companies and brands. However, there are
several common characteristics oI the many deIinitions that are used today.
The Iollowing deIinitions are an attestation oI the Iact that brand equity is
multi-dimensional.

The Marketing Science Institute (1998) deIines brand equity as, "The set oI
associations and behaviours on the part oI the brand's customers, channel
members, and parent corporations that permit the brand to earn greater volume
or greater margins than it could without the brand name and that gives the
brand a strong, sustainable, and diIIerentiated advantage over competitors"
(quoted in Srivastava & Shocker, 1991, p.5).

According to David A. Aaker (1991), brand equity is "a set oI brand assets and
liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol that add to or subtract Irom
the value provided by a product or service to a Iirm and/or that Iirm's
customers."

Keller (1998, p.44) stresses that 'researchers studying brand equity at
least.acknowledge that brand equity provides a common denominator Ior
interpreting marketing strategies and assessing the value oI a brand.

There are several stake-holders concerned with brand equity, encompassing the
Iirm, the consumer, the trade, the Iinancial market . However, the consumer is
indubitably the most critical component in deIining brand equity. While brand
equity has come to stand Ior a Iinancial concept associated with the valuation

17
placed on a brand, it is useIul to recognise that the equity oI a brand is driven
by brand image, a consumer (or customer) concept. (Biel 1991).
The beneIits potentially stemming Irom building and managing eIIectively and
eIIiciently the equity oI a brand have been widely explored by various
researchers. According to Keller (1998), brand equity may lead to greater
loyalty, less vulnerability to competitive market actions and market crises,
larger margins, more inelastic consumer response to price increases, more
elastic response to price decreases, greater trade cooperation and support,
increased market communication eIIectiveness, possible licensing
opportunities, additional brand extension opportunities. Morgan (2000) adds
that a brand with a strong equity might imply the incremental cash Ilow Irom
branding vs non-branding. Complementary to the beneIits oI brand equity to
the producer, De Chernatony (2001, p.31) stresses that 'there are signiIicant
beneIits to the consumer, such as identiIication, which simpliIies the brand
choice decision making process, eIIicient risk assessment as the brand oIIers a
guarantee oI consistent product quality and a representation Iramework,
satisIying hedonistic needs oI embodying social status.

According to Biel (1997), two sets oI attributes distinguish strong Irom weak
brands, what he calls output` and input` response items. Output items reIlect
consumer reaction to strong versus weak brands, and include elements such as
relative perceived quality. Input elements include characteristics, such as
length oI time in business. Stronger brands are more likely to be seen as
unique, they enjoy higher perceived quality relative to their competitors and
they are more likely to evoke vivid, rich imagery among consumers. Input
Iactors that diIIerentiate strong brands included a sense oI history; that stronger
brands have a higher likelihood oI withstanding the 'test oI time'. In addition,
as Morgan (2000) points out, strong brands are normally diIIerentiated,
carrying clear perceptions, which allow them to maintain points oI
diIIerentiation against competition. The author draws another key distinction
regarding brand attributes, between those that pertain to Iunctionality and
perIormance and the soIter, more emotional and intangible issues related to
branding. SoIter attributes are claimed to lead to the aIIinity` that consumers
have Ior the pure branded side oI the product. The above distinction echoes the
classic distinction between tangible and intangible brand elements, which has
been employed extensively by both accountants and marketers over the years

18
(also rendered as product and non-product related attributes by Keller (1998)
or the soIter side` oI branding by Biel (1991, 1997), as will be Iurther
discussed in the context oI the consumer-based brand equity perspective).

Brand equity is built primarily via the employment oI consistent aesthetic cues
and consistent messages (Keller, 1998), thus allowing consumers to distinguish
among brands and their product attributes. As consumers compare and contrast
the tangible product Ieatures in alliance with price and intangible elements
(such as projected user/usage image), they arrive at a set oI products in a
category, which they consider Ior purchase, called the salient set. ThereIore, a
brand`s equity is dependent on eIIective communications to the target
market(s), while it may be improved to some extent in tandem with
communications eIIectiveness. 'The challenge oI marketing communications
is to communicate the right message, in the right way, to the right people, in
the right place, at the right time (Pickton & Broderick, 2003, p.13).

As regards the process oI building brand equity on behalI oI the consumer, it is
oIten described as a tradeoII exercise among various Iactors (Morgan, 1993) in
which consumers enter when they consider their salient set prior to making a
purchase decision. In particular, consumers actively trade oII both the
perceived tangible beneIits and the perceived intangible beneIits delivered by
products in their salient set, against price, to arrive at a value hierarchy, which
Iorms the basis Ior the purchase decision. The above constitute a brieI
overview oI the conceptual model oI the Brand Price Trade OII research
technique, which was developed by Morgan (1993) in order to explore brand
equity (which evolved into the much more complex research tool,
EquityEngine, see Morgan & Carter, 1998). Since then, a variety oI models
have been coined by both academics (eg. Keller, KapIerer, Aaker, De
Chernatony) and practitioners (eg. Research International, Millward Brown,
JWT, Young & Rubicam, Brand Finance, Interbrand, EquiTrend) alike Ior
operationalizing the concept oI brand equity.

Brands that have high perceived value have a greater likelihood oI being
included in a consumer`s salient set. II a brand`s combined tangible and
intangible values are consistently higher than any other brand in the category,
that brand will have the highest customer loyalty in terms oI purchase,
repurchase, and recommendation. Competing brands can only improve their

19
loyalty against the brand equity leader by lowering price in the short term,
improving their product`s tangible Ieatures in the mid term, or improving their
brand`s intrinsic values, or equity, in the long term. 'Although price reductions
are more commonly employed to improve perceived value, in reality they are
oIten more expensive than adding value through various brand building
marketing activities (Keller, 1998, p.187).

Hence, the emergence oI the concept oI brand equity came in recognition oI
the value oI brands as assets and the importance oI managing them eIIiciently
and eIIectively with view to maintaining the long term viability oI a company.
The Iocus oI this chapter will now turn to an overview oI the three main
perspectives, whereby brand equity has been conceptualized.

3.4 The three categories of brand-equity measures

The delineation oI methods Ior measuring and managing brand equity is a
challenging task to marketing managers, advertisers, marketing researchers and
accountants, as the resulting value oI a brand may be leveraged in order to
increase the likelihood oI brand selection and ultimately lead to brand loyalty.
This challenge is even more demanding Ior Iragmented and repertoire driven
markets, such as Bath Foams.

Recent literature addressing brand equity indicates that there are several
diIIerent approaches to measurement, largely Ialling under two major
categories, that is those concerned with the Iinancial aspects oI brand valuation
and those concerned with the consumer behavior aspects oI brands (Pitta &
Katsanis, 1995). The consumer behavior category is Iurther split into those
Iocusing on brand equity as a springboard Ior brand extensions (eg. Pitta &
Katsanis, 1995, De Chernatony & Martinez, 2004, Martinez & Pina, 2003) and
those Iocusing on the generic consumer eIIects oI brand equity (eg. Aaker,
1991, 1997, Keller, 1998, 2001).

Brand equity can be addressed at either the corporate level or the category
level and can also be addressed using internal data or external data. The
diIIerent strands oI thought tend not to dispute the others` deIinitions, but
rather they recognize them while postulating their own versions. Authors (i.e.

20
Keller) oIten use the deIinitions oI others as a springboard Ior their work,
while Iormulating their own deIinitions oI brand equity.

In the subsequent sections the three diIIerent perspectives Ior conceptualizing
and measuring brand equity are displayed, that is the Iinancial, the brand
extensions and the consumer-based brand equity perspective, with a Iocus on
the third one.

3.4.1 Financial Perspective

Exponents oI the Iinancial perspective oI brand equity (Simon and Sullivan,
1993, Davis and Douglass, 1995) stress that without putting a monetary value
to each brand, companies are unable to quantiIy the total value oI their assets.
The importance behind the need Ior this knowledge comes into play when a
company is incumbent on acquisition or attempts to counteract an aggressive
take over bid. Without a clear understanding oI the value oI each brand, the
worth oI a company may be undervalued, which may lead to a Iinancial loss
Ior the company`s stockholders (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, and Donthu, 1995;
Mahajan, Rao, and Srivastava, 1994).

The Iinancial approach to deIining brand equity is largely concerned with
assigning a measurable value to every brand a company owns or produces. The
researchers and marketing managers who use the Iinancial approach propound
that a brand is a viable asset (Davis and Douglass, 1995). ThereIore, a value
must be assigned to it, while brand equity by deIinition is an intangible asset.
The key challenge rests with determining this value. The methods utilized so
Iar include the value oI brand names (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, and Donthu,
1995), and the cause and eIIect oI advertising on brand loyalty and its
relationship to equity (Blackston, 1995; OakenIull and Gelb, 1996). These
same mechanisms are used in the second area oI Iinancial evaluation, mergers
and acquisitions. Under or over valuations can create huge losses or excessive
proIits Ior companies.

KapIerer (1997) reports that there are two major strands oI thought Ior brand
valuation, the one relying on historical costs and the other on projected Iuture
cash Ilows. 'The Iinancial value oI the brand is the diIIerence between the

21
extra revenue generated by the brand and the asociated costs Ior the next Iew
years, which are discounted back today (Keller, 1998, p.32).

While there are many methods Ior conducting this measurement, some oI
which are described below, it is important to note that there is a signiIicant
diIIerence between an "objective" valuation created Ior balance sheet purposes,
and the actual price that a brand may get when sold. 'A certain amount oI
uncertainty and heterogeneity, which are against the rules oI caution, would be
created iI these were included in the balance sheet (KapIerer, 1997, p.386).
For acquisitions, the value oI a brand to a certain consumer is oIten estimated
through scenario planning. This involves determining what Iuture cash Ilows
could be achieved by the company iI it owned and took advantage oI the brand.
What this means is that there is no such thing as an absolute value Ior a brand,
and brand value must be considered as only one component oI the overall
equity oI a brand.

There are several possible ways to measure brand equity in Iinancial terms, as
reported by KapIerer (1997, pp.398-410):

1. Valuation by replacement costs: By taking the various characteristics oI a
brand into account (awareness, relative market share, distribution network etc.)
an attempt is made to measure brand equity as the replacement cost oI the
brand over a generic equivalent, that is how much it would take to build an
equivalent brand. Alternatively, replacement value can be estimated as book
value. Allegedly, this method suIIers Irom a high level subjectivity.

2. Valuation by market price: Drawing on valuation practices popular in
markets such as real estate, the valuation by market price approach attempts to
place a Iinancial value on brands by looking at similar brands in the market.
The problem with this approach lies with the diIIerence in that whereas in real
estate the price oI a house remains the same irrespective oI the use the owner
makes oI it, in the case oI brands, the price-setter is the consumer, based on the
perceptions s/he holds oI brands. 'In abstract terms, the purchase price is not
the price paid Ior the brand but is the interaction between brand and purchaser
(KapIerer, 1997, p.400). Whether a brand can command the price asked Ior it
in the marketplace is in large part determined by how it is perceived by the

22
buyer, and whether someone continues to buy the same brand is also in large
part a Iunction oI their attitudes toward it (Dyson, P., Farr, A., and Hollis , N.,
1996).

3. Valuation by potential earnings: Brand Equity is evaluated by discounting
the value oI Iuture earnings projections and adding to the value the cost
competitors would incur iI they duplicated the brand.

4. Incremental Cash Flow from Branding: Brand equity is estimated by
determining the cash Ilows oI a brand and subtracting the cash Ilows Irom an
unbranded product. The estimation challenge becomes more diIIicult as the
product oI interest belongs to an increasingly diIIerentiated category. For
example, it is harder to Iind a generic equivalent Ior cars than Ior cigarettes.

5. Price/Earnings Multiplier: Multiplying current earnings by an estimate Ior
P/E multiple yields an equity price. The critical step is estimating the P/E
multiplier. One approach that has been put Iorward is to measure brand
strength by a weighted average oI seven Iactors (Penrose, 1989). Then, the P/E
multiplier is estimated using and S-shaped relationship between brand strength
and the P/E multiple that is based on similarities to risk Iree rates, industry
rates, and other Iactors.

In addition to the aIorementioned methods, Interbrand, which calculates the
worth oI the world`s most valuable brands on an annual basis, examines the
economic proIit that a brand generates Ior the underlying business (Motameni
& Shahrokhi, 1998). This valuation process comprises three areas oI brand
proIitability: the Iuture economic earnings that the branded business is
expected to generate, the role oI the brand in generating those earnings and the
risk proIile oI the brand`s expected earnings. Essentially, Interbrand dissects a
company`s proIit-and-loss statement to assign a value to the business`s brands.

Morgan (1993) illustrates Interbrand`s brand valuation process as Iollows:

23
Table 2- Interbrand`s brand valuation process
Branding multiple Brand earnings
ProIit beIore tax Subjective marks Ior:
Less proIits Irom own label market leadership
Weighting Irom previous years market type
Disregards Iuture proIits trend
investment
protection
Brand valuation
(some multiple) x brand earnings

Adapted Irom Morgan, R.P., 1993, p.6

The author criticizes Interbrand`s model as a subjective process that dwells on
past perIormance at the expense oI Iuture proIits.

The major disadvantage with the Iinancial approach oI deIining brand equity is
that it Iocuses on maximizing short-term goals at the expense oI long-term
growth (Aaker, 1992; Davis and Douglass, 1995). 'This is not to say that the
accountancy` driven deIinition is wrong, merely that its useIulness is
elsewhere, and that any attempt to understand individual patterns oI purchasing
behaviour must grapple with the way individuals perceive brands, and the way
in which these perceptions lead to some kind oI brand standing or strength
(Morgan, 2000, p.4).

3.4.2 Brand Extensions Perspective

The second major perspective in conceptualizing and measuring brand equity
is concerned with brand extensions (Pitta and Katsanis, 1995; Baldinger,
1990). In this context, brand equity is approached in terms oI a brand`s ability
to act as a springboard Ior the development oI similar brand types (extensions).
'Recent history shows that more than halI oI the new brands marketed during
the 1980s were extensions oI existing products, marketed under existing brand
names (Pitta & Katsanis, 1995, p. 51).

24
The main thrust that transverses the argumentation in the relevant literature is
that the more equity a brand holds, the more capable it is oI expanding into
relevant territories. The parent brand may eIIectively act as a springboard Ior
stretching into the same, similar or diIIerent product categories. Based on the
parent brand associations stored in consumers` memories, it is less cost
eIIective to gain awareness, Iavorability and brand salience (Keller, 1998).
Brand extensions may revitalize the parent brand, yield incremental sales,
enlarge the scope oI the existing consumer Iranchise; however, extensions may
also alienate an existing consumer base, cannibalize parent brand sales and
dilute its image (Martinez & Pina, 2003). Extending a brand essentially entails
enlarging the breadth and depth oI parent brand associations, in such as way as
to enable the extension to gain in brand salience and the Iavored associations
oI the parent brand to migrate into its kernel.

According to Keller (1998, p.472) the beneIits oI an extension will depend
primarily on the Iollowing three main Iactors:
- how salient parent brand associations are in the minds oI consumers in the
extension context
- how Iavorable any inIerred associations are in the extension context
- how unique any inIerred associations are in the extension category

By assessing current brand value and past perIormance, a prediction can be
made about potential Iuture growth (Pitta and Katsanis, 1995). The same holds
Ior brand extensions. As Keller (1998) and Aaker (1996) remark, the costs oI
introducing new brands into the market are signiIicantly higher than they were
20 years ago. Barwise (1993) explains that brand extensions generally have
lower start-up costs than do brands introduced with new names. Furthermore,
calculations oI existing brand equity can be used to determine what
contributing elements can be transIerred to the brand extensions (Baldinger,
1990), by Iocusing on key structural elements oI a brand, such as name, slogan,
symbols etc.

Despite the Iact that the brand extensions approach takes into account the
consumer-based perspective, it is still largely grounded in economic theory. In

25
the next section, the third major perspective, that is consumer-based brand
equity, is described.

3.4.3 Consumer-based Brand Equity Perspective

The third major perspective consists in a consumer-based perspective oI brand
equity (Aaker, 1991; Blackston, 1995, KapIerer, 1997, Keller, 1998, Morgan,
1999). Authors in this Iield are primarily concerned with psychological,
attitudinal and behavioral aspects in an attempt to establish causal links
between market perIormance and equity related variables or research data,
such as brand usage, purchase intention, price sensitivity. In this way, they
allow the voice oI the customer to enter the brand valuation process. 'Brand
equity is based on psychological indicators, which are measured Irom the
consumers` point oI view and is only worth something iI it results in extra
proIits (KapIerer, 1997, p.388).

Aaker (1991, pp.109-113) stresses that consumers use brand associations to
help process, organize and retrieve inIormation in memory and to aid them in
making purchase decisions. He demarcates brand equity as a set oI Iive
categories oI brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, that is brand
awareness, brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand associations and other
proprietary assets (eg. patents, trademarks and trade relationships). Based on
these Iive categories Aaker puts Iorward a systematic perspective that attempts
to encapsulate brand strength. The components oI his model consist in the
Iollowing:

Brand Awareness: It indicates the Iunction oI the brand as a seal oI guarantee;
it constitutes the platIorm upon which more associations may be nurtured,
while signaling the potential oI including the brand in consumers` salient set.

Brand Loyalty: Ensures reduced marketing costs, enables trade leverage,
creates reassurance, while establishing a stronghold in times oI Iierce
competitive pressure.

26
Perceived Quality: Signals the achievement oI diIIerential positioning, while
providing a substantial reason-why Ior purchase, also Iunctioning as a
precursor to brand loyalty.

Brand Associations: Enables the retrieval and processing oI brand related
inIormation, allow Ior brand diIIerentiation, while creating positive
attitudes/Ieelings.

Other proprietary assets: Including patents, R&D know how, trade goodwill,
or whatever other source may lead to competitive advantage.

According to Aaker (1991), all the above brand equity elements allow
consumers to process brand related inIormation in a meaningIul way, to
develop brand related associations, and to gain satisIaction Irom brand usage.
On the part oI the company, they ensure the eIIective and eIIicient deployment
oI marketing programs, while enabling to command higher prices/margins and
ultimately lead to a sustainable competitive advantage.

In order Ior brand equity to be built, brands must primarily be meaningIul to
consumers. The remainder oI this chapter will delve into the essence oI brand
meaning, how it is constructed and how it may be researched in the Bath
Foams category with view to rendering brand equity manageable.

Exponents oI the consumer-based perspective Iocus on consumers` attitudinal
and behavioral patterns in order to determine brand equity. The key
components oI these patterns are awareness and brand image. The challenge is
to combine these Ieatures into a composite view oI how the consumer
perceives brand equity.

In order to systematically account Ior how consumers perceive brand equity,
Keller (1998) uses a multi-step approach in Iormulating his brand knowledge
model.

27

Figure 1- Keller`s Brand Knowledge Structure

Adapted Irom K.L.Keller, 1998, p.94

The two basic Ieatures oI the model are brand awareness and brand image.
"Brand awareness can play a dominant role in brand choice iI the customer has
strong awareness oI some brands, but not oI other brands, in part because
brands with little awareness are unlikely to be considered Ior purchase"
(Srinivasan 2001, pp.7-8). Awareness consists oI brand recall and recognition.
Brand-image consists oI type, Iavorability, strength, and uniqueness oI brand
associations. 'It deIines the cluster oI attributes and associations that
consumers connect to the brand name (A.Biel, 1991, p.71).

Keller believes that by building Iavorable brand associations, the consumer
will develop a positive attitude towards the brand. The more needs the brand
satisIies, the more positive the attitude and the more positive the brand
knowledge imprint. 'In particular, raising brand awareness increases the
likelihood that the brand will be a member oI the consideration set, the handIul
oI brands that receives serious consideration Ior purchase (Keller 1998, p. 91).
As the strength oI the memory imprint increases, the greater the likelihood that

28
the inIormation (knowledge) will become accessible to the consumer when
s/he actively thinks about a product. Awareness is built over time, through
consumers` multiple encounters with a brand and its constituent elements, that
is logo, slogan, packaging, brand character. The vehicles whereby awareness is
built are all Iorms oI brand communications, both above and below the line,
that is TV, radio, outdoor, magazine advertising, instore and onpack
promotions, sponsorships, public relations etc. However, 'awareness is a
necessary, but not always suIIicient step in building brand equity (Keller
1998, p.92).

Brand image is the second important equity concept, which has been deIined
by Keller (1998, p.92) as 'perceptions about a brand as reIlected by the brand
associations held in consumer memory. De Chernatony (2001, p.6) contends
that "associations tend to be stored in terms oI metaphors and, importantly,
they tend to aggregate in clusters". Brand associations, in turn, are classiIied by
Keller into three major categories, that is attributes, beneIits and attitudes.
Attributes are classiIied into product-related (primary brand associations), eg.
the purely Iunctional base oI products, such as ingredients, color, texture and
non-product related (secondary brand associations), such as price, usage/user
imagery, Ieelings and experiences and brand personality. BeneIits reIer to the
personal meaning consumers assign to the product attributes. Keller (1998)
identiIies three main categories oI beneIits, that is Iunctional beneIits (deriving
Irom product-related attributes), symbolic beneIits (deriving Irom non-product
related attributes) and experiential beneIits (deriving Irom both categories oI
attributes). The culmination oI attributes and perceived beneIits is the
Iormation oI brand-related attitudes, which determine the strength, Iavorability
and uniqueness oI brand associations.

AIter establishing the consumer knowledge structure oI the brand, brand
managers need to determine what actions to take to capitalize on this
knowledge structure. The brand managers must decide on the core needs and
wants oI consumers to be satisIied by the brand. Once these core needs are
identiIied, the appropriate tactics can be implemented. Also, brand managers
need to select the appropriate brand elements Ior eIIectively covering these
needs. Brand elements, according to Keller (1998, pp.135-172) consist in
brand name, logos and symbols, brand characters, slogans, jingles, packaging.

29

Pursuant to the exposition oI the Brand Knowledge structure, Keller & Davey
(2001) proceeded with the construction oI the Brand Equity Pyramid. The
brand equity pyramid essentially constitutes a portrayal oI the key components
oI brand equity. Keller & Davey conceives oI the model as a sequential
process with Iour distinctive steps, as Iollows:

(i) ensuring identiIication oI the brand with customers and an association oI the
brand in customers` mind with a speciIic product class or customer need
(ii) establishing the totality oI brand meaning in the minds oI customers by
strategically linking a host oI tangible and intangible brand associations
(iii) eliciting the proper customer responses to brand identity and brand
meaning
(iv) converting brand response to create an intense, active loyalty between
customers and the brand

From this stepwise process, Keller & Davey identiIy 6 brand-building blocks,
which are portrayed in the Pyramid as Iollows:

Figure 2- Keller`s and Davey`s Brand Equity Pyramid

Adapted Irom K.L.Keller & K.K.Davey, 2001, p. 9

30
3.5 Brand Equity Pyramid in the Bath Foams category

This section outlines a rendition oI the Brand Equity Pyramid, by drawing on
Keller`s & Davey`s work, as it is to our view, the most comprehensive model
up to date Ior researching brand equity. Aaker`s work is indispensable in the
construction oI a conceptual model, however it constitutes a 'series oI
guidelines rather than a Iixed model (Cooper, 1998). Also, as Keller (1998,
p.625) himselI stresses, his own model, compared to Aaker`s conceptualization
oI brand equity, 'permits a more deIinitive set oI recommendations and
guidelines concerning how to build, measure and manage brand equity.
Drawing on the above model, brand equity in the Bath Foams category is
operationalized in the Iollowing Iashion:

Figure 3- Rendition of Keller`s and Davey`s Brand Equity Pyramid in the
Bath Foams market

This rendition draws on Keller`s pyramid, however constitutes a more
customized approach Ior the Bath Foams category as regards the attributes that

31
make up its ediIice, which will be displayed in due course. The basic variables
or brand building blocks oI the Pyramid are explained below:

1. Salience- Brand Awareness: As already explained, awareness is a threshold
criterion Ior building brand equity, which brands must pass successIully in
order to climb to the higher strata oI the pyramid. Brand salience merely
denotes that a brand is likely to be considered in the context oI the next
purchase among a roster oI brands that respond equally well to a given set oI
requirements. 'To be potentially salient, a brand has to be distinctive in its
name and logo, so that the consumer is able to Iocus on Bingo and select it.
But Bingo does not have to be 'best'. Nor does Bingo even have to seem to be
better than Bango, which would oIten be diIIicult to achieve. It only has to be
regarded well enough to continue to be salient to that consumer as once oI the
brands he or she might buy (Ehrenberg et al, 1997, p.5). According to
Ehrenberg et al there is an enormous gap between brand salience and
diIIerentiation, thus pointing to the strenuous ascendance Irom the bottom oI
the equity pyramid to the higher strata that lead up to identiIication.
2. Performance/Imagery: Simply put, 'what a brand can do, moreover, what it
may be perceived as doing. This is another key aspect oI the bath Ioams
equity pyramid, as successIul brands must be perceived as being capable oI
meeting key consumer requirements, such as the ones laid out in the respective
part oI our equity attributes list (see below table). In line with Keller`s and
Davey`s model, this list includes both tangible and intangible elements, such as
'has a moisturizing eIIect in the case oI the Iormer, and 'leaves skin looking
younger, in the case oI the latter.
3. Experiential benefits/ Value/Quality perceptions: Again in line with Keller`s
and Davey`s deIinitions, the variable oI experiential beneIits reIlects brand
Ieelings, that is the 'emotional reactions to the brand that relate to the social
currency the brand evokes (Keller & Davey, 2001). The variable oI
value/quality essentially reIlects the perceived quality oI brands in the Bath
Foams category.
4. Identification: Holding its rightIul place in the apex oI the equity pyramid, the
variable oI identiIication is the culmination oI brand management eIIorts and
the overarching aim oI every successIul brand. IdentiIications describes the
extent to which perceived image, beneIits and experiences have managed to
colonize consumers` personality, gain in consumer involvement and ultimately
make them part oI their 'extended selI. 'In this case, consumers themselves

32
become brand evangelists and help to communicate the brand and strengthen
the brand ties oI others (Keller & Davey, 2001).
The list oI attributes that is employed in the operationalization oI each oI the
strata oI the Brand Equity Pyramid in the Bath Foams market is displayed in
the Table 3:

Table 3- Bath Foams Brand Equity Pyramid Building blocks and
attributes
Performance/Imagery
Foams well
Cleans well
Has Iragrances I love
Has long lasting Iragrance
Clinically Tested
Has a moisturising eIIect
Gentle on skin
Keeps skin healthy
PuriIying eIIect on skin
Leaves skin looking younger
Beauty treatment Ior my skin
Does not dry the skin
Contains natural ingredients
Like texture/consistency
Identification
A bath Ioam would choose Ior myselI
Suitable Ior the whole Iamily
Suitable Ior children
Experiential benefits
Brand enjoy using
Makes everyday cleansing more
pleasurable
Makes innovative exciting bath Ioam
Good Ior relaxing
Provides overall wellbeing
ReIreshing
Value/Quality perceptions

33
Good quality
Has a competitive price

These attributes have been Iound to be the most relevant Ior the category in the
context oI preceding qualitative surveys (company-Iunded).

3.6 Consumer-based Brand Equity and market performance

As may be gathered Irom the literature review so Iar, brand equity is a
condition sine qua non Ior strong and viable brands. Morgan (2000), among
others, contends that brands with a strong equity cherish increased market
share, premium pricing, reduced promotional expenses. InsoIar as these
marketing variables are central to brand management, we intend to Iirst explore
whether there is a relationship between brand equity and market share and
value/volume sales. For most brands, their equity is a strong indicator oI their
market share (Khandelwal, M. and McKinney, C., 2003). ThereIore, in order to
drive Iuture market perIormance, understanding the speciIics oI brand equity in
conjunction with marketing Iundamentals is a critical step.

When brand equity and market share are proportional, Irequently the speciIic
sources oI the respective brand equity indices, i.e., brand Iamiliarity and
imagery can provide a clear understanding oI how to continue to strengthen
market share. 'Weaknesses in brand Iamiliarity indicate awareness and trial
building strategies Ior share growth, while weaknesses in brand imagery
indicate positioning issues, a need to reIocus on Iavourable and unique brand
associations or potentially the need to explore target consumer issues
(Khandelwal, M. and McKinney, C., 2003).

Which oI these diIIerent scenarios envisioned by the authors prevail in the
Bath Foams category? Is there suIIicient diIIerentiation among the key brand
players Ior creating sustainable associations, brand equity and competitive
advantage? These questions, alongside others that emerge Irom the respective
literature will be Iurther consolidated in the next chapter in the context oI the
research objectives.

34
3.7 Measuring consumer based brand equity

Pursuant to the delineation oI the components oI consumer based brand equity,
what it means (in terms oI brand associations) and what are the structural
elements that make up its conceptual ediIice (in terms oI logos, symbols,
packaging), a brieI mention on methods oI measurement is deemed necessary
prior to proceeding with the exposition oI the research methodology.

Keller (1998) distinguishes between two types oI measurement, that is those
concerned with the sources and those concerned with the outcomes oI brand
equity, as well as between qualitative and quantitative research methods. In
addition, Morgan (2000) draws a distinction between descriptive and
prescriptive consumer-based brand equity research methods, that is between
methods that yield brand diagnostics, as a snapshot oI a given time period
(similar to the one that is pursued in this study) and methods that yield brand
prognostics, based on longitudinal studies and methods, such as time series
analyses and multivariate regression.

Quantitative methods oI measuring sources oI brand equity 'employ various
types oI scale questions so that numerical representations and summaries can
be made (Keller, 1998, p.325). They may be used to 'better assess the depth
and breadth oI brand awareness and the strength, Iavourability and uniqueness
oI brand associations (Keller, 1998, p.325). Awareness may be gauged by
asking consumers which brands they know oI in the context oI a given product
category, either spontaneously or in a prompted Iashion. As regards the
strength oI brand associations, it may be gauged by either asking consumers to
simply state whether an attribute matches a brand (eg. 'Do you agree with the
Iollowing list oI statements regarding brand A?) in a Yes/No Iashion or by
asking them to give a score on a Likert scale (eg.1-7) reIlecting the degree to
which they associate an attribute with a brand or rating a brand on a semantic
diIIerential scale with bipolar adjectives (eg. No smell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Intense
smell) (Keller 1998).

As regards quantitative methods Ior measuring outcomes oI consumer-based
brand equity, Keller (1998) reports two major trends, that is comparative
(brand based and market based) and holistic methods. 'Brand based
comparative approaches use experiments in which one group oI consumers

35
responds to an element oI the marketing program or some marketing activity
when it is attributed to the target brand and another group responds to that
same element or activity when it is attributed to a competitive or Iictitiously
named brand. Marketing based comparative approaches use experiments where
consumers respond to changes in elements oI the marketing program or
marketing activity Ior the target brand or competitive brands (p.345). Holistic
methods (Keller, 1998) attempt to place an overall value Ior the brand in either
abstract utility terms or concrete Iinancial terms. Holistic methods tend to
either produce a single brand value (or equity score) in the context oI a single
study (Ior example see Morgan, 1993 on how a brand equity score may be
produced Irom discreet utility values that emerge through a process oI conjoint
analyses Irom partial equity variables, including attributes and attitudes, along
with price) or by combining attribute based components (gauging the sources
oI brand equity) and non attribute based components (eg sales or market share
Iigures).

Qualitative studies oI brand equity draw largely on the similar conceptual
constructs as quantitative studies; however the methods used vary, as expected.
As regards qualitative methods Ior exploring sources oI consumer based brand
equity, Keller (1998) cites Iree association
3
(asking consumers what comes to
mind when thinking about a brand) and a series oI projective techniques, which
be illustrated Iurther in Chapter 4.

The Iollowing paragraphs report relevant research studies that have attempted
to measure either sources or outcomes oI consumer based brand equity or both.

Khandelwal and McKinney (2003) bore on AC Nielsen`s WinningBrands
model, which has been constructed on the grounds oI equity attributes. The
authors draw on Keller`s conceptual Iramework and coined a proxy variable oI
emotive brand loyalty (based on the extent to which consumers would
recommend their preIerred brand). They combine emotive loyalty with
consumers` willingness to pay a price premium Ior their preIerred brand, while
applying multivariate regression analytical methods in order to produce a
Brand Equity Index (Irom 1 to 10) Ior each brand. Their research in various
product categories indicated that brand equity correlates with market share in

3
Also see Chen (2001) Ior an application oI quantitatively measured Iree association in determining
brand equity

36
most categories, however with some exceptions. These exceptions were Iound
to be largely attributed to a lack oI diIIerential positioning oI brands. In
addition, various research studies conducted by Morgan (2000), also echoing
work done by Jones and Sasser (1996) pointed out that the size oI the gap
between high equity ranking brands and the probability oI choosing them is
highly category speciIic.

Lassar, Mittal and Sharma (1995) produced a brand equity model based on 17
attributes, which were reduced to Iive equity dimensions (image, value, trust,
perIormance, attachment) through exploratory Iactor analysis and the
concomitant application oI discriminant analysis Ior measuring the
discriminant validity among Iactors. AIter conIirming the hypothesis that
brand equity correlates with price perceptions they drew on the widely-held
assumption that brand communications aid in the creation and sustenance oI
brand equity in order to point out that promotions techniques may help in
ameliorating equity Iactors, in which brands underperIorm.

Hollis, Farr and Dyson (1996) developed the Consumer Value model, which
developed into the Brand Dynamics system (later evolving into Millward
Brown`s brand equity tracking method, BRANDZ). Brand Dynamics is
displayed in a pyramid Iormat, similar to Keller`s conceptual construct. The
Iactors taken into account Ior the construction oI the model are consideration
oI inclusion oI a brand in the salient set, brand size, price responsiveness,
which gauges in crude terms the price sensitivity oI consumers towards certain
brands in their salient set. The model`s approach is predictive and has been
applied in numerous tracking studies in order to point out to brand`s potential
share oI requirements
4
. A brand`s consumer value was Iound by the
researchers to correlate highly with the brand`s share oI requirements,
Iollowing a holistic approach, as previously explained, that is combining
primary research data with objective (eg. AC Nielsen`s) metrics to arrive at a
validated consumer based brand equity model. Pursuant to the validation oI the
relevance oI the concept oI brand equity in terms oI responsiveness, size and
price they proceeded with the operationalization oI the components oI brand
equity, by bearing on Aaker`s conceptual constructs. The culmination oI their

4
Share oI requirements is a term coined by ACNielsen in the context oI analyzing Home Panel
consumer tracking data, denoting the percentage oI a brand`s volume sales based on consumers`
category purchase patterns

37
research was the portrayal oI brand equity in terms oI the Brand Dynamics
pyramid.

Figure 4- Brand Dynamics Pyramid

Adapted Irom Dyson, P., Farr, A., and Hollis , N., 1996, Figure 2

According to the authors, presence is exhibited in unaided awareness oI the
brand name (similar to our deIinition oI brand salience as the bottom oI the
Equity Pyramid Ior the Bath Foams market); relevance consists in
demonstrating how a brand is capable oI IulIilling at least some oI the key
criteria the consumer has Ior the intended purchase. Then, the brand`s
perIormance must deliver the intended beneIits against the standards set by the
competition, while demonstrating that is has a competitive advantage over the
competition against criteria that are deemed to be relevant. Ultimately, having
passed successIully through the preceding stages, a brand gains bonded
consumers, resulting in identiIication oI the consumer Iranchise in terms oI
match between high ranking category criteria (or key value drivers) and the
brand`s deliverables, in terms oI beneIits, attitudes, associations. A micro-
modelling approach is Iollowed in this model (that is Iocusing on individual
InIormant data, similar to the one advocated by Morgan, 1998,2000). Since
this a proprietary research model, the analytics that take place behind the
model are not open to scrutiny. For example, it is not clariIied whether the Iive
equity dimensions were produced via Iactor analysis (as is the case oI Lassar,
Mittal and Sharma`s above cited research model) or whether the category

38
speciIic key value drivers that constitute the relevance dimension are produced
by a direct questioning method or an indirect method .

Leuthesser, Kohli & Harich (1995) produced a very interesting brand equity
research, by showing how the eIIect oI brand size` may distort equity data, by
drawing on the much discussed phenomenon oI halo eIIect`. They drew on the
method oI double-centered normalization Ior purging data oI the halo eIIect,
thus providing brand managers with a more accurate reading oI quantitative
data
5
.

Finally, Low and Lamb (2000), among other research objectives, sought to
explore whether the degree oI dimensionality oI brand associations varies
depending on a brand`s Iamiliarity, where they Iound a positive correlation
(77) between the successIul discriminant validity tests Ior each surveyed
brand and the level oI brand Iamiliarity (measured on a 1-7 scale). Brand
Iamiliarity essentially denotes the same phenomenon as presence (as coined by
Andy, Farr and Hollis) or brand salience and may be approximated by using
spontaneous brand awareness (as quoted in Keller`s model).

3.8 Conclusion

As this chapter illustrated, brand equity is a polymorphic concept, while a
string oI perspectives have been coined over the past twenty years Ior coping
with the sheer complexity oI this construct. While recognizing the useIulness
oI the Iinancial and brand extensions approaches, the consumer-based brand
equity perspective has been Iound to be the most relevant Ior the purposes oI
the study at hand. The consumer-based brand equity perspective aids in
systematically unearthing consumer associations that underpin brand equity
and allows Ior the determination oI the extent to which there is suIIicient
diIIerentiation among brands. Keller`s and Davey`s conceptual constructs are
deemed to be the most comprehensive and practical Ior the purposes oI this
study. Their work is largely drawn upon the rendition the Brand Equity
Pyramid Ior the Bath Foams market. Last, but not least, circumstantial research
evidence was Iound to be suggestive oI a clear relationship between brand

5
cI.4.6, Objective 3

39
equity and market share, which merits exploration in the selected target
market.

40

CHAPTER 4: Methodology

41
4.1 Introduction

The previous chapter illustrated the various strands oI thought pertaining to
brand equity. Having Iocused on the perspective oI consumer-based brand
equity as the most dominant and relevant among them, this chapter lays out the
research objectives, the methodological Iramework, and the respective methods
oI data collection and analysis.

4.2 Purpose of the study/Research Objectives

The purpose oI the study is to draw on the existing brand equity literature and
provide a descriptive overview oI sources and outcomes oI key brands` equity
in the bath Ioams market. 'Measuring sources oI customer-based brand equity
requires measuring various aspects oI brand awareness and brand image that
potentially can lead to the diIIerential customer response that creates brand
equity (Keller 1998, p.310)

More speciIically, the research objectives consist oI the Iollowing:

1. To determine the most important equity dimensions (category`s key value
drivers) in the Brand Equity Pyramid.
2. To determine the relationship between brand equity and market perIormance in
the Bath Foams category in the Greek market.
3. To identiIy diIIerences among the key competitors in the Greek Bath Foams
category in terms oI consumer-based brand equity.
4. To provide a descriptive overview oI the primary and secondary brand
associations oI key brand players, in terms oI attributes, beneIits, attitudes and
on the grounds oI the key equity dimensions making up the Brand Equity
Pyramid.

4.3 Research Approach

4.3.1 Overview of Research Methodology

The research methodology consists oI a combined quantitative/qualitative
approach. The pursuit oI a combined methodology endows the study both with
the robustness oI quantitatively collected and analysed data, as well as the

42
depth oI the insights that is mandatory Ior such a delicate research subject
matter as brand equity. In addition, they complement each other in terms oI
responding to the disadvantages inherent in each approach.

Overall, both indirect and direct methods Ior gauging sources and outcomes oI
brand equity were employed. According to Keller 'an indirect approach can
assess potential sources oI customer-based brand equity by identiIying and
tracking consumers` brand knowledge structures. A direct approach, on the
other hand, could measure customer-based brand equity more directly by
assessing the actual impact oI brand knowledge on consumer response to
diIIerent elements oI the marketing program (Keller, 1998, p. 308).

Finally, the methodological approach oI this study is descriptive and not
prescriptive. Malhotra & Birks (1999, p.79) deIine descriptive research as
'describing something, usually market characteristics or Iunctions, among
which lies the determination oI the degree to which marketing variables are
associated, as displayed in subsequent sections.

4.3.2 Quantitative Research

'Quantitative measures oI brand knowledge can be employed to better assess
the depth and breadth oI brand awareness and the strength, Iavourability and
uniqueness oI brand associations (Keller 1998, p.325). Quantitative
methodology mainly addresses issues oI validity and reliability, however it is
insuIIicient in addressing latent consumer associations (Objective 4), which
may be unearthed via the employment oI a qualitative methodology, as
discussed in the ensuing section. Quantitative research in this study yielded the
background against which primary qualitative research took place, in order to
gain an elaborate perspective on the insights generated through the Iormer. In
particular, secondary quantitative research data were employed additional
analyses were conducted on raw data with view to meeting the Iirst three
objectives oI this study.

4.3.3 Qualitative Research

'Qualitative research techniques are oIten employed to identiIy possible brand
associations and sources oI brand equity. Qualitative research techniques are

43
relatively unstructured measurement approaches whereby a range oI possible
consumer responses are permitted (Keller 1998, p.311)

Objective 4 primarily seeks to systematically describe brand associations;
associations gathered through quantitative methodologies are elicited verbally
and reside in the conscious part oI perception, whereas verbal representation is
only a mode among many (eg verbal, visual, sensory, emotional) (Supphellen,
2004). Given that brand associations reside more oIten than not in the spheres
oI the pre and unconscious (Supphellen, 2004), then a qualitative research
methodology may allow Ior an elucidation oI these latent perceptions and help
construct a system oI brand associations. The pursuit oI a qualitative
methodology may aid in, iI not overcoming, at least mitigating consumers`
'unwillingness or inability to reveal true Ieelings, which are particularly
evident when consumers are asked about brands characterized by non-product
related image associations (Keller 1998, p.314), such as those under scrutiny.

The disadvantages oI qualitative research methodology consist oI the high
level oI subjectivity inherent in the process oI eliciting brand associations out
oI verbal and non-verbal (eg pictorial, such as those gathered via collage
exercises) representations. However, instead oI disregarding the voice oI
consumers in the elicitation oI brand associations, Supphellen (2004) contends
that researchers should Iocus on how to ask better questions, or rather on how
to help consumers express their brand associations.

4.4 Research Design

4.4.1 Quantitative method

In order to meet the Iirst three objectives identiIied in 4.2 and on the grounds
oI previous studies employing similar methods as illustrated in 3.7, a string oI
analyses were conducted on the grounds oI secondary equity-related attribute
data that were collected during a company-Iunded equity research in 2004. The
category speciIic attributes (cI.3.5) that were included in the respective battery
oI attributes in the research questionnaire were validated regarding their
relevance through extensive qualitative past research studies, commissioned by
the company.

44
The structure oI the question Irom which the attributes evaluation was elicited
by the consumers who participated in the study was Iormed in an associative
Iashion, asking consumers to state whether Attribute A matches Brand A (cI.
3.7), and so Iorth Ior the attributes/brands matrix under scrutiny.

In order to meet the second objective in particular, concerning the relationship
oI equity scores with market perIormance (the holistic aspect explained in 3.7)
additional data Irom AC Nielsen` ScanTrack database (market shares,
volume/value sales, weighted distribution Iigures, pricing, promotional
intensity) and Media Services (advertising expenditures and share oI voice)
were used, spanning the same period as the equity data (that is annual 2004
Iigures). All oI the analyses on secondary equity data, discussed in 4.6 were
conducted by the authors oI this study. 'Examination oI available secondary
data is a prerequisite to the collection oI primary data. Start with secondary
data. Proceed to primary data only when the secondary data sources have been
exhausted or yield marginal returns (Malhotra & Birks, 1999, p.99).

The target group proIile where the equity research was conducted consists oI
Women, ABC1C2 S/E, aged between 18 and 44 years old who are primary
household consumers (primary characteristics oI Bath Foams category users).
660 Iace-to-Iace interviews were conducted in a nationally representative
group oI InIormants via the employment oI a structured questionnaire. SpeciIic
quotas were set in terms oI brand usage, while all respondents must have used
at least two oI the investigated brands in the bath Ioams category (Palmolive,
Dove, Lux, Sanex, FA, Nivea, Papoutsanis, Badedas) in the past six months
prior to that study. Quotas based on brand usage were set in order to ensure
that respondents` level oI Iamiliarity with a brand does not rest solely with
name recognition, but a set oI brand related associations will have been Iormed
through brand usage (as explained in the Literature Review, brand usage is a
major source oI Iorming primary and secondary brand associations).

4.4.2 Qualitative method

In order to gain additional insights into consumer based brand associations
(Objective 4) and a Iurther understanding oI the diIIerential positioning oI
brands, ten in-depth interviews were conducted among women, ABC1C2 S/E,
aged between 18 and 44 years old who are primary household consumers.

45
'Personal interviews are preIerred |authors` note: over Iocus groups| because
oI their superior potential to delve deeply into the memories oI InIormants by
means oI long, personal and individually adapted probing (Zaltman 1997;
Malhotra 1999) (quoted in Supphellen, 2004).

In terms oI sample selection, speciIic Iilters were used during the screening
phase oI the selection process in terms oI brand usage and brand awareness. In
particular, the recruited consumers must have been main users oI one oI the
key brands under investigation, that is Palmolive, Dove, Lux, Sanex, FA,
Nivea, Papoutsanis, Badedas Also, they must have used Palmolive during the
past year and not being rejectors oI the brand. Particular emphasis was laid
during the determination oI our qualitative research sample on the Palmolive
brand, insoIar as it constitutes the Iocal point oI our research.

The research design took place on the grounds oI a discussion guide, in order
to allow consumers to express themselves in as a natural way as possible. In
the context oI the in-depth interviews, projective techniques were used Ior
tapping into consumers` latent brand associations. 'Projective techniques go
beyond language to capture other ways in which we encode our experience- as
sensations, an ambience and atmosphere, visual memories, treasured instances
(Branthwaite & Cooper, 2001, p.3). Hence, an array oI techniques was
employed Ior eliciting latent perceptions pertaining to brand associations (as
illustrated in Supphellen, 2004) such as the Iollowing:

Free Association: It provides a 'rough indication oI the relative strength,
Iavourability and uniqueness oI brand associations (Keller 1998, p.312).
Metaphors/Analogies: What would a brand be iI it were a woman, a planet, a
movie, an actor/ress? With the employment oI such Object Projective
Techniques (OPT), 'impressions oI brands are largely represented in memory
in terms oI metaphors because this is an eIIective way to understand and store
impressions about brands (Supphellen, 2004). Also, given that the ultimate
purpose oI the study (cI. Chapter 6) is to pin down equity particularities oI the
two main brands in the category, Palmolive and Dove, a social interaction
technique was employed. This technique enables the elicitation oI associations
as to what equity elements might act as a bridge between the two brands, such
as 'What kind oI discussion these two brands would enter iI they met in a
bar?.

46
Moodboard technique: InIormants were instructed to select any kind oI
pictures (people, objects, colors, landscapes etc.) Irom magazines or
newspapers that represent what they think or Ieel about the brand.
Probing: Progressively digging deeper into latent perceptions on the grounds
oI asking Ior qualiIication oI primary associations (snowballing technique).
For example, when common places are reIerred to, such as 'it is a quality
brand, 'it is a premium brand, then consumers were probed into deIining
what these terms mean to them. This process eIIectively allows Ior the creation
oI links between perceived brand values (which are also highly dependent on
the variable extent oI use and Iamiliarity with a brand) and consumers` own
belieI systems.
Brand Mapping: On the grounds oI the two category beneIits consumers
deemed to be most important to them, they were asked to create a two-
dimensional map and position the brands oI which they are aware according to
the level oI proximity each brand has to the respective axis (each axis
corresponding to a category criterion).
The Iollowing section lays out the discussion guide and the interviewing
process that was Iollowed during the qualitative phase.

4.4.2.1 In-depth interviews Discussion Guide

The discussion guide contains the main research areas and the guidelines that
governed the Ilow oI the interview process. The process started with more
generic, category-wide questions and proceeded to more in-depth, brand-
speciIic elicitation techniques.

Stage 1

Perceptions / Habits in relation to Bath Foams (in brieI)
Free Association Technique: InIormants were asked to state anything that
came to their mind when they think oI the category, including:
- Words / phrases / adjectives
- Feelings / emotions
- Perceived beneIits
- Role this product category plays in their liIe
- Characterization oI role
Consumption pattern

47
- Brands they know oI
- Personal consumption history (brands)
- Frequency oI purchase
- Reasons Ior using / not using any more brands they know oI
- Ior buying own initiative, advertising, word oI mouth
Criteria of brand selection and relative importance of selection criteria
(spontaneous mentions)
- Types (size, single unit, multipacks etc)
- Price
- Pack aesthetics
- Brand name trustworthiness, heritage
- BeneIits (eg moisturizing eIIects, basic skincare etc)
- Fragrance
- Added value ingredients
- Word oI mouth
- Advertising / promotional activities
Stage 2: Brand Equity in Focus
Brand mapping exercise
BeIore any Iurther investigation inIormants were asked about spontaneous
(anew) and prompted awareness oI brands.
Then, cards oI brands they know oI (Main brand and Palmolive, along with
key competitors, such as Dove, Lux, Sanex, FA, Nivea, Papoutsanis, Badedas)
were placed on the table and InIormants were asked to categorize them into
groups according to any criteria that they deemed important, on the grounds oI
a 2 dimensional map. The dimensions oI the map were made up oI the two
most important criteria (key category value drivers) Ior each individual
consumer.
This exercise enabled us to see how consumers categorize the market on a
spontaneous level, using their own personal criteria.
Once they sorted them they were asked to justiIy their groups:
- Characterization oI each group
- What is the common denominator Ior each group
- What does each group think oI the other
- Which groups are closest to which / which are Iurther away

48
Pursuant to the mapping exercise consumers were asked to elaborate on the
brands Ialling under each oI the Iour quadrants on the map:
- Brands they have consumed reason why
- Brands they no longer consume reason why
- Brands they would never consume reason why
- Who are considered to be the strong players oI the market
- Who are considered to be the weak players oI the market
- Similarities and diIIerences among them
- Sources oI inIormation they consider most suitable Ior each brand in their
salient set
- Brand communication elements they spontaneously recall
Moodboard Technique
For each oI the brands that were investigated, namely main brand and
Palmolive, each InIormant was asked to create a collage oI images, words (by
cutting and pasting pieces Irom magazines) that signiIy what they believe each
brand represents and illustrate its core beneIit. This set oI images aimed to
depict the values, personality and emotions linked with each oI the brands`
image/core beneIit. AIter the completion oI this exercise, consumers were
asked to interpret their collages.
Projective techniques
Latent perceptions about consumer brand associations were gathered through a
series oI projective techniques:
Spontaneous Associations: - What are the Iirst things that come to mind
about brands: a physical sensation, an emotion / Ieeling, a symbol, a place, a
situation, a beneIit, a drawback / shortcoming
Analogies: What would the brand be iI it were ..a place..a Iilm..a
car..an article oI clothing.a type oI sport..a Iamous person, celebrity or
athlete?
Planet: Imagine that the brand transIorms itselI in a planet, Iully describe this
planet (atmosphere, what are the inhabitants like / their relationships, what are
their values, types oI buildings, how do we Ieel on this planet, what do we like
most / least, what would make us stay there, do we make Iriends).

49
Stage 3: Brand encounters
In this stage a comparative assessment oI the brands investigated was
conducted. This comparative assessment revealed the level oI proximity that
each brand has to the consumer.
InIormants were asked to imagine that the two brands (main brand and
Palmolive) meet in a pub or in a restaurant, and then asked to give their
opinion on the Iollowing:
- How does one react to the other?
- How would their physical appearance be described
- Could they Iind something to talk about? What might that be?
- Do they get along? Why yes/no?

4.5 Fieldwork

Quantitative research (which is the source oI our secondary data) was
conducted at consumers` homes via CAPI (computer aided personal
interviewing).

Primary qualitative research was conducted at consumers` home via the
employment oI a tape recorder. The participants will be recruited Irom a
company-owned list, which is maintained by Colgate Palmolive`s Consumer
AIIairs Manager.

4.6 Methods of Analysis

In the light oI the research objectives the Iollowing analysis methods were
employed.

Objective 1

A correlation matrix (as also employed by Leuthesser, Kohli & Harich, 1995 in
their study oI brand equity, cI.3.7) was produced among each oI the three
equity dimensions in the Bath Foams speciIic Brand Pyramid and brand
salience (in terms oI unaided recall, which, according to Keller is a proxy Ior
brand strength), which lies at the bottom oI the pyramid.

50
As already explained, this analysis (as well as the analyses conducted with
view to answering objectives 2 and 3 oI our study) has been conducted in the
context oI desk research, as the data that were employed stem Irom a
proprietary, company-Iunded brand equity research.

The correlation scores between salience and each oI the three dimensions were
employed as the basis Ior determining the relative weight oI each dimension in
generating brand salience, hence brand strength scores. InsoIar as the purpose
oI the study is descriptive and not prescriptive and the intention is to map out
relationships among variables (irrespective oI the potential causation)
correlation is deemed to be appropriate. Correlation 'indicates the extent to
which the variation in one variable, X, is related to the variation in another
variable, Y (Malhotra & Birks, 1999, p.514). II the purpose oI the study was
prescriptive, then analysis techniques, such as multivariate regression or
conjoint analysis should be employed, in order to determine (a) the
autocorrelation among variables, (b) the relative explanatory Iorce oI each
variable in accounting Ior brand salience.

Despite the Iact that a strong correlation between equity dimensions and brand
salience may point to the Iact that 'halo eIIect is operative in the data (see
discussion in Objective 2 below), the relative magnitude oI the correlation
coeIIicients between equity dimensions and brand salience may point to the
relative importance oI certain dimensions over others in deIining brand
salience; and insoIar as brand salience is a proxy oI brand strength, then the
output oI correlations may point to equity dimensions that are key determinants
or key value drivers oI brand strength.

Objective 2

A series oI correlations between secondary brand equity data and (i) market
share (ii) value/volume sales were produced in order to demonstrate the
relationship between key equity dimensions in the Brand Equity Pyramid and
market perIormance oI the key brand players (cI.3.6). Also, insoIar as brand
equity in the residual value approach terms (an oIIshoot oI the holistic
approach, see Keller, 1998, pp.354-356) may be deIined as the incremental
preIerence over and above that which would result Ior the product without
brand equity, a series oI correlations were conducted among the more oIten

51
than not desired outcome oI each marketing activity (that is volume/value sales
and/or share oI market) and the rest key marketing variables (pricing, weighted
distribution, advertising expenditures, promotional intensity).

The aim was to determine the eIIect oI each oI these variables on market share
and compare the Iindings with the respective correlations between market
share and brand equity.

The impact oI brand equity was determined in an inIerential Iashion by
comparing correlation coeIIicients between market share and the rest key
marketing variables and the correlation coeIIicients between market share and
brand equity Pyramid dimensions scores. A similar inIerential approach was
Iollowed by Khandelwal and McKinney (2003)- displayed in 3.7- in an attempt
to shed light to diIIerent patterns oI Iit or discrepancy oI equity scores and
market perIormance data.

Objective 3

As explained in 3.7 in the context oI the research conducted by Leuthesser,
Kohli & Harich, 1995, determining the diIIerential positioning oI brands in
equity terms may be overshadowed by signiIicant distortions due to the 'halo
eIIect phenomenon, which is a matter oI brand size. 'Bigger brands (those
with more users) get more image responses than smaller brands, almost
regardless oI the image attribute (Romaniuk and Sharp, 1996). 'The
consequence oI this is that product-attribute ratings represent a composite oI
individual attribute assessments, adjusted ('haloed) by a rater`s global attitude
towards the product (Leuthesser, Kohli & Harich, 1995, p.58).

This is the so-called double-jeopardy eIIect, which, as noted by Ehrenberg
(1995), occurs due to the circular relationship between the sheer size oI big
brands and the equity scores they tend to obtain in the context oI brand equity
studies. This oIten produces a distortion in the ratings collected in the context
oI a battery oI attributes, which may in turn 'result in misleading conclusions
about competitive positioning, and may even lead brand managers to make
erroneous decisions concerning product modiIications and product strategy
(Leuthesser, Kohli & Harich, 1995, p.57).

52
The statistical technique oI double-centered normalization was employed on
secondary equity data in order to purge equity scores oI the halo eIIect. The
data transIormation procedure is straightIorward and is carried out in two
steps. 'First, columns (corresponding to attributes) are standardized, Iollowed
by rows (corresponding to raters). The eIIect oI this double centring is
essentially to move the centroid oI raters and attributes to the same origin,
keeping the raters` response proIiles intact across attributes, but removing
mean diIIerences which are considered to be irrelevant (Leuthesser, Kohli &
Harich, 1995, p.61).

In particular, the process whereby equity data were purged oI the halo eIIect
via the double centered normalization consists in the Iollowing steps:

1. We take the raw image data by brand and convert it to a score based on
an index oI 100.
2. Above (below) 100 indicates the extent to which the brand is endorsed
relativelv more (less) on the attribute than on other attributes in relation to
other brands.
3. The outcome removes the eIIect oI some brands being more widely
endorsed than others : each brand`s total endorsements is 100 x the number oI
attributes and the total Ior each attribute is 100 x the number oI brands (ie. a
constant sum outcome Ior brands and attributes).
4. The precise steps are as Iollows :
(i) Ior each brand we add together all the attribute scores and
divide by the number
oI attributes (to generate an average attribute score Ior the
brand)
(ii) Ior each attribute we add together all the brand scores
and divide by the number oI brands (to generate an average
brand score Ior the attribute)
(iii) we calculate Ior each brand the diIIerence between (i) and
(ii)
(iv) we add together the score at (iii) and (i) to create a new grid
oI Iigures (ie. the expected score Ior each brand on each
attribute)

53
(v) we take the diIIerence between this expected score and the
actual score Ior each brand (when ahead oI expected, this
produces a positive number; when behind a minus)
(vi) we add this score to 100.
Scores above 105 point to a diIIerential competitive advantage,
whereas scores below 95 point to a diIIerential competitive
disadvantage.

Objective 4

The qualitative analysis method comes into play in order to address the Iourth
research objective. InsoIar as brand equity, as reIerred to so Iar, consists in
building Iavourable, relevant and unique brand associations, the employment
oI qualitative collection and analysis techniques will help us in systematically
mapping these associations with regard to the key brand players in the Bath
Foams market. 'The consequences oI superIicial knowledge oI brand
associations can be serious. When managers Iail to grasp the Iull breadth and
depth oI the associations people have Ior their brands, their understanding oI
customer brand perceptions and the way brands are positioned relative to
competitors in the mind oI customers will be biased (Supphellen, 2004).

The primary data collected by using qualitative research methods were
analysed on the basis oI discourse analysis, oI which the analytical tools and
the limitations are outlined herebelow.

Since the very Ioundation oI discourse analysis is the concept oI discourse, it
may be useIul to start with a deIinition oI discourse. Parker (1992, pp.6-17)
summarizes the meaning oI discourses under seven headings, as Iollows:

1. A discourse is realized in texts, while texts are 'delimited tissues
oI meaning reproduced in any Iorm that can be given an
interpretive gloss.
2. A discourse is about objects, meaning that 'discourse constructs
representations oI the world, which have a reality almost as
coercive as gravity.
3. A discourse contains subjects, meaning that 'a subject is a
location constructed within the expressive sphere which Iinds its

54
voice through the cluster oI attributes and responsibilities assigned
to it as a variety oI object.
4. A discourse is a coherent system oI meanings, meaning
'recurrently used systems oI terms used Ior characterizing and
evaluating actions, events and other phenomena.a limited range
oI terms used in particular stylistic and grammatical constructions
organised around speciIic metaphors and Iigures oI speech.
5. A discourse reIers to other discourses, meaning that 'discourses
embed, entail and presuppose other discourses to the extent that
the contradictions within a discourse open up questions about
what other discourses are at work.
6. A discourse reIlects its own way oI speaking, meaning that a text
is articulated in such a way as to convey certain implicit meanings
that can be reworked by showing how its terms interlock.
7. A discourse is historically located, meaning that 'discourses are
located in time, in history, Ior the objects they reIer to are objects
constituted in the past by the discourse or related discourses.

The main protocol behind discourse analysis is looking at what the discourses
present in text are trying to achieve, in order to gain 'a better understanding oI
social liIe and social interaction (Potter and Wetherell 1987, p.25). This is
carried out by relating the structure oI the language, present in texts, to its
desired Iunction, and observing the social Iorces that operate behind utterances.
'The question is not so much why people understand one another, or even
what they understand, but the organisational Iorms through which they achieve
that understanding (Silverman 1986, p.118). Discourse analysts seek to
examine how people use language to construct their own social world, while
no particular reading oI a text is superior to another.

Van Dijk (1997) provides the Iollowing recommendations on the way oI
conducting discourse analysis, which were drawn upon during the analysis oI
the primary data (cI. Chapter 5):

1. Select a sequence in which whatever interests you occurs, by
looking at identifiable boundaries between topics. The
selection took place by isolating data Iragments and reordering

55
them according the main topics included in the discussion
guide.
2. Characterize the actions in the sequence, i.e. the actions
performed in the course of speech-acts. Speech-acts are
discursive entities that accomplish certain actions.
Interviewees accomplished actions in their utterances through,
Ior example, descriptions oI experiences and beneIits derived
Irom the usage oI bath Ioams brands, or by interpreting the
eIIect certain communicative vehicles had on purchase
decisions.
3. Consider how the speakers` packaging of actions, including
their selections of reference terms, provides for certain
understandings of the actions performed and the matters
talked about. This is a very important step, as it helped
demonstrate how the selection oI particular adjectives and
expressions in the description oI events Irame consumers` brand
associations.
4. Consider how the ways whereby the actions were
accomplished implicate certain identities, roles and/or
relationships for the interviewees. In the process oI making
sense oI the data and trying to discern how discourses interlock
with the exploration oI brand personalities, individual
consumers` value systems were taken into account. This aided
in moderating the eIIect discreet value systems and belieIs have
on value judgments conIerred on brands. For example, certain
consumers were Iound to reject Dove not in terms oI Iunctional
attributes and beneIits, but because its premium image and
positioning was irrelevant to their own liIestyle and value
system. Hence, the extent to which there is a Iit between a
consumer`s value system and the values projected by a brand is
a key determinant oI the potential endorsement oI a brand by a
consumer.

4.7 Limitations of the research methods

The limitations oI using secondary research data , according to Malhotra &
Birks (2000), consist primarily in the terms oI relevance and accuracy. For the

56
purposes oI this study, secondary data are deemed to meet these criteria, given
that brand equity was the Iocus oI the study, while the generation oI the
attributes list has taken place against the background oI qualitative image
studies. The robustness oI quantitative Iindings would be enhanced iI equity
tracking data were available, on the grounds oI which we might be able to
build a multivariate regression model or conduct a time-series analysis, in
order to assign a predictive value to the Iindings.

The limitations regarding the qualitative elicitation oI brand associations, as
identiIied by M. Supphellen (2004) consist in problems oI access in surpassing
the level oI primary associations (as coined by Keller, see Keller`s brand
knowledge structure) and moving to more abstract, secondary brand
associations; the problem oI verbalisation, since the relationship between
visual, pictorial, emotional representations and verbal descriptions is not
necessarily a one-to-one reIerential one; the issue oI censoring , insoIar as
occasionally, latent wishes, aspirations, selI-identities are projected onto
brands, irrespective oI whether consumers really believe these disclosed
aspects match their perceptions or not.

As regards qualitative data analysis, the inherent subjectivity in the
interpretation oI the Iindings may partially distort the intended meaning on
behalI oI the consumers. In more detail, Parker and Burman (1993) single out
Iive main limitations oI discourse analysis, as Iollows:

1. The analyst has the power to impose meaning onto sections oI
the interviewees` text, which may not have been originally
present.
2. It is very labour intensive, meaning that analysts spend
considerable time sorting out which parts oI the inIormation
are linked.
3. It is diIIicult to ascertain whether diIIerent discourses are
present in the text as discreet phenomena, or whether the
changes in context are in Iact responsible Ior the changes in
meaning
4. It becomes too diIIicult to view the text in terms oI empirical
generalisations, thereIore the wider context is oIten not
considered.

57
5. The methodology oI discourse analysis is not rigorous
enough, cutting down the variety oI possible interpretations,
made available by the text.

4.8 Conclusion

This chapter presented the purpose oI our study, along with the research
objectives and the methods oI data collection and analysis that were used with
view to exploring these objectives. Based on similar methods employed in
various studies and against the background oI the brand equity attributes and
dimensions that make up the Brand Equity Pyramid, the output oI our research
will be illustrated in the Main Findings chapter, in an attempt to map out brand
equity in the Bath Foams category.

58

CHAPTER 5: Analysis oI Main Findings

59
5.1 Introduction

Pursuant to the display oI the research objectives, the methodological
Iramework and the methods oI analysis Ior exploring these objectives, this
chapter lays out oI the main Iindings. The exposition oI the main Iindings takes
place alongside an allusion to the conceptual Iramework and the analysis
methods that constitute the backdrop oI the Iindings.

5.2 Objective 1 Main Findings: Determining the key equity dimensions in
the Brand Equity Pyramid

In this section the Iindings oI the analyses that were conducted on secondary
research data in the context oI desk research will be displayed.

First and Ioremost, the perIormance oI the investigated brands against the key
variables (brand pyramid blocks) that make up the Brand Equity Pyramid
(cI.3.5) are displayed in Table 4.

Table 4- Performance of key brands in the Bath Foams Category against
Brand Equity Pyramid building blocks
PaImoIive Badedas Dove Fa Johnson's Lux Nivea Sanex Papoutsanis
Identification 11 12 38 17 26 15 11 10 10
A bath foam would choose for myself 10 11 42 16 11 18 7 8 7
Suitable for the whole family 13 13 38 21 29 18 15 15 13
Suitable for children 11 11 35 15 39 10 11 8 9
ExperientiaI benefits 13 15 44 22 14 20 11 10 10
Brand enjoy using 11 11 46 19 14 18 9 8 9
Makes everyday cleansing more pleasurable 15 17 47 24 18 23 12 13 11
Makes innovative exciting bath foam 13 15 45 24 14 21 13 10 10
Good for relaxing 12 14 43 20 14 21 9 10 10
Provides overall wellbeing 13 17 43 24 13 20 10 10 10
Refreshing 12 14 41 22 13 19 11 9 8
VaIue/QuaIity perceptions 15 17 44 24 21 21 17 15 16
Good quality 14 14 49 20 18 21 15 13 12
Has a competitive price 16 20 38 28 23 20 18 16 20
Performance/Imagery 13 15 49 20 16 19 12 12 10
Foams well 14 19 47 25 16 19 12 10 13
Cleans well 18 23 51 28 21 25 18 16 15
Has fragrances love 12 13 50 22 11 23 8 8 11
Has long lasting fragrance 13 15 46 20 13 21 9 8 8
Clinically Tested 20 23 51 26 24 22 21 23 14
Has a moisturising effect 11 12 52 16 12 17 13 10 8
Gentle on skin 9 12 47 17 18 15 10 9 8
Keeps skin healthy 13 15 44 19 18 18 14 15 11
Purifying effect on skin 11 12 47 16 11 15 7 9 9
Leaves skin looking younger 10 12 54 16 15 17 11 10 10
Beauty treatment for my skin 11 14 46 18 12 16 7 10 8
Does not dry the skin 13 16 54 18 17 19 12 11 8
Contains natural ingredients 14 12 44 20 18 15 12 14 10
Like texture/consistency 11 12 47 16 15 17 9 8 8
SaIience/Brand Awareness (Spontaneous) 54 40 60 36 30 43 32 6 16

The score Ior each brand pyramid block (perIormance/imagery, value/quality
perceptions, experiential beneIits, identiIication) has been calculated as an
average oI the attributes that Iall under its umbrella. Brand salience

60
(spontaneous brand awareness), that Iorms the base oI the brand equity
pyramid, was gauged Irom a separate question enquiring which brands
consumers were aware oI.

As a second step, a correlation matrix among variables
6
was produced (cI.4.6-
Objective 1), in order to discern the most important dimensions (or category
key value drivers) in the Brand Equity pyramid.

The key value drivers were discerned by looking at the correlation coeIIicients
between awareness and each oI the key variables under investigation. This
analysis takes into account how each attribute, thereIore each oI the key
variables that are made up oI the distinctive attributes, scores on a category-
wide level. InsoIar as spontaneous awareness is considered to be a proxy Ior
brand strength (cI. 4.6-Objective 1), the stronger a brand and/or a variable, the
more likely it is Ior the correlation output to be close to 1 (or 100 ), as amply
evidenced in the Table 5.

Table 5- Correlation coefficients ( r ) between awareness/brand salience
and Brand Equity building blocks in the Bath Foams category
Performance/Imagery Identification ExperientiaI benefits
VaIue/QuaIity
perceptions Awareness
Performance/Imagery 1,0 0,9 1,0 1,0 0,6
Identification 0,9 1,0 0,9 0,9 0,5
ExperientiaI benefits 1,0 0,9 1,0 1,0 0,7
VaIue/QuaIity perceptions 1,0 0,9 1,0 1,0 0,6
Awareness 0,6 0,5 0,7 0,6 1,0

From Table 5 data the Iollowing Iindings are inIerred:

1. There is a clear positive relationship between the key equity variables and
spontaneous awareness on an inter-brand, and hence on a category-wide level.
2. The highest correlation coeIIicient is observed between brand salience and
experiential beneIits. Hence, in order Ior a brand to colonize successIully
consumers` perceptual Iramework in the Bath Foams category it is crucial to
establish a rich set oI consumer associations with regard to the end result, that
is brands must become as 'experiential as possible in the battle oI winning
consumers.
3. Contrary to what was expected (cI.3.5), identiIication and brand salience
have the lowest correlation coeIIicient. However, this may be explained in the

6
cI.4.4 Ior the source oI data whereupon the analyses were conducted

61
context oI the disadvantages oI the data collection method, that is quantitative,
where, as is well-known, eliciting in-depth responses which may dwell in
preconscious and unconscious strata oI consumer behaviour, is not Ieasible via
a rationally structured list oI attributes, but merits a more qualitative approach
(cI.4.3.3).

5.3 Objective 2 Main Findings: Determining the relationship between
brand equity and market performance

As explained in 4.6, the analytical route Ior answering Objective 2 is twoIold.
Thus, the impact oI brand equity was determined in an inIerential Iashion by
comparing (i) the correlation coeIIicients between market share, value/volume
sales and brand equity Pyramid blocks scores
7
and (ii) the correlation
coeIIicients between market share and the rest key marketing variables
(advertising pressure, promo intensity, weighted distribution, pricing).

Table 6- Market performance variables by key brand player in the Bath
Foams market
PALMOLIVE BADEDAS DOVE FA LUX NIVEA SANEX PAPOUTSANIS
VoIume saIes 635110 514098 458084 244665 397750 158945 293915 231844
VaIue saIes 4772905 3380389 4691978 2156153 3176368 1227167 2197039 1820555
Weighted
distribution 94 46 93 86 88 76 47 69
VaIue share 10,8 7,8 11,0 5,0 7,3 2,8 5,1 4,2
VoIume share 9,1 7,4 6,6 3,5 5,7 2,3 4,2 3,3
Average seIIing
price (per 1000 mI) 7,5 6,6 10,2 8,8 8,0 7,7 7,5 7,9

Source: AC Nielsen Scan Track database 2004

7
This analysis constitutes a holistic approach (cI.3.7), combining the overall equity score Ior each oI the
examined brands (that emerges Irom averaging the Iour basic dimensions making up the Brand Equity
pyramid) with non-attribute based components, that is marketing perIormance, such as share oI market,
sales, weighted distribution, pricing, advertising expenditures, that have been collected through independent
research audit Iirms, such as AC Nielsen and Media Services.

62
In the case oI (i) the correlation coeIIicients were quite low, as may be
gathered Irom Tables 7-9.

Table 7- Correlation between Average Brand Equity and Market share
MARKET SHARE TTL EQUITY
MARKET SHARE 1,00 0,53
TTL EQUITY 0,53 1,00

Table 8- Correlation between Average Brand Equity and Volume Sales
VAL SALES TTL EQUITY
VOLUME SALES 1,00 0,21

Table 9- Correlation between Average Brand Equity and Value Sales
VAL SALES TTL EQUITY
VALUE SALES 1,00 0,54

Average correlation between brand equity and value sales was 54, between
brand equity and market share 53, while average correlation between brand
equity and volume sales was 21. In a standalone Iashion, this direct method
oI gauging the eIIect oI brand equity on market perIormance might point to the
conclusion that brand equity is not a key determinant oI market share and
value/volume sales.

However, as Khandelwal and McKinney report (2003) (cI.3.7 and 4.6) 'it has
been observed that in some cases brand equity scores do not correlate with the
in-market perIormance which exhibits that there are Iactors (Ior example
distribution, pricing) other than the brand equity that need to be addressed to
strengthen the market shares beIore brand equity can become a major
contributor to strategic planning and growth. This Iinding urged us to conduct
the second set oI correlations, as above mentioned, between market share and
the rest key marketing variables (advertising pressure, weighted distribution,
pricing). This set oI analyses on secondary data allowed us to determine in an
indirect, inIerential Iashion the relative eIIect oI brand equity on market
perIormance, in terms oI a residual value approach (cI.4.6).

63
As regards advertising pressure, there is a clear positive relationship between
advertising spending levels and achieved market share
8
. Table 10 table
displays the respective Iigures Ior the key Bath Foams market players Ior the
year 2004.

Table 10- Share of market/Share of voice of key brands in 2004
2004 2004
J&J 13,8% 19%
DOVE 11,0% 20%
PALMOLIVE 10,8% 19%
BADEDAS 7,8% 0%
LUX 7,3% 22%
SANEX 5,1% 6%
FA 4,9% 0%
NIVEA 2,8% 0%
ALL OTHERS 36,5% 14%
Share of market Share of voice

Sources: AC Nielsen Scan Track database (share oI market), Media Services (share oI voice)
Note: Share of market is calculated by dividing the sales oI each brand with ttl Bath Foams
market sales. Accordingly, Share of Voice is calculated by dividing the advertising expenditures
Ior each brand (across the key above the line advertising media, that is TV, radio, print, outdoor)
with ttl market expenditures.

Based on this dataset, a correlation Iigure oI 68 was returned, which points
clearly to a positive relationship between the level oI advertising expenditure
as an enabler oI market share sustainability.

The same holds in the case oI weighted distribution.

Table 11- Share of market/Weighted distribution of key brands in 2004
Weighted Distribution Share of market
DOVE 94,5 10,8
LUX 92,9 7,3
BADEDAS 92,1 7,8
SANEX 90,8 5,1
J.&.J 97,0 13,8
PALMOLIVE 95,0 11
FA 86,8 4,9
NIVEA 76,8 2,8

Source: AC Nielsen Scan Track database 2004

8
This is also in line with J.P.Jones` Iinding, published in his seminal book 'When Ads work: New ProoI that Advertising
Triggers Sales (Lexington 1995), where there was ample evidence about high correlation between market share growth and
advertising intensity (p.95); advertising intensity is used by the author interchangeably with share oI voice, denoting the same
metric).

64
Based on Table 11 data a correlation Iigure oI 86 was returned, pointing to a
clear relationship between the achievement oI market share and the build up oI
distribution, even more so than in the case oI advertising expenditures. The
positive relationship between market perIormance and key marketing
parameters as above illustrated (distribution, pricing, advertising expenditures)
is pretty much selI-explanatory. As Ehrenberg et al (1998) contend, the
number oI consumers to whom a brand is salient tends also to correlate with
just about everything in the marketing-mix that contributes towards purchasing
and market share.

The above more oIten than not veriIied remark by the authors, which
constitutes a consolidation oI longitudinal studies across more than 50 product
categories is a IorceIul attestation oI the Iindings oI our research so Iar. Hence,
despite the Iact that (i) brand salience correlates positively with all equity
dimensions (ii) market share and value/volume sales correlate positively with
almost all key marketing mix elements, yet key brand equity variables have a
mild positive correlation with value/volume sales and share oI market. This is
attributed to the low level oI discrimination among the key players, with the
exception oI Dove, which manages to charge a considerably high premium (cI.
Table 6)
9
.

The above point to the conclusion that whereas the relationship between
market share and the marketing mix variables is pretty much linear, yet some
brands are more eIIective than others in building equity. Also, as already
stressed (cI.3.2), establishing diIIerential positioning entails establishing
diIIerentiated consumer perceptions that lead to brand equity. InsoIar as
building equity may only be attained at the interIace between the brand and the
consumer, then gaining in equity and long lasting consumer perceptions may
be attained by enhancing the eIIectiveness oI brand communications (all other
marketing mix variables held equal, as already explained in the preceding
analyses and on the grounds oI the positive relationship among key marketing
variables). This standpoint is Iurther discussed in Chapter 6.

9
A similar Iinding regarding high brand equity Ior Dove and its ability to command a price premium
was Iound by A.Chaudhuri (1995) in 'Brand Equity or Double Jeopardy?, Journal oI Product and
Brand Management, Vol.4, No1.

65
5.4 Objective 3 Main Findings: Discerning whether there is sufficient
differentiation among the key brand players

As is well known in the brand equity literature, brands with high esteem tend
to score high across seemingly discreet attributes, due to the 'halo eIIect
phenomenon. 'Halo eIIect urges consumers to attribute high scores to most oI
the attributes, based on the degree oI brand knowledge, usage and
involvement. In order to purge data oI the halo eIIect, which more oIten than
not seethes into quantitatively consolidated perceptions, the statistical method
oI double centered normalization was applied (cI.4.6, Objective 3).

The output Irom the above analysis allowed the determination oI the true
points oI diIIerentiation among brands in the Bath Foams market, which are
displayed in Table 12:

Table12- Output of Double-centered normalization (DCN)

PaImoIive Badedas Dove Fa Johnson's Lux Nivea Sanex Papoutsanis
Identification 99 98 94 98 111 98 101 101 101
A bath foam would choose for
myself 100 100 100 99 98 103 99 100 100
Suitable for the whole family 98 97 91 100 111 98 102 103 102
Suitable for children 100 98 91 96 124 93 101 99 101
ExperientiaI Benefits 100 100 99 102 98 102 99 99 100
Brand enjoy using 101 98 102 101 99 101 99 99 101
Makes everyday cleansing more
pleasurable 99 100 100 101 99 102 98 99 99
Makes innovative exciting bath
foam 99 100 100 103 96 102 101 99 99
Good for relaxing 101 100 99 100 98 103 98 100 100
Provides overall well being 100 102 98 103 96 101 98 99 100
Refreshing 101 101 96 102 98 101 101 99 99
VaIue/QuaIity perceptions 100 100 96 101 102 99 102 101 103
Good quality 100 98 102 98 100 101 102 101 100
Has a competitive price 100 102 89 103 103 97 102 101 105
Performance/Imagery 100 100 102 99 99 100 100 100 100
Foams well 98 103 100 103 98 99 99 98 101
Cleans well 98 103 100 102 99 101 101 99 99
Has fragrances love 99 99 105 102 95 105 97 97 101
Has long lasting fragrance 100 101 101 101 96 103 98 98 99
Clinically Tested 101 101 98 99 100 97 102 105 97
Has a moisturising effect 101 99 107 97 96 100 102 101 99
Gentle on skin 101 99 104 99 103 99 101 100 100
Keeps skin healthy 99 100 98 98 101 98 101 103 100
Purifying effect on skin 101 100 104 98 97 99 98 101 101
Leaves skin soft & supple 100 98 110 97 99 99 101 100 101
Beauty treatment for my skin 100 102 103 100 97 100 98 101 100
Does not dry the skin 100 101 107 97 99 100 100 99 97
Contains natural ingredients 100 97 99 100 101 96 101 103 99
Like texture/consistency 101 99 104 97 100 100 99 98 100

In order Ior a DCN equity score to be meaningIul as a point oI diIIerentiation,
thus constituting a competitive advantage or disadvantage, it must be either
above or equal to 105 and below or equal to 95 respectively.

66
On the grounds oI the above analysis the Iollowing are inIerred (per key brand
oI concern):

Dove is clearly the leading equity, with the highest salience (spontaneous
brand awareness) score (60). In terms oI equity, it stands out in
perIormance/imagery. In particular, it is well diIIerentiated Irom competition
in terms oI well endorsed range oI Iragrances, Ior leaving skin soIt, not drying
the skin, and Ior its moisturizing eIIects.

1ohnson`s has carved a key territory and is perceived mainly Ior its suitability
Ior children and Ior the whole Iamily, thus standing out in terms oI
identiIication.

Lux stands out Ior its Iragrances, Sanex Ior being clinically tested and
Papoutsanis Ior its competitive prices.

Palmolive, Badedas, FA, Nivea do not have any clear positioning, while their
equity is indiscreet and diIIuse.

In a nutshell, the majority oI key brand players in the Bath Foams market have
not attained to cultivate points oI diIIerentiation, in Keller`s terms, thus Iacing
the threat oI unsustainable competitive advantage and market share erosion in
the long term. Equity scores are suggestive oI points-oI-parity associations,
which 'represent a necessary, but not suIIicient condition Ior brand choice
(Keller 1998, p.117).

5.5 Objective 4 Main Findings: Descriptive overview of the primary and
secondary brand associations of key brand players

On the grounds oI the Brand Equity pyramid and in the light oI the main
Iindings in the context oI desk research, this section provides an exposition oI
key brands` primary and secondary brand associations.

The exposition oI brand associations, as noted in the Methodology chapter,
aims to unearth latent consumer perceptions through qualitative research
techniques and against the background oI discourse analysis. Hence, Iollowing
Van Dijk`s (cI.4.6) recommended steps Ior discourse analysis, an attempt was

67
made primarily at singling out certain areas oI concern, in line with the topics
covered in the in-depth interviews discussion guide. Then, primary data
(verbatims) were rearranged in such a Iashion, as to transIorm speech-acts into
brand equity related insights, while trying to respect the original intention
behind speech-acts on behalI oI consumers.

Starting with a synopsis oI the Iirst three objectives` main Iindings, it was
Iound that experiential beneIits is the key value driver oI the Bath Foams
category as a whole; on a category level, brand equity does not correlate highly
with market perIormance (in a direct Iashion), due to the high degree oI
undiIIerentiated equity perceptions Ior the majority oI key brand players
(Palmolive, FA, Nivea, Badedas), with the exception oI Dove, Sanex and Lux;
Dove is the leading brand in brand equity terms and market perIormance, given
its market share status and its ability to command a higher price premium.

The Iocus oI this section will now turn to an exposition oI key brand players`
primary and secondary brand associations, aIter an overview oI the qualitative
research Iindings on a category-wide level.

Attitudes towards the category

Overall, the category is associated with pictures oI water, bubbles, colors,
Iragrances and Ieelings oI pureness, relaxation, coolness, energy, euphoria and
well being. Most oI the women associate their bath with the time oI relaxation
aIter work, or during the time when they need to Ieel clean and enjoy the
Ieeling oI personal treatment and 'pampering themselves. The category was
claimed to create positive Ieelings to the users. We may argue that InIormants
seem to be involved with the bath Ioam category as illustrated by their
responses ('I spend a lot oI time in Iront oI the shelves, checking new products
and smelling various variants InIormant 5, I like trying new variants-
InIormant:6).

During the 'perceptions/habits exploration stage oI the in depth interviews,
InIormants were asked to state spontaneously the criteria they use when
selecting a bath Ioam. Following the Iirst stage where InIormants reIerred to
the criteria spontaneously, they were Iurther asked on other criteria (not
mentioned spontaneously) and their importance to them. It is important to note

68
that during that process, InIormants were mentioning as main criteria not only
Iunctional beneIits but also more emotional beneIits such as the Ieeling oI
Ireshness (InIormants:1,2) or Ieelings oI relaxation: ' I want to Ieel relaxed
aIter having taken a bath at the end oI a diIIicult day (InIormants: 5,7). During
that stage, the Iollowing criteria emerged as the most important ones:

Fragrances: Fragrance was claimed to be one oI the major criteria Ior the
selection oI the category. 'I choose this brand since it has Iragrances I like
(InIormants: 6, 7, 9). What InIormants expected Irom 'Iragrance is variable.
Some are looking Ior strong, 'happy Iragrances; others claimed that they are
looking Ior more 'discreet Iragrances. Some say that they want it to last aIter
the bath, others that they enjoy the Iragrance during the bathing process. In any
case, InIormants claimed to smell the products in Iront oI the shelI in order to
be able to make the Iinal decision.

Packaging Aesthetics: packaging appears to play a signiIicant role in the
InIormants` decision hierarchy, especially when in Iront oI the shelI. Aspects
oI packaging that aIIect purchase decisions are shape and color as they
constitute the Iirst impression that a consumer gets Irom a product. Many
InIormants claimed that 'packaging plays a signiIicant role in my decision as I
want to have something beautiIul in my bathroom.(InIormants:2,8) It is worth
noting that 'size was not claimed to be a signiIicant Iactor aIIecting the
purchase decision.

However, preIerences vary depending on the size oI the Iamily but it is worth
mentioning that all interviewees claimed that they buy small sizes during
holidays. Some InIormants claimed that they usually buy small sizes in order
to have a lot oI diIIerent bath Ioams in the bathroom to have the opportunity to
choose among them according to their mood or even use more than one during
their bathing. As InIormant 7 said 'I want to have a lot oI diIIerent bottles in
my bathroom, and be able to choose between them according to my mood.

Benefits (Moisture- feeling on the skin-skin care): Two key beneIits
emerged in InIormants` discourses with regard to the use oI a bath Ioam brand:
The Ieeling oI cleanliness (the Ieeling that they have taken the route Ior
personal hygiene) and moisture. With regard to the Ieeling oI cleanliness,
InIormants claimed that this varies depending on the product used. Some bath

69
Ioams give the sensation oI pure cleanliness, while others do not meet this
requirement. However, it is notable that the Ieeling oI cleanliness is a threshold
requirement and it is closely connected with Ireshness, coolness and
revitalization.

With regard to moisture, InIormants claimed that they need to Ieel their skin
smooth and moisturized. Moisturizing eIIect was claimed to be one oI the
major beneIits that InIormants seek Irom their bath Ioam. It is worth
mentioning that certain InIormants claimed that they do not expect or seek
hydration Irom their bath Ioam since they use special creams aIter their bath to
moisture their skin. As stated by InIormant 4: 'I am not interested in
moisturizing eIIect. I use body lotion Ior this reason aIter my bath.

For both these beneIits (cleanliness and moisturizing eIIect), the texture oI the
product seems to be closely associated with the beneIit. This association is
mostly clear Ior the moisturizing eIIect where InIormants consider creamy,
thick texture as responsible Ior leaving the skin soIt and hydrated. As
InIormant 7 said: 'I use Dove and I have this Ieeling oI deep moisture. It is
because oI this creamy, thick, white texture.

Promotion: Price did not appear to be a Iactor that aIIects InIormants`
decision. As stated by InIormant 6 'The bath Ioams are not so expensive. The
diIIerences between the brands are rather small, so I do not pay attention to
prices. What I seek is a product I like and I will pay Ior this. It is important to
note that the InIormants do not appear to be price sensitive either because they
do not consider the category to be 'expensive or because they want the best
Ior themselves and they are willing to pay Ior this. However, promotions (both
value adding promotions -with giIts- or price incentives (price oII, volume
Iree) seem to constitute a purchase incentive in case the brand that is promoted
is included in the InIormants` roster oI brands that are considered Ior the next
purchase given that these brands respond equally well to the given set oI
requirements.

InIormants have a set oI products that they like and are willing to switch
between them and promotions may have an impact on their decision Ior
selecting any oI the brands comprising their salient set. In case a brand has
been rejected by the consumer, it will not be purchased even iI it has a very

70
low price or is promoted with a very attractive giIt. As InIormant 4 said 'I go
to the super market and I normally take a look at the brands that I use most
oIten. In case one oI them has a promotion I like I am keen on giIts I will
purchase it. But I will not consider buying brands I do not like only because
they are on promotion. 'I once changed because I liked the promotion but the
product was awIul and I decided not to pay attention to the promotions
anymore. 'I only pay attention on the promotions that have the products I like
and I switch between them (InIormant: 5).

Both types oI promotions (value added or price related) were stated as
important. People like their main brand to oIIer them volume Iree. As
InIormant 10 said 'I enjoy buying my Iavourite brand under Iree volume
promotion. It seems to me that I gain more. I would buy it anyway, but with
Iree volume, I buy more at less price.

Nevertheless, value added promotions (such as product and Iree giIt) appear to
draw more easily InIormants` attention and are considered to be a very
eIIective promotion. As InIormant 3 said 'I love giIts. Each time I am in Iront
oI a shelI I spend a lot oI time checking who gives the best giIt.

It is notable that a lot oI promotions have been recalled either during the
mapping process when talking about the brands they have consumed - or
during the initial talk about the criteria that aIIect their purchase decision
particularly when talking about the reasons Ior switching. The Iollowing were
quite memorable promotions: Dove Bath Foam with Iree hut made oI silk,
Dove with Iree blouse made oI silk, Palmolive with slippers, Badedas with Iree
mini radio. As InIormant 10 said 'Badedas is a brand that I would not use.
However, I bought the male variant Ior my husband since it had a mini radio as
a giIt and I was sure he would like it.

Information Sources

With regard to advertising, it is notable that at the beginning oI the
conversation, all InIormants argued that advertising does not inIluence their
decision and it does not convince them on the brand`s beneIits. As InIormant 1
said 'All advertisements look the same and all advertisements claim the same.
That is the reason that I do not pay attention to them. These responses took

71
place during the Iirst stage oI the in depth interview process when InIormants
were asked iI they were inIluenced by advertisements.

At that time, it was stressed that the role oI advertising is limited to building
awareness. 'It helps me learn about new products in order to have a look at
them the next time I visit a super market (InIormant 4), but they need to use
and test the products in order to draw their conclusions.

However, as the discussion evolved, diIIerent perceptions emerged indirectly,
especially through the employment oI projective techniques. For example,
InIormant 1, even though she claimed primarily that she is not inIluenced by
advertisements, reIerred to Dove as 'white and clean, and recalled ' the sense
oI milk pouring on your skin leaving it soIt and smooth when talking about
her Iavourite brand. These images were instilled to consumer perceptions
through advertising communication. InIormant 7, despite the Iact that at the
beginning oI the interview argued that she was not inIluenced by the
advertising, at the stage oI brand mapping, she said 'I have bought FA. I had
seen the advertisement with the island, the naked woman, the colours, and it
reminded me oI vacations. I had positive Ieeling so I bought it.

Overall, with regard to the recalled advertisements, FA TV communication
(the woman under the waterIall) is the advertisement that is most salient,
Iollowed by Dove`s communication (either testimonials- InIormants talking
about their experiences when using DOVE or the visual with the /
moisturizing cream pouring into Dove`s bottle). It is notable that not only
television, but also magazines were recorded as a valuable vehicle oI
communicating new product oIIerings.

In addition to the above, the shelves oI the retail outlets were reported as a key
inIormation source about new variants or other bath Ioams ('I spend time in
Iront oI the shelves, smelling and having a look at the variants as stated by
InIormants 5,6).

Having thus Iar dwelt on the Iindings oI the Iirst stage oI the in-depth
interview, we shall now proceed with the exposition oI primary and secondary
associations Ior each key brand player oI concern, as they emerged during the

72
second stage oI the in-depth interviews, though the brand mapping exercise,
the moodboard and projective techniques.

Dove

With regard to the brand knowledge dimension, it is remarkable that Dove -as
a leading brand- enjoys high levels oI spontaneous awareness, since it was not
only spontaneously recalled by all InIormants users or non users oI the
brand- but it was also recalled among the three Iirst mentions. With regards to
brand image, InIormants appeared to have a very clear idea about what Dove
stands Ior: Luxurious, premium, creamy with a moisturizing eIIect` even in
the case oI InIormants that had rejected it. As a brand with such clear brand
image, Dove has built associations in InIormants` minds, rich in all dimensions
(attributes, beneIits and attitudes).

With regard to the perIormance/ imagery dimension oI the brand equity
pyramid, the brand is claimed to have clear Iunctional beneIits, both tangible
(moisturizing eIIect) and intangible (my skin is smoother and looks younger).
The perception oI these Iunctional beneIits are enhanced through various
attributes oI the brand, either Iunctional, product related (creamy texture) or
non product related (such as the communication oI the / moisturizing cream
that pours into the bottle).

In addition to that, Dove has strong brand elements: (strong brand name, strong
symbols -the dove picture, the white color, the creme pouring into the bottle-
and a packaging (the oval, white opaque bottle) that are easily recognized and
established at the consumer`s minds. As stated by InIormant 10 ' When I am
thinking about Dove, the picture oI the milk pouring into the bottle comes to
my mind, giving me the sense that it will oIIer a unique moisturizing eIIect.
Overall, Dove appears to meet the basic requirement oI the 'moisturizing
eIIect, while InIormants claim that they Ieel this moisturizing eIIect during
the bathing process.

With regard to the experiential beneIits dimension oI the brand equity pyramid,
Dove is perceived as a premium brand oI high quality that is used by
InIormants that treat themselves; they are rich, clean and beautiIul. Dove
evokes a picture oI Luxury and richness. It is notable that during brand

73
personiIication, InIormants described the brand as a woman (aged 35 years old
) that enjoys taking care oI herselI, wearing nice, expensive clothes. As
illustrated by InIormant 7 ' Dove is a woman around 30, that is Luxurious,
surrounded by white objects in a clean , expensive house, she wears expensive
clothes , she owns a yacht, she is part oI the jet set. This image was strong
even in the analogy process with the Dove planet as described by InIormant 3:
'Dove planet is strong, it is diIIerentiated, very Luxurious, and very clean,
with people with lots oI money that live a Luxurious liIe.

It is important to note that this picture is described by both Dove users and
InIormants that have rejected the brand. The Iormer adore the rich, beautiIul
woman and they want to be like her, the latter consider this lady somewhat
hypocritical or even boring and distant and cannot relate to her. In both cases
the picture and the associations are clear. Dove is white, creamy, rich, leaves
the skin smooth and supple. In the case oI its users, as illustrated by InIormant
1: 'Dove is my brand: a brand that takes care oI my skin is rich, pure, and
Luxurious. Dove brand is a very clear choice Ior those InIormants that seek
moisturizing beneIits Irom the bath Ioam category. These perceptions were
conIirmed during the collage process, where InIormants were choosing icons
oI expensive bags, satin clothes, jewellery, beautiIul - clean - blonde women,
creams, white color to describe the Dove brand.

However, the InIormants that rated experiential beneIits (Iragrance, relaxation,
excitement) as more important than moisturization had negative perceptions
about Dove, considering it a little bit boring. 'It remained unchanged over the
years (InIormant 5), 'It has a single Iragrance, not the variety I need (
InIormant 6). In addition to this, the lack oI variety, the and single minded
concept oI moisture is connected in some InIormants` mind with inertia,
indolence: 'Too clean and soIt to be exciting as InIormant 6 said.

Overall, Dove holds strong associations (white, milk, soItness) that have been
built not only though advertisement, but supported through all elements oI the
marketing mix (white packaging, thick texture, promotions with satin garments
that convey the idea oI soItness and Luxury). It is notable that apart Irom
strong, Dove associations are Iavorable and unique, mostly Ior those consumer
seeking soItness and hydration Irom their bath Ioam. In any case, Dove enjoys

74
a very clear positioning as a brand that is premium, well established, oI high
quality, that delivers its promise oI moisture.

Palmolive

Palmolive does not appear to have a strong, unique, single minded image in
consumer`s minds as is the Dove case.

In terms oI the perIormance/ imagery dimension oI the brand equity pyramid,
the Palmolive attributes are not so clear. It is notable that InIormants could not
claim a clear Iunctional beneIit -such as soItness on skin- Ior the Palmolive
equity. The only clear Iunctional beneIit that Palmolive was considered to oIIer
was a variety oI products. The beneIits oI these products varied depending on
the product line they have used or recalled. The only 'striking product related
attributes oI the Palmolive equity was its Iragrances and diIIerent packaging
colors. This was argued by InIormants talking about the colors oI Palmolive
packaging that attracted their attention on the shelves; they smelt it and they
bought it. Overall, Palmolive has the image oI a brand that oIIers variety in
terms oI diIIerent colors, Iragrances, beneIits (relaxation with Aromatherapy or
revitalization with the SPA line), while not being considered premium.

It is notable that Palmolive brand has a lot oI identities ('It is not one planet, it
is a lot oI smaller, diIIerent ones as stated by InIormant 5). On the one hand,
Palmolive is modern, diIIerent, young, joyIul, and Iull oI colors and
Iragrances, exciting. As described by InIormants, during the projective
techniques phase, the Palmolive planet is 'a green, natural environment,
exotic, with strong Iragrances, with lightly dressed, beautiIul, young, warm
people (InIormant 4), 'Relaxing environment, something like a spa, where no
stress, no activity exists, a world Iull oI pale colors light purple, light blue -
more a rainIorest type oI world '(InIormant 6). Similar pictures were used to
describe Palmolive during the moodboard technique: Islands, natural
environment, green trees, Ilowers, young InIormants in beachwear.

Palmolive associations (nature, colors, Iun) are rather strong and Iavorable,
especially to these InIormants seeking more 'experiential beneIits Irom a bath
Ioam such as relaxation, strong Iragrances. However, Palmolive associations

75
are not unique. On the contrary, they are very similar to FA`s brand
associations.

FA

most oI the InIormants claimed that FA oIIers a variety oI Iragrances, while the
Iunctional beneIit oI soItness on skin was not reported. When reIerring to
Iunctional, product related attributes, people associate FA with strong
Iragrances and strong colors mostly with packaging elements. As InIormant
6 said 'When I think oI FA, a lot oI variants, colors and Iragrances are coming
to my mind.

With regard to experiential beneIits we may argue that FA has more
'experiential beneIits, and InIormants perceive it as a brand that 'makes
cleansing more pleasant and reIreshing. 'FA experience is reIreshing 'as
InIormant 2 says.

It is worth mentioning that at the stage oI the brand mapping process, the
pictures oI colors, nature, activity, reIreshing experience and Iragrances were
mainly quoted. FA communication (TV ads) played a major role in building
associations to InIormants` minds. It is notable that FA TV advertisement was
the Iirst recalled by all InIormants. In addition to that, in the context oI the
analogies technique, the FA brand was described as an island that is
surrounded by sea and waterIalls, images that are communicated in the FA
commercial.

Overall, FA is associated with Iragrances and a reIreshing experience, but
lacks a diIIerentiated image and a clear identity.

Badedas

With regards to awareness, Badedas lacks in spontaneous awareness (just 2 out
oI 10 InIormants recalled it spontaneously) but it has been promptly
recognized by all the InIormants. As Iar as product related attributes are
concerned, the InIormants recorded the variety oI Badedas` Iragrances along

76
with the shape oI its bottle. With regards to perIormance / imagery attributes,
Badedas was described as an average bath Ioam that cleans well.

Badedas was Iound to be lacking in experiential beneIits. This may have to do
with the Iact that Badedas is related more to a 'masculine brand. It is
characteristic that during the analogies process, most InIormants described
Badedas as an athletic man. Most oI the InIormants have associated Badebas
with men since it is the brand they buy Ior the male members oI their Iamilies.
As InIormant 10 said: 'I buy Badedas Ior my husband and I use another brand.
Badedas Iragrances are too strong and 'machoIor me and InIormant 6 said:
'I use it when I ran out oI my brand and I borrow my boyIriend`s bath Foam.
Overall, it was rather rejected by 8 out oI 10 InIormants, while Ior the other 2
it was not a top choice.

Nivea

Nivea is a brand that competes in various product categories and is well known
Ior its creams / body lotions products. However, it lacks awareness as a bath
Ioam brand no InIormant recalled it spontaneously. When people identiIied it
they talked about boring bottles with no innovation. As InIormant 10 said:
Everything is boring about Nivea: the opaque, blue bottles, the Iragrance,
everything!

Nivea , due to its strong heritage in body lotions and creams has been accepted
as a brand that may oIIer moisture eIIect but as InIormant said: 'There are
better options in bath Ioam category when seeking moisture. It is interesting
to note that during the analogies` process, Nivea was evoking images oI boring
Iamily movies, ordinary, unsuccessIul people. Nivea did not have either strong
or Iavourable associations.

Lux

Lux is a brand that has strong awareness since more that halI oI the InIormants
recognized the brand spontaneously.

With regard to Iunctional beneIits, Lux is associated with its Iragrances.
InIormants that were users oI Lux rated its Iragrances as elegant and long

77
lasting (as InIormant 8 said 'Lux Iragrances are long lasting. I love them),
while other InIormants Iound them too strong. It is worth mentioning that there
was the case oI 2 InIormants (2, 6) that described Lux as a brand that is old
Iashioned and associated it with the soap category. As InIormant 6 said: 'Lux
reminds me oI my grand mother that was using Lux soap. It is so old Iashion!

With regard to experiential beneIits, InIormants that are brand users, described
Ieelings oI Luxury and pleasure when describing the Ieelings they get when
having a bath with Lux. Overall, Lux is connected with pictures oI Luxury. It
is notable that during the analogies stage, Lux was described as a rich woman,
older woman, with Luxurious appearance but a little bit distant. As InIormant 5
said: 'Lux is a woman at mid 40s that is beautiIul, very Luxurious, attracts
attention but does not let the others approach her; she is a little bit distant. In
addition, in the context oI the moodboard technique, Lux was associated with
pictures oI gold, precious stones, Iemme Iatales.

Lux image has been inIluenced by the TV advertisements that show beautiIul,
rich and Iamous celebrities bathing with Lux. Two InIormants (2,3) recalled
these advertisements. As InIormant 2 said: 'Lux reminds me oI E. Menegaki |
a Greek, TV persona that has endorsed the brand| that is beautiIul, Luxurious,
but somehow 'comme il Iaux.

Overall, Lux is connected with Iragrances and the idea oI Luxury. However,
we must highlight the Iact that in most cases the idea oI 'Luxurious brand has
been rejected by InIormants as something that is not realistic. As InIormant 6
said: 'Lux would like to be premium and Luxurious, but it is Iake.

Sanex

Although Sanex is well positioned in InIormants` minds, it does not enjoy high
levels oI spontaneous awareness. Sanex identity is very clear. With regard to
the Iunctional beneIits, Sanex is considered to be clinically tested, hygiene,
suitable Ior people with allergies that need something neutral Ior their
cleansing. People recall it promptly, but rarely include it in their set oI products
that they regularly buy. Sanex is more Iunctional ('Neutral, 'Clinically
tested), but lacks emotional associations. During the analogies` process,
Sanex was described as a doctor or someone that is obsessed with cleanliness

78
and hygiene, someone that most oI the InIormants could not relate with.
Nevertheless, Sanex was strongly diIIerentiated versus all other brands in the
category as the expertise in hygiene.

1ohnson`s & 1ohnson`s

In terms oI brand awareness, the brand was mainly (8 out oI 10 InIormants)
promptly recalled by InIormants. It is notable that Johnson`s was not
spontaneously recalled since most InIormants have associated Johnson brand
more with shampoo or body cream categories rather than the bath Ioam
category. When they were prompted whether they knew the brand or not, they
associated the brand with other product categories. 'I know it, but somehow I
recall mostly the baby shampoos (InIormant: 7)

the J&J brand is related to the beneIit oI 'soItness on skin. More speciIically,
regarding product related attributes, the InIormants recalled the opaque bottle
oI J&J along with its creamy texture. The elements oI bottle, milky texture and
soIt Iragrances were described during the Iree associations` stage. As
InIormant 1 said: 'J&J has a very creamy texture, and it has a very nice
moisturizing eIIect. Overall, J&J has built strong perceptions in InIormants`
minds over the years: 'It is creamy, soIt, and suitable Ior babies as InIormant
2 said.

With regards to experiential beneIits, it is notable that J&J brand was described
as a brand that respects the skin, but did not evoke multiple descriptions related
to Ieelings or pictures. Moreover, it is not perceived as something premium (as
in the case oI Dove), but as a viable option in the bath Ioam category.

It is notable that during the analogies` stage, all InIormants described J&J
brand as a baby that is sweet and soIt. The J&J brand association with babies
(suitability Ior kids) is very strong. During this process, it was made clear that
J&J advertisements in all product categories had played a signiIicant role in
building this association. It is worth mentioning that during the analogies
process Iour out oI ten InIormants, while describing images and characteristics
oI the J&J brand, recalled the Johnson shampoo advertising 'No more tears.
As InIormant 2 said 'It reminds me oI the 'no more tears shampoo

79
advertisements, with the baby that does not cry. Johnson`s has a very strong
identity as a brand suitable Ior the whole Iamily.

Differences and Similarities among brands

During the brand mapping and the analogies phases oI the in depth interviews,
some points oI diIIerence and /or similarities between the brands emerged.
During the brand mapping process, the InIormants clustered the brands
according to their key brand selection criteria. The two dominant criteria upon
which brands were categorized were the Iollowing: Skin Care (hydratation),
Iragrance and experiential beneIits (Ieelings oI cleanliness, relaxation,
pureness, Ireshness). Brands were Iound to Iall largely in two broad categories:
skin care (Dove, J&J, Nivea) and that oI Iragrances and Ireshness (Palmolive,
FA, Badedas and Lux).

On the one hand, it was evident that Dove, Johnsons and Nivea brands were
highly connected to hydration. Despite the Iact that all these three brands had a
point oI parity (the moisturizing beneIit), Iurther analysis during the projective
techniques pointed to quite a Iew points oI diIIerence. Dove oIIers a
moisturizing eIIect, but at the same time it is premium and more relevant to the
InIormants. Dove has a 'Iemale image, a brand that is used by InIormants that
take care oI their appearance and want to be beautiIul and unique. On the
contrary, J&J appears to be a brand Ior the whole Iamily, a brand relevant to
kids that housewives buy in an eIIort to 'take care oI your Iamily. Nivea
leverages its strong heritage oI body lotion category in bath Ioams and has an
image oI a brand that oIIers skin moisture, but lacks in terms oI experiential
beneIits and identiIication.

On the other hand, Palmolive, FA, Badedas and Lux were categorized as
brands that have very strong Iragrances. Palmolive and FA were perceived to
be very close as brands that oIIer reIreshing experiences. This Iinding was
clear during the projective techniques, when InIormants were describing Fa
and Palmolive with almost the same pictures oI nature and Iun. One diIIerence
between these two that emerged during the analogies` process was the Iact that
'Palmolive lady appeared to be more involved with her appearance, more
relaxed, whereas FA lady was more into sports. Badedas, as already described,

80
has a more 'male image and lacks the 'Ieminine side. Lux has strong
variants but it lacks in reIreshing experiential beneIits.

5.6 Conclusion

This chapter presented the main Iindings according to the Iour research
objectives. As emerged through desk research, the majority oI brand players
suIIer Irom low discrimination in brand equity terms, which is reIlected in the
lukewarm relationship between brand equity and market perIormance.

From analyses conducted on secondary data and the brand mapping technique
conducted during the qualitative phase oI the project it was Iound that
experiential beneIits, Iragrances and the beneIit oI moisturization are key value
drivers in the Bath Foams category. Dove was Iound to be the leading equity in
the Bath Foams market in both equity terms and market perIormance, which
corroborates Keller`s hypothesis that strong brands cherish higher market shares
and are able to command price premiums. Palmolive was Iound to perIorm well
on the experiential beneIits equity building block during the qualitative
exploration oI brand associations, however consumer perceptions are somewhat
polarized. This is attributed to the existence oI diIIerent product lines and an
inconsistent brand promise, as against Dove, which has a coherent equity
platIorm, built on the promise oI moisturization and IortiIied via cross category
promotions.

The next chapter constitutes a reIlection on the main Iindings oI the research
against the literature review, while Iocusing on Dove and Palmolive brands and
attempting to point to directions whereby brand equity may be enhanced.

81

CHAPTER 6: Conclusions and Recommendations Ior
Iurther research

82
6.1 Introduction

This chapter Iocuses on advertising and new product development, which
constitute two major sources oI consumer based brand equity (cI. Chapters and
2 and 3). Brands with consistent and relevant brand communications and a
clear brand promise across line extensions may sustain Iierce competitive
pressure and cherish higher margins. In Chapter 5, this aspect oI brand equity
was amply evidenced in the case oI Dove, which is a category leader in market
share terms, as well as a brand with a clear, distinctive and relevant
positioning.

This chapter provides an interpretation the main Iindings oI secondary and
primary research, with a Iocus on Dove and Palmolive brands, while pointing
to relevant areas Ior Iurther research.

6.2 Integrated Marketing Communications as a way of building and
sustaining brand differentiation, competitive advantage and brand equity
in the Bath Foams category
Secondary and primary research Iindings clearly pointed to the conclusion that
consumer based brand equity principles apply in the case oI Dove.

In particular, Dove was Iound to be salient in consumers` minds in terms oI its
being able to deliver its brand promise oI moisturization; it has the highest
equity scores among the researched brand players; it has strong, Iavourable and
unique brand associations alongside the key elements oI the brand knowledge
structure. It is able to command a price premium over the rest market players
and it is the leading brand in market share terms. All other marketing variables
(distribution, product innovation, new variants proliIeration, pricing) held
equal, Dove`s brand strength may be attributed largely to consistent brand
communications, which is key Ior building and maintaining brand equity. As
Keller (1998) contends, insoIar brand equity is primarily concerned with brand
associations in consumers` minds, and given brand communications`
instrumental role in cultivating these associations, then the eIIectiveness oI
brand communications is key in building and maintaining brand equity.

83
Hence, in this section an attempt is made to demonstrate how brand
communications may be closely integrated with view to producing the
intended brand knowledge structures Ior the Palmolive brand.

First and Ioremost, the concept oI integrated marketing communications will
be deIined prior to illustrating its components and pointing out possible ways
oI leveraging brand communications with view to building and maintaining
unique, Iavourable and strong brand associations.

Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC) denotes 'all the promotional
elements oI the marketing mix which involve the communications between an
organisation and its target audiences on all matters that aIIect marketing
perIormance (Pickton & Broderick, p.3). For many years, advertising
eIIectiveness analysis in terms oI sales and consumer based measures Iocused
on the perIormance oI TV advertising. The increasing complexity oI reaching
eIIectively and eIIiciently distinct target audiences in multiple contact points
gave rise to the concept oI IMC as a way oI systematically accounting Ior the
synergies that are built when employing multiple communicative vehicles in
the implementation oI a marketing communications program.

The quest Ior possible links between IMC and brand equity is oIten considered
as a quest Ior the Holy Grail (according to Ehrenberg, 1997), given that the
ways whereby the eIIectiveness oI various communicative vehicles is
measured diIIer markedly. For instance, TV advertising eIIectiveness is
measured in terms oI actual GRPs, CPR, reach, Irequency, which is not
directly comparable to Outdoor and print advertising (despite the Iact that
some measures are commonly used, they are not directly comparable, given the
creative particularities oI each medium and the diIIerent levels oI exposure to
and involvement with each medium). This is Iurther complicated by less
traditional vehicles that Iall under the generic term 'direct or 'below the line
marketing, encompassing database marketing, couponing, events, e-advertising
etc.

Pickton and Broderick portray these vehicles in their Wheel oI Integrated
Marketing Communications, which depicts 'the planned activities oI
marketing communications and all the unintended or uncontrolled

84
communications between an organization and its audiences that collectively
aIIect the outcome oI these two core and overlapping management tasks".

Figure 5- The Wheel of Integrated Marketing Communications
adapted Irom Pickton and Broderick 2001, p.9

Examining the level oI integration among the various communicative vehicles
employed by Palmolive would amount to a wholly diIIerent area oI
investigation. Instead, the Iocus is on the provision oI general guidelines Ior
optimizing the integration oI brand communications based on the diagnosed
equity deIicit Ior Palmolive in Chapter 5. In particular, emphasis is laid on the
qualitative aspect oI brand communications, in terms oI the consistency and
complementarity oI the various vehicles employed in the context oI an
integrated brand communications plan.

85
'Consistency considerations relate to the extent to which inIormation conveyed
in diIIerent communication options is consistent and thus mutually reinIorcing.
Complementarity considerations relate to the extent to which diIIerent
communication options are designed in a way such that the strengths in one
option help to negate the disadvantages oI another option (Keller 1998,
p.257). Consistency and cohesiveness oI brand image are important because
they determine how easily existing associations can be recalled and additional
associations may be linked to the brand in memory.

As Iound in the context oI secondary and primary research, Palmolive has
multiple personalities due to diIIerent product lines and positioning. Let this
phenomenon be termed 'multiple brand personalities syndrome. Achieving
a distinctive positioning among sub-brands is IruitIul Ior diIIerentiating on an
intra brand level, however it is problematic Ior diIIerentiating on an inter brand
level. This was evidenced Irom the low level oI diIIerentiation oI the
Palmolive brand in the context oI the double centred normalization analysis.

In contradiction to the multiple brand personae oI Palmolive, Dove was Iound
to have a single-minded and coherent positioning, leading to a high brand
equity score and positive market perIormance. Also, consumer associations
about Dove that emerged in the context oI the projective techniques, are very
clear and in line with the brand`s intended positioning, both among consumers
who endorse the brand, as well as among consumers who reject it. Dove`s
advertising communication has been incumbent since market entry on the
single minded proposition oI skin moisturization, a claim that has been
consistently employed in every brand and line extension endeavour, thus
creating homogeneity in consumer perceptions, and gaining sustainable and
diIIerentiated mindshare.

Hence, we may conclude that the multiplicity oI discreet product line beneIits
and consumer associations should be enacted against a uniIorm brand promise.
In terms oI integrated marketing communications, a uniIorm brand promise
may be enacted by employing the key brand beneIit(s) across all
communicative vehicles. This could be executed by including a respective
pack shot in all TV communication, a tag line in radio communication, as well
as an additional line in all POP materials, on pack promotional communication
and PR brieIs, stressing the single minded proposition oI brand equity. In

86
addition, an equity enhancing advertising execution might be developed,
Iocusing on the core brand promise, while depicting all diIIerent product lines.
This would run in tandem with discreet product line Iocused advertising in
order to IortiIy the uniqueness oI the core brand equity. 'ThereIore, in the long
run, diIIerent communication elements should be designed and combined so
that they work eIIectively together to create a coherent and cohesive brand
image (Keller 1998, p.257)

All brand-relevant communication should incorporate the key structural equity
elements, encompassing, apart Irom the logo, brand symbol and colours, the
brand`s single minded brand proposition, thus Iunctioning as an ad retrieval
cue. 'By using ad retrieval cues, greater emphasis can be placed in the ad on
supplying persuasive inIormation and creating positive associations so
respondents have a reason why they should purchase the brand (Keller 1998,
p.260).

In concluding, diIIerent advertising executions should not be viewed as
discreet pieces oI inIormation geared solely towards generating short term
sales, but as parts oI a continuous brand communication program aimed at
generating lasting and memorable brand associations. Without any intention oI
toning down any sales oriented objective, and especially in such a Iragmented
category, populated by repertoire driven respondents as the Bath Foams one,
the brand communications oI Palmolive should have an equity building
objective. This objective may be materialized on the grounds oI the above
suggested guidelines.
6.3 New product development as a way of building and sustaining brand
differentiation, competitive advantage and brand equity in the Bath
Foams category
Another customary mode oI maintaining brand salience is via innovation.
Innovation is a key aspect oI variants and product lines proliIeration in the
Bath Foams category, against the background oI new Iragrances, end beneIits
(advanced moisturization, relaxation, sensuality, exIoliation etc.), pack
aesthetics and usage (cI. Chapter 2). However, given the rapid degree oI
technological advancements, no innovation in the concerned market cannot be
copied within a time span oI six months, thus reducing long term competitive

87
advantage in equity terms to short term sales oriented beneIits. 'The
increasing speed oI technological change is such that there would appear to be
better opportunities Ior developing stronger, more erosion resistant brands by
allocating a larger share oI resources to the so-called soIter side oI image than
is currently used (A.Biel, The Brandscape, Converting Image into Equity,
Admap Oct 1991). Hence, the constantly recurring criticism that brands are not
diIIerentiated and that they are increasingly mere commodities.
Nevertheless, iI innovation takes place against a concrete equity platIorm and a
coherent, relevant and credible brand promise, then it may contribute towards
brand equity sustenance. Again, the case oI Dove stands as a prominent case in
hand. Over and above the consistency in the structural elements employed in
every new product launched by the brand, that is common pack aesthetics (Ilip
top, curved bottle shape, logo and the dove symbol, elliptic lines connoting
modernity and openness Irom a semiotic perspective) what is worth noting is
that all Dove products` Iront labels Ieature in a holistic Iashion the
substantiation oI the discreet, variant speciIic beneIits (be it reIreshment,
Iirming or soItening eIIects), that is the extra moisturization. This
substantiation is uniIormly denoted among a multiplicity oI product beneIits in
the context oI the omnipresent Ilash accompanied by the key claim 'contains /
moisturizing cream. This is not the case with any oI the key competitors
reviewed so Iar. Despite the Iact that all oI the key competitors` on pack
communication lays out explicitly the product beneIits (be it Iunctional or
emotional, or both), none oI them Iollows a consistent approach in terms oI a
single minded brand promise, thus Iragmenting their communication and
posing signiIicant barriers in the establishment oI a coherent equity platIorm.
Hence, the importance oI a coherent equity platIorm, in terms oI a concrete
brand knowledge structure, may lead to the build up and sustenance oI brand
equity.
6.4 Limitations of the research

One oI the major limitations oI this research is the diIIerence in the periods
covered Irom the secondary and primary researches, as secondary research data
stem Irom 2004, whereas primary research was conducted in 2005. Given the
high level oI new product introductions and the concomitant change in brand

88
communications, consumer perceptions may change on the grounds oI trial oI
new products or the exposition to new brand advertising. Hence, despite the
Iact that primary and secondary data were congruent in various respects, the
validity oI the comparison might be enhanced iI all data stemmed Irom the
same period oI time.

As regards the quantitative analyses conducted on secondary data, a more
accurate picture would have been yielded iI more data were available prior to
2004. As stressed in the methodology chapter, methods Ior measuring
quantitatively brand equity oIten involve time series that extend to at least
three years coverage, thus enhancing the robustness oI the output.

As regards primary research, as mentioned in the relevant literature, it takes a
lot oI experience in qualitative research in order to be able to unearth latent
consumer perceptions and overcome certain biases, both Irom the interviewer`s
and the interviewee`s side. The authors oI this study are not proIessional
qualitative researchers, however valuable experiences were gathered in the
process oI designing and implementing the qualitative research.

6.5 Recommendations for future research

From the analysis oI the results oI this research, it has become apparent that
there are several areas that might merit Iurther research, as Iollows:

1. In the process oI seeking to unearth consumer brand associations with
regard to key brand players in the Bath Foams market, several branding
elements were mentioned by inIormants. It would be interesting to delve
into individual brand histories and attempt to display through which
branding strategies these associations crystallized, through Iurther
qualitative exploration, such as semiotic analysis
2. Focusing on market perIormance, it would be interesting to conduct a
longitudinal analysis with the application oI econometric analyses in
order to discern shiIts in brand equity scores and market shares.
3. Since the exploration oI links brand equity and integrated marketing
communications has gained in popularity over the last years, it might be
useIul to explore diIIerent communications mix scenarios and the eIIect
these have on building diIIerential consumer responses, as well as their

89
impact on the strength, Iavourability and uniqueness oI brand
associations.
4. In terms oI methodology, an issue was encountered during primary
research, regarding the indicators that would enable us to classiIy brand
associations as unique, Iavourable and strong. It might be useIul to coin
a systematic approach Ior classiIying brand associations under these
discreet categories.
5. Last, but not least, despite the Iact that brand equity was shown to be a
key Iactor Ior sustaining brand leadership (the case oI Dove), it might
merit Iurther investigation to demonstrate the eIIect oI brand equity in
terms oI short, mid and long term beneIits and in the context oI return
on brand equity investments.

6.6 Conclusion

This chapter constitutes a reIlection on the study`s main Iindings, with an
emphasis on how brand communications and new product development may
help in creating and/or sustaining brand equity. The case oI Dove, the
category`s leading brand, was selected in order to demonstrate how
consistency and complementarity among brand communications and variants
proliIeration may lead to clear and distinctive positioning, strong, Iavourable
and unique brand associations and sustainable brand equity. The reIlection on
Dove`s branding elements was used in order to draw guidelines, against the
relevant literature, Ior optimizing Palmolive`s brand equity, a brand that was
Iound to suIIer Irom what was termed a 'multiple brand personalities
syndrome.

Last, but not least, Iurther areas oI research were outlined in order to enlarge
the exploratory scope and yield more insights in the inherently complex topic
oI brand equity.

90

APPENDICES

91

APPENDIX I: Bibliography

92
Aaker, D.A (1991) Managing Brand Equitv, New York: Free Press
Aaker, D.A (1992) Managing the most important asset: Brand Equity`
Planning Review; 20 (5), pp. 56-58
Aaker, D.A (1995) Building Strong Brands, New York: Free Press
Baldinger, A (1990) DeIining and applying the brand equity concept: Why the
researcher should care` Journal oI Advertising; 30(3), RC2-RC5
Barwise, P (1992) Brand equity: Snark or Boojum?` International Journal oI
Research in Marketing; 10, pp. 93-104
Biel, A., Aaker, D.A. (1993) Brand Equitv and Advertising. Advertisings role
in building strong brands, LEA Publishers
Biel, A. (1991) The Brandscape: Converting brand image into equity` Admap
Biel, A. (1997) Discovering brand magic: the hardness oI the soIter side oI
branding` International Journal oI Advertising, Vol.16, No3
Blackston, M. (1995) Copy-testing and brand equity: What`s the connection?`
Journal oI Advertising Research, 35 (1), RC2-RC7
Blackston, M. (1995) The qualitative dimension oI brand equity` Journal oI
Advertising Research, 35 (4) RC2- RC7
Branthwaite, A , Cooper, P. (2001, Oct) A new role Ior projective techniques:
Tapping the power oI imagery` Esomar Congress Paper
Broadbent S. (1998) Advertising EIIects-more methodological issues` Journal
oI Marketing Research Society, 30 (2), pp.224-229
Chaudhuri, A. (1995) Brand Equity or double jeopardy?` Journal oI Product
and Brand Management, 4 (1), 26-32
Chay, Richard F (1991) How Marketing Researchers Can Harness the Power
oI Brand Equity` Marketing Research, v 3, n 2.
Cobb-Walgren, C., Ruble, C., and Donthu, N. (1995) Brand equity, brand
preIerence, and purchase intent` Journal oI Advertising, 24 (3), 25-40.
Cooper, A. (1998, Jan) Brand equity - a liIestage model` Admap Publications
De Chernatony, L., Martinez, E. (2004) The eIIect oI brand extension
strategies upon brand image` Journal oI Consumer Marketing, Vol 21, No 1,
pp.39-50
De Chernatony, L. (2001) A Taxonomy oI Brand-Linkages: the brand-
relationship-interaction (BRI) matrix` Working Paper, Birmingham University
Business School
Davis, S., and Douglass, D. (1995) Holistic approach to brand equity
management` Marketing News, 29 (2) 4-5

93
Duncan, T. and Moriarty S. (1997) Driving Brand Jalue. Using Integrated
Marketing to Manage Profitable Stakeholder Relationships, McGraw Hill,
N.Y.
Dyson, P., Farr, A., and Hollis , N. (1996) Understanding, measuring, and
using brand equity` Journal oI Advertising Research, 36 (6), pp.9-21
Ehrenberg, A. , Barnard, N., Scriven, J. (1997, Nov/Dec) DiIIerentiation or
Salience` Journal oI Advertising Resrearch
Farquhar, P. (1990) Managing brand equity` Journal oI Advertising Research,
30(4), RC7-RC12
Feldwick, P. (1996) What is brand equity anyway, and how do you measure
it?` Journal oI Market Research Society, 38 (2), 85-104
Feldwick, P. (1996) Do We Really Need Brand-Equity?` Esomar Congress
Paper
Hollis, N. (1995) How to Show the InIluence oI Advertising on Sales: New
ProoI that Advertising Works, at least in the Short-Term` Admap
KapIerer, J.N. (1999) Strategic Brand Management. Creating and Sustaining
Brand Equitv Long-Term, Kegan Page, London
Keller, K. (1990) Consumer Evaluations oI brand extensions` Journal oI
Marketing, 54, pp. 27-41
Keller, K. (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based
brand equity` Journal oI Marketing, 57 (1), pp. 1-22
Keller, K. (1998) Strategic Brand Management. Building, Measuring and
Managing Brand-Equitv, Prentice-Hall, NJ
Khandelwal, M. and McKinney, C. (2003) Comparing Brand Equity
Valuation With In-Market PerIormance, Truths unIolded` Esomar Congress
Paper
Krishnam, H. (1996) Characteristics oI memory associations: A consumer-
based brand equity perspective` International Journal oI Research in
Marketing, 13, pp. 389-405
Lassar, W., Mittal, B., Sharma, A. (1995) Measuring customer-based brand
equity` Journal oI Consumer Marketing, pp. 11-19
Leuthesser, L., Kohli, C., and Harich, K. (1995) Brand equity: The halo eIIect
measure` European Journal oI Marketing, 29 (40), pp. 57-66
Low, G.S., Lamb, C.W. (2000) The measurement and dimensionality oI brand
associations` Journal oI Product and Brand Management, Vol.9, N.6, pp.350-
368

94
Mahajan, V., Rao, V., Srivastava, R. (1994) An approach to assess the
importance oI brand equity in acquisition decisions` Journal oI Product
Innovation Management, 11, pp. 221-235.
Martinez, E, Pina, J.M. (2003) The negative impact oI brand extensions on
parent brand` Journal oI Product & Brand Management, Vol.12, No 7, pp.432-
448
Morgan, R.P. (2000) A Consumer-Oriented Framework oI Brand Equity and
Loyalty` Journal oI Market Research Society, Vol.42, Winter
Morgan, R.P., Carter, I., (1998, Jul) Measuring brand equity- a consumer led
approach` Admap
Morgan, R.P. (1993) Measuring brand equity: For marketers, it has to include
'desirability' - and involves an intriguing new research toolkit` Admap
Motameni, R. & Shahrokhi,M. (1998) Brand equity valuation: a global
perspective` Journal oI Product & Brand Management, Vol.7, No 4, pp.275-
290
OakenIull, G., and Gelb, B. (1996) Research-based advertising to preserve
brand equity but avoid genericide`` Journal oI Advertising Research, 36 (5),
pp. 65-72
Parker, I. (1992) Discourse Dvnamics, Routledge, London
Parker, I., Burman, E. (1993) Discourse Analvtic Research, Routldege, London
Pitta, D., and Katsanis, L. (1995) Understanding brand equity Ior successIul
extension` Journal oI Consumer Marketing, 12 (4), pp.51-64
Romaniuk, J. & Sharp, B. (1996) Using known patterns in image data to
determine brand positioning` Journal oI Market Research Society
Potter, J., Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psvchologv, Sage
Publications, London
Seetharaman, A., Nadzir, Z. Gunalan, S. (2001) A conceptual study on brand
valuation` Journal oI product and brand management, Vol.10, No 4, pp.243-
256
Silverman, D. (1986) Qualitative Methodologv and Sociologv, Gower,
Aldershot
Srinivasan, V. (2001) Equitymap: Measurement, Analysis and Prediction oI
Brand Equity Sources` StanIord University Graduate School oI Business
Research Paper No.1685
Srivastava, R.K., Shocker, A.D. (1991) Brand Equity: A Perspective on Its
Meaning and Measurement` Marketing Science Institute Technical Working
Paper, Report No. 91-124

95
Supphellen, M. (2004) Understanding Core Brand Equity: Guidelines For In-
Depth Elicitation oI Brand Associations` International Journal oI Market
Research
Teas, K., and Grapentine, T. (1996) DemystiIying brand equity` M arketing
Research, 8 (2), pp. 25-29
Thornley C. and Hill H. (1998) A Strategic Alignment: Ad Evaluation and
Marketing Strategy` Research Surveys Ltd Working Paper
Van Dijk, T. (1997) Discourse as Structure and Process, Sage Publications
Wood, L. (2000, 38/9), Brand and Brand equity: deIinition and management`
Management Decision

Web sites
http://www.brandchannel.com
http://www.brandIinance.com
http://www.brandknowledge.com
http://www.warc.com

96

APPENDIX II: ProIile oI Qualitative
Research inIormants

97
Informant 1: Joanna, 25 years old, B socio economic class, single.
Main brand: Dove.
Spontaneous awareness oI the Iollowing brands: Dove, Palmolive, Fa,
Johnson
Prompted awareness oI the Iollowing brands: Lux, Sanex, Nivea,
Papoutsanis, Badedas
Brands she has never used: Papoutsanis, Badedas
Informant 2: Maria, 36 years old, B socio economic class, single.
Main brand: Dove.
Spontaneous awareness oI the Iollowing brands: Dove, Palmolive, Lux,
Sanex
Prompted awareness oI the Iollowing brands: Fa, Johnson`s, Nivea,
Papoutsanis, Badedas
Brands she has never used: Papoutsanis, Nivea

Informant 3: Evi, 33 years old, C1 socio economic class, married.
Main brand: Johnson.
Spontaneous awareness oI the Iollowing brands: Dove, Palmolive, Johnson,
Lux, Fa
Prompted awareness oI the Iollowing brands: Sanex, Nivea, Papoutsanis,
Badedas
Brands she has never used: Papoutsanis

Informant 4: Eleni, 29 years old, C1 socio economic class, single.
Main brand: Palmolive.
Spontaneous awareness oI the Iollowing brands: Dove, Palmolive, , Lux,
Fa, Badedas
Prompted awareness oI the Iollowing brands: Sanex, Johnson, Nivea,
Papoutsanis.
Brands she has never used: Nivea

Informant 5: Katerina, 35 years old, C1 socio economic class, married.
Spontaneous awareness oI the Iollowing brands: Dove, Palmolive, Lux
Prompted awareness oI the Iollowing brands: Sanex, Johnson, Nivea,
Papoutsanis, Fa, Badedas

98
Brands she has never used: Papoutsanis, Badedas, Johnson, Nivea

Informant 6: Despina, 28 years old, C1 socio economic class, single.
Main brand: Fa.
Spontaneous awareness oI the Iollowing brands: Dove, Fa, Palmolive,
Prompted awareness oI the Iollowing brands: Johnson, Lux, Nivea,
Papoutsanis, Fa, Badedas
Brands she has never used: Papoutsanis, Sanex, Johnson, Nivea

Informant 7: Maria D, 27 years old, C2 socio economic class, single.
Main brand: Dove.
Spontaneous awareness oI the Iollowing brands: Dove, Fa, Palmolive,
Johnson, Badedas
Prompted awareness oI the Iollowing brands: Lux, Nivea, Papoutsanis,
Sanex.
Brands she has never used: Nivea

Informant 8: Niki, 40 years old, C2 socio economic class, married with 1 child.
Main brand: Lux.
Spontaneous awareness oI the Iollowing brands: Dove, Lux, Fa.
Prompted awareness oI the Iollowing brands: Palmolive, Nivea, Badedas,
Johnson
Brands she has never used: Papoutsanis, Sanex, Badedas, Johnson`s.

Informant 9: Athina, 30 years old, C1 socio economic class, single.
Main brand: Lux.
Spontaneous awareness oI the Iollowing brands: Dove, Lux, Fa.
Prompted awareness oI the Iollowing brands: Palmolive, Nivea, Badedas,
Johnson
Brands she has never used: Papoutsanis, Sanex, Badedas, Johnson`s.

Informant 10: FoIi, 42 years old, C1 socio economic class, married with 2 children.
Spontaneous awareness oI the Iollowing brands: Dove, Palmolive,
Johnson`s.

99
Prompted awareness oI the Iollowing brands: Nivea, Badedas, Lux, Fa,
Papoutsanis, Sanex.
Brands she has never used: Sanex, Nivea, Lux

100

APPENDIX III: Moodboard Technique output
(collages)

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

APPENDIX IV: Brand Maps

Brand Equity Mba Dissertation G

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Brand Equity Mba Dissertation G

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1

Brand Equity in the Bath Foams Category in

Você também pode gostar