The Service Industries Journal

ISSN: 0264-2069 (Print) 1743-9507 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fsij20

Developing a brand performance measure for

financial services brands
Leslie de Chernatony , Fiona Harris & George Christodoulides
To cite this article: Leslie de Chernatony , Fiona Harris & George Christodoulides (2004)
Developing a brand performance measure for financial services brands, The Service Industries
Journal, 24:2, 15-33, DOI: 10.1080/02642060412331301232
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642060412331301232

Published online: 04 Jun 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 362

View related articles

Citing articles: 26 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fsij20
Download by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA]

Date: 01 August 2016, At: 13:06

242sij02.qxd

06/02/04

11:03

Page 15

Developing a Brand Performance Measure

for Financial Services Brands

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA] at 13:06 01 August 2016

L E S L I E d e C H E R N ATO N Y, F I O N A J . H A R R I S
and G E O R G E C H R ISTODOULI DES

With no universal approach for measuring brand performance,

we show how a consumer-based brand measure was developed
for corporate financial services brands. Churchills paradigm
was adopted. A literature review and 20 depth interviews with
experts suggested that brand loyalty, consumer satisfaction and
reputation constitute the brand performance measure. Ten
financial services organisations provided access to their
consumers. Following a postal survey, 600 questionnaires were
analysed through principal components analysis to identify the
consumer-based measure. Further testing revealed this to be a
valid and reliable brand performance measure.
The literature shows a plethora of ways of interpreting brand performance
[e.g. Ambler, 2000; Aaker, 1996]. The significant interest in brand valuation
[e.g. Perrier, 1997] has in part encouraged managers to focus on a single
measure of brand performance. However, this output perspective overlooks
the richness of information available from some of the intermediate
indicators about why a brand has a particular financial value [Feldwick,
1996]. Through knowledge of the attributes constituting brand performance,
managers are better equipped to develop more effective brand strategies.
Just as a doctor assesses a patients health by measuring various parameters,
for example blood pressure, weight and body temperature, so brand
marketers are more informed by having data on the characterising
dimensions of their brand [cf Mitchell, 2001].
A universal brand performance measure is appealing, but metrics vary
between business sectors [Ambler, 2000] and according to the objectives set
[Srivastava, Shervani and Fahey, 1998]. This article explains how a
Professor Leslie de Chernatony and George Christodoulides are at the Birmingham Business
School, The University of Birmingham, Winterbourne, 58 Edgbaston Park Road, Edgbaston,
Birmingham B15 2RT. Dr. Fiona J. Harris, Open University Business School, The Open
University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA.
The Service Industries Journal, Vol.24, No.2 (March 2004), pp.1533
PUBLISHED BY FRANK CASS, LONDON

242sij02.qxd

06/02/04

11:03

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA] at 13:06 01 August 2016

16

Page 16

T H E S E RV I C E I N D U S T R I E S J O U R N A L

parsimonious, valid and reliable brand performance metric was developed

for brands in different sectors of financial services. We focused on financial
services as they represent one of the biggest services sectors [Lovelock,
2000]. The article is not about developing yet another measure of brand
equity, but how a multi-item brand performance measure was developed,
akin to consumer-based brand equity. With the limited research into services
branding [van Riel, Lemmink and Ouwersloot, 2001], it seeks to advance
knowledge by investigating financial services brands, which are an
important subset of services brands. Researchers in other services sectors
could follow the process we employed to devise brand performance metrics
for their services sector.
The article opens by reviewing the literature on business performance
measures, since corporate success depends on corporate brand success.
Given that performance measures for financial services brands are
characterised by many vague elements, a broad consideration of the
literature has to take place. The authors consider why there is no standard
business performance measure and propose that when assessing brand
performance, a measure akin to consumer-based equity be employed. The
article draws on Churchills [1979] paradigm to devise a brand
performance measure, and explains why we selected brand loyalty,
satisfaction and reputation as the components of this measure. The data
collection procedure is elucidated and, following the use of principal
component analysis, the specific operationalisation of financial services
brand performance is presented. The measure is shown to exhibit strong
psychometric properties.
LITERATU RE REVIEW

Business success is due, in no insignificant part, to brand performance

[Doyle, 2000]. Thus one might anticipate a consensus about measuring
business performance, and therefore brand performance. However,
researchers have conceptualised and measured business performance using
a variety of metrics [Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986; Day and Fahey,
1988; Srivastava, Shervani and Fahey, 1998; Doyle, 2000]. In view of the
implications this has for seeking a standardised brand performance measure
we sought to understand why there is no consensus business performance
measure. This literature review focuses on understanding why there is no
standardised business performance measure.
Business performance is a multi-dimensional and complex phenomenon
necessitating various measures [Lenz, 1981; Ogbonna and Harris, 2000].
The environment and the strategy influence managers choice of measures
[Day and Nedungadi, 1994], as does the functions within which managers

242sij02.qxd

06/02/04

11:03

Page 17

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA] at 13:06 01 August 2016

DEVELOPING A BRAND PERFORMANCE MEASURE

17

operate [Deshpande and Webster, 1989]. Different performance measures

are likely between managers in the same corporation since, as Cyert and
March [1963] argued, managers have conflicting goals and do not seek
optimal, but rather satisfactory solutions. Furthermore, as managers employ
different mental models to make sense of their environments [de
Chernatony, Daniels and Johnson, 1993], preferences for measures vary
between managers in the same organisation [Day and Nedungadi, 1994].
The type of market influences the business performance measure
[Ambler, 2000; Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon, 2000]. A relationship-centred
bank would be more concerned with client satisfaction and relationship
suitability, since these influence retention rates, which form the basis for
their business model. By contrast, an insurance company operating in a
price sensitive market needs to keep control of its costs and would focus
more on the number and levels of claims being made.
Differences exist between researchers about the central objective of
marketing, which is a further reason for different business performance
measures. For example, Ambler [2000], Doyle [2000] and Srivastava and
collelagues [1998] argue that the objective of marketing is to generate
healthy returns to shareholders by creating and managing market-based
assets. This leads to measures of the contribution of market-based assets, net
present value of cash flow and shareholder value. Rust and colleagues
[2000] concur with this, but because they believe the route to achieving this
is through maximising the lifetime value of a firms consumer base, they
place more emphasis on a consumer equity metric.
Business performance measures have tended to evolve from goods-,
rather then services-centred organisation, overlooking services distinctive
characteristics. Fitzgerald and colleagues [1991] suggested six dimensions
of services business performance, two measuring the results of a
competitive success (competitiveness measures and financial measures) and
four measuring the determinants of competitive success (equality,
flexibility, resource utilisation and innovation). Our review found no
research on a standardised business performance measure specifically for
financial services organisations.
Not surprisingly, as there are a variety of measures for business
performance, so researchers have employed various brand performance
measures [e.g. Blattberg and Deighton, 1996; Pitta and Katsanis, 1995;
Barwise and Ehrenberg, 1985]. Furthermore, reflecting their differing
philosophies, consultants have diverse brand performance measures [e.g.
Young and Rubicam, 1994; Dyson, Farr and Hollis, 1996]. As there is no
standard way of measuring brand performance and, of specific relevance to
our study, financial services brand performance, a process had to be
followed to develop a measure, as we next describe.

242sij02.qxd

06/02/04

11:03

18

Page 18

T H E S E RV I C E I N D U S T R I E S J O U R N A L

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA] at 13:06 01 August 2016

METHODOLOGY

Scale Development Process

Ambler [2000] argues that a performance measure splits into two parts, i.e.
the short-term results and an element showing how a brands equity has
changed. The short-term component relates to data in the profit and loss
account. As Aaker and Joachimsthaler [2000] argue, there is a shift away
from short-term financials in favour of brand equity measures. In part, this
may be due to the fact that brands are about long-term gains achieved
through long-term investments [Kendall, 1999].
The problem we faced was measuring brand performance across
organisations marketing a broad range of financial services. Scanning the
accounting and marketing literature revealed no standard short-term brand
performance measures. We turned to a senior consultant in one of the big
five accounting firms. In line with Harrison [2000] the consultant
propounded sales turnover, profit and market share. In addition, he
suggested the price-earnings ratio, which addresses shareholders
expectations of a companys future growth. The underlying argument is that
strong brands instil confidence amongst shareholders and exhibit a
consistently high price-earnings ratio for corporate shares.
However, no standard short-term measure suits all financial services
firms. Part of the reason relates to the broad variety of services (e.g.
insurance, consumer banking services, assurance, mortgages, tax efficient
savings schemes, buying and selling shares) underpinned by different
business models. For instance, a mortgage company would be more
concerned about its monthly level of lending while a stockbroker would be
more concerned about daily share transactions. Further problems ensue due
to the different reporting periods of companies and the non-disclosure of
data on individual product lines, which is commercially sensitive
information.
In view of this we did not include any short term financials in our brand
performance measure. Without this we were, in effect faced with developing
a measure for the consumer-based equity of corporate financial services
brands. Aligning with the contention of Yoo and Donthu [2001], measuring
consumer-based equity equates with evaluating conative and behavioural
equity through consumer interviews. We followed Churchills [1979]
recommendations about how we could operationalise a reliable and valid
measure of this construct.
Domain of the Brand Performance Measure
Aakers [1991] views about brand equity have been influential but he did
not develop a valid and reliable metric. Partly because of this, and also the

242sij02.qxd

06/02/04

11:03

Page 19

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA] at 13:06 01 August 2016

DEVELOPING A BRAND PERFORMANCE MEASURE

19

significant interest in brand valuation [Aaker and Biel, 1993], no

universally accepted method exists to measure brand equity [Barwise, 1993;
Mackay, 2001; Vazquez, del Rio and Inglesias, 2002]. Rather, several
different definitions were devised for brand equity [e.g. Farquhar, 1990;
Aaker, 1991; Srivastava and Shocker, 1991; Keller, 1993] spawning
different measuring procedures [Simon and Sullivan, 1993; Kamakura and
Russell, 1993; Park and Srinivasan, 1994; Agarwal and Rao, 1996).
The relative merits of different brand equity definitions have been
covered in the literature [Mackay, Romaniuk and Sharp, 1998; Woods,
1998]. Being more concerned with managers perspective, we ruled out
both Kellers [1993] and Aakers [1991, 1996] definitions on the grounds of
addressing consumers interests. Instead, we opted for the widely quoted
Marketing Science Institute (MSI) definition, which embodies the
managerial perspective and ties in closest with our understanding of a
successful brand as an augmented, added value offering [de Chernatony and
McDonald, 1998]. MSI regards brand equity as being a set of associations
and behaviours on the part of a brands consumers, channel members and
parent corporation that enables a brand to earn greater volume or greater
margins than it could without the brand name and, in addition, provides a
strong, sustainable and differential advantage [Srivastava and Shocker,
1991].
Generation of Scale Items
We generated scale items through both a literature review and 20 depth
interviews with leading-edge brand consultants [de Chernatony, DallOlmo
Riley and Harris, 1998]. Our qualitative research was part of a bigger study
to understand senior brand consultants views about the branding process
and the factors they used to assess brand success. They had achieved peer
recognition through being frequent presenters at branding conferences,
having written books or articles on branding and success. Possibly due to
this criterion, their comments about criteria to assess brand success reflected
the items in the literature review.
Wherever we identified a suitable item for the measurement scale, we
followed Churchills [1979] recommendation and for that item sought
multi-item measures. This was possible for two of the three items selected
and we explain later why we had to use a single item measure of reputation.
We scanned the brand equity literature to appreciate the components
researchers advocated. Agarwal and Rao [1996] along with Mackay [2001]
contend that a variety of components must characterise brand equity, and as
Table 1 shows, multi-item measures are common.
We have presented the different brand equity conceptualisations to show
the commonality of certain items. Comparing these results against our

242sij02.qxd

06/02/04

11:03

Page 20

20

T H E S E RV I C E I N D U S T R I E S J O U R N A L
TABL E 1
HOW RE S E ARCHE RS CONCE P T U A LISE BR A N D EQ U ITY

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA] at 13:06 01 August 2016

Aaker [1991]

Keller [1993]

Sharp [1995]

Berry [2000]

Brand awareness Brand awareness Company/brand Brand awareness

awareness
Brand associations Brand image
Brand image
Brand meaning
(or company/brand
reputation)
Brand loyalty
Relationship with
customers/existing
customer franchise
Perceived quality

Yoo and Donthu [2001]

Brand awareness/associations

Brand loyalty
Perceived quality

qualitative research shows notable consistency. To decide what to include in

our measurement scale we considered each item in Table 1, as we now
explain.
Brand awareness was rejected as evidence from Agarwal and Rao
[1996] and Mackay [2001] suggested this did not correlate with market
share, thus not fulfilling the increasing volume condition in the MSI
definition.
Perceived quality was rejected because many financial services have
high credence values making quality difficult to assess [Crosby and
Stephens, 1987; Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996]. However empirical evidence
shows reputation is used by consumers to infer quality [Nguyen and
Leblanc, 2001; Herbig and Milewicz, 1993; Yoon, Guffey and Kijewski
(1993); Wartick, 1992; Weigelt and Camerer, 1988]. We later justify why
we included reputation, but its association with perceived quality was a
further factor.
The items included in our measures of consumer brand equity in
financial services are brand loyalty, satisfaction and reputation as we next
explore.
Brand loyalty can yield significant marketing advantages including
reduced marketing costs, greater trade leverage [Aaker, 1991], resistance
among loyal consumers to competitors propositions [Dick and Basu,
1994], and higher profits [Reichheld, 1996]. Chaudhuri and Holbrook
[2001] have shown that brand loyalty is a key link affecting market share
and relative price. Thus, brand loyalty is justifiably included in the
approaches advocated by other researchers [e.g. Aaker and
Joachimsthaler, 2000; Ambler, 2000; Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon, 2000;
Blackston, 1992].
Brand loyalty has been equally espoused by practitioners.
Loyalty/retention was the second most frequently reported metric
presented by managers to their Board of Directors and was the most

242sij02.qxd

06/02/04

11:03

Page 21

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA] at 13:06 01 August 2016

DEVELOPING A BRAND PERFORMANCE MEASURE

21

important metric for assessing marketing performance in Amblers [2000]

study. Amongst brand consultants it was the most frequently cited
consumer-based criterion for evaluating brand success [de Chernatony,
DallOlmo Riley and Harris, 1998].
When operationalising brand loyalty Jacoby and Kyner [1973], Jacoby
and Chestnut [1978] and Oliver [1999] argue it unwise to infer loyalty
solely from repetitive purchase patterns (i.e. behavioural loyalty).
Preference for convenience, novelty, chance encounters and repertoire
buying behaviour are but some reasons for this. Jacoby and Kyner brought
together the two opposing approaches to brand loyalty namely,
behavioural and attitudinal loyalty, integrating them into their definition,
i.e. brand loyalty is the biased (i.e. non-random) behavioural response (i.e.
purchase) expressed over time by some decision-making unit with respect
to one or more alternative brands out of a set of such brands, and is a
function of psychological (decision-making, evaluative) processes
[Jacoby and Kyner, 1973: 2]. Oliver [1999] argues consumers become
loyal by progressing from a cognitive to an affective and finally to a
conative phase. In line with previous research showing that in service
markets attitudinal loyalty measures are more sensitive than behavioural
loyalty measures [Rundle-Thiele and Bennett, 2001], we operationalised
loyalty by questioning consumers about affective and conative loyalty.
Following other researchers [e.g. DallOlmo Riley et al., 1997], we asked
consumers how much they like the corporate brand (affective loyalty), as
well as whether they would consider using other products from the
corporation and whether they would recommend the corporate brand to
others (conative loyalty). Readers interested in a more detailed review on
operational and conceptual aspects of brand loyalty should consult Odin
and colleagues [2001].
Measures of repeated buying behaviour do not provide a full picture of
brand equity, since they do not address commitment [Ambler, 2000].
Commitment to a brand results from satisfaction. For example, a consumer
may repeatedly use a bank, yet show little commitment, because other banks
are perceived equally unsatisfactory and the switching costs do not warrant
change. To open the window more fully on consumer-based brand equity it
is therefore necessary to measure satisfaction with the brand. It is incorrect
to assume that satisfaction is subsumed within loyalty. Satisfaction and
loyalty do not move in a synchronous manner [cf Oliva, Oliver and
MacMillan, 1992; Stewart, 1997; Oliver, 1999].
Aaker [1996: 323] notes satisfaction is an especially powerful measure
in services business. Consumer satisfaction with brands results in a
willingness to pay a price premium, using the brand frequently, providing
positive referrals [Srivastava, Shervani and Fahey, 1998], and having a

242sij02.qxd

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA] at 13:06 01 August 2016

22

06/02/04

11:03

Page 22

T H E S E RV I C E I N D U S T R I E S J O U R N A L

positive financial impact [Ittner and Larcher, 1998; Krishnan et al., 1999;
Yeung and Ennew, 2000]. Reflecting these benefits, there has been a notable
increase in consumer satisfaction studies [Piercy, 1997].
Satisfaction is conceptualised as an attitude-like judgement after a
purchase, or an interaction with a services provider [Fournier and Mick,
1999]. There has been much research into the antecedents of satisfaction,
i.e. expectations, disconfirmation of expectations, performance, affect and
equity [Szymanski and Henard, 2001]. Developments in the
operationalisation of consumer satisfaction include the American Customer
Satisfaction Index (ACSI), [cf Fornell et al., 1996]. According to ACSI,
consumer satisfaction has three antecedents: perceived quality, perceived
value and customer expectations. ACSI is a powerful indicator of future
performance, having sound psychometric properties as well as the ability to
predict economic returns [Anderson and Fornell, 2000]. Unfortunately,
possibly due to funding limitations, no university in the UK has embarked
on this, forcing us to discard this approach and search for an alternative
satisfaction measurement route.
Our multi-item measure of satisfaction followed that approach of other
services researchers [e.g. Crosby and Stephens, 1987; Westbrook, 1981]. A
gestalt approach was used [cf Oliver, Rust and Varkey, 1997], firstly asking
about overall satisfaction on a five-point semantic differential scale. This
reflects the van Montfort and colleagues [2000] work in financial services
directly asking if respondents were satisfied with the service of the bank as a
whole. Similarly, de Ruyter and Bloemer [1999] adopted the same approach
in extended service settings. Drawing an analogy with Grnroos [2000], that
service quality consists of person-person interactions, plus a technical
outcome, we again followed Crosby and Stephens [1987] and also asked
about consumers degree of satisfaction regarding the sales/service staff and
their purchase satisfaction, based on five-point semantic differential scales.
Both Aaker [1996] and Keller [1993] advocate incorporating brand
associations into measures of brand equity. Having an image component is
wise since when the gap between a brands identity and image becomes
notable, this triggers actions [Dutton and Dukerich, 1991]. However, image
relates to the most recent perception and fluctuates over time; by contrast
reputation is about perceptions of the brand over time and is more stable
[Fombrun and van Riel, 1997]. Image is overly focused on consumers, and
in view of the new models of brand management adopting a more balanced,
stakeholder perspective [e.g. Mitchell, 1997], brand reputation has the
further advantage that it addresses stakeholders views [Smythe, Dorward
and Reback, 1992]. As such we incorporate brand reputation into our
measurement scale.
A brands reputation is a perceptual asset in stakeholders minds about

242sij02.qxd

06/02/04

11:03

Page 23

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA] at 13:06 01 August 2016

DEVELOPING A BRAND PERFORMANCE MEASURE

23

performance. It attracts consumers and can be a key consideration when

choosing between similar brands [Dowling, 1994]. A brands reputation
engenders loyalty [Hall, 1992] and enhances the likelihood of high profits
[Fombrun, 1996]. While there is growing interest in this construct [Schultz,
Hatch and Larsen, 2000], there are a number of interpretations [Frombrun
and van Riel, 1997]. The integrative definition by Fombrun and Rindova
[1996] is adopted, i.e. a collective representation of a firms past behaviour
and outcomes that depict the firms ability to render valued results to
multiple stakeholders.
Reputation has been operationalised in various ways [Fombrun, 1996].
Some studies ask respondents to assess corporate brands on criteria
thought to describe reputation, and these are aggregated into overall
ratings [Fombrun, 1998]. Researchers are critical of these approaches as
they lack content validity [Fryxell and Wang, 1994]. Fombrun and
colleagues [2000] have developed a 20-item instrument, but it is only
valid in the United States. Work is underway to attain cross-nation validity
[Gardberg and Fombrun, 2002]. When we undertook fieldwork there was
no valid UK instrument to measure reputation. We were also mindful of
Drolet and Morrisons [2001] contention that if we used the 20-item USA
scale we could encounter participant fatigue and boredom, inflating
across-item error term correlation and undermining respondent reliability.
Instead, following Fombrun [1996], we adopted a gestalt approach and
used a five-point semantic differential scale, asking respondents to note
the favourability of their evaluation of the corporate brands reputation.
This is a limitation of the study, since Churchill [1979] argues for multiitem scales, however at the time of fieldwork a valid multi-item scale did
not exist
Following Churchills [1979] paradigm, the next stage is to collect data
in order to purify our measure.
Data Collection
This research was part of a bigger project to investigate perceptions of
financial services brands. Fifty-two financial services organisations were
identified in the UK and were approached. Twelve agreed to participate.
Rejections were for reasons such as commercially sensitive data or were
under time pressure and could not spare the time. To collect data we
needed to send questionnaires to the organisations consumers. A
business-to-business organisation was unable to participate in the
consumer-based data collection process and another could not participate
in the entire process owing to resource constraints. The results are based
on 10 organisations.
Following Chisnall [2001], we anticipated a 30 per cent response rate

242sij02.qxd

06/02/04

11:03

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA] at 13:06 01 August 2016

24

Page 24

T H E S E RV I C E I N D U S T R I E S J O U R N A L

from a postal questionnaire. We sought a contact sample of 330 consumers

per organisation to achieve 100 consumer replies per corporate brand. The
organisations supplied contact details for a random sample of approximately
330 of their consumers who had direct contact with them (rather than
through an intermediary) and had sufficient contact to answer about the
brand. As far as possible, the consumer samples were drawn in proportion
to the number of consumers per product in an organisations product
portfolio.
Consumers received an envelope containing a letter from the financial
services provider, a university-headed letter signed by the lead researcher, a
questionnaire, instructions and a reply-paid envelope addressed to the
university. It was stressed that participants identities would be kept
confidential. Consumers were offered an incentive of a donation of 50 pence
to their preferred charity from a list of four spanning health, poverty, child
welfare and animal welfare.
The number of returned questionnaires was plotted against time and
follow-up questionnaires sent when a plateau was reached. In total, 748
replies were received from the 3,210 questionnaires mailed out (27.4 per
cent response) but some had to be discarded, as they were incorrectly
completed, resulting in 664 usable questionnaires. The response rate was
lower than anticipated, but may be attributable to low levels of interest in
financial services [Levy, 1996].
Purifying the Measure
A principal components analysis with varimax rotation was performed on
the seven measures. In total 600 respondents finally completed the seven
questions for this analysis. As the two questions measuring conative loyalty
used category variables, we followed Hair and colleagues [1998] and used
dummy variable coding (01) for their inclusion in the principal
components analysis. Both a criterion of eigenvalues greater than 1.00 and
the scree plot indicated a one-factor solution. This single factor accounted
TABL E 2
C O M P O NE NT S CORE COE F F I CI E NT MAT RIX FO R PRIN CIPA L C O MPO N EN TS
A N A LY S I S O F T H E C O N S U M E R - B A S E D E Q U I T Y M E A S U R E .

Consumer-based equity
Conative brand loyalty: consider using other products
Conative brand loyalty: prepared to recommend brand to other people
Affective brand loyalty: liking for brand
Overall satisfaction with the brand
Satisfaction with staff
Satisfaction with the product(s)
Brand reputation

Component 1
0.107
0.167
0.211
0.211
0.188
0.195
0.183

242sij02.qxd

06/02/04

11:03

Page 25

25

DEVELOPING A BRAND PERFORMANCE MEASURE

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA] at 13:06 01 August 2016

for 60.8 per cent of the variance, a level acceptable in social sciences [Hair
et al., 1998]. Table 2 presents the component score coefficient matrix and
enables researchers to measure the consumer-based equity of financial
services brands. One simple way is by multiplying consumers assessments
of each characteristic by the relevant component score coefficient and
aggregating these across all seven items.
Having developed this measure, we assessed its reliability and validity,
as next explained.
Assessing Reliability and Validity
The seven items scales reliability was assessed using Cronbachs alpha,
which with a value of 0.88 exceeded the accepted lower limit of 0.7
[Robinson and Shaver, 1973; Robinson, Shaver and Wrightsman, 1991).
Furthermore, the inter-item correlations were all 0.3 or above, as
recommended in the rule-of-thumb described by Hair and colleagues
[1998]. The consumer-based equity measure was therefore deemed to
demonstrate satisfactory reliability.
Hair and colleagues [1998] recommended that the results be validated by
performing a confirmatory factor analysis on either a split sample or a new
sample. Given that the principal components analysis suggested a single
factor solution, performing a confirmatory factor analysis was
inappropriate. Nevertheless, the stability of the factor model results was
tested by splitting the sample and performing a separate principal
components analysis on each. Comparison of the two factor matrices was
used to assess the robustness of the factor solution across the overall sample
[cf. Hair et al., 1998]. The sample was split into 299 and 301 respondents
TABL E 3
C O M PA R I S O N O F T H E C O M P O N E N T S C O R E C O E F F I C I E N T M AT R I X F O R
P R I N C I PA L C O M P O N E N T S A N A LY S I S O F T H E C O N S U M E R - B A S E D E Q U I T Y
ME AS URE BE T WE E N T HE COMBI NED A N D SPLIT SA MPLES

Consumer-based equity
Conative brand loyalty: consider
using other products
Conative brand loyalty: prepared
to recommend brand to
other people
Affective brand loyalty:
liking for brand
Overall satisfaction with
the brand
Satisfaction with staff
Satisfaction with the product(s)
Brand reputation

Component 1
(combined sample)

Component 1
(split sample A)

Component 1
(split sample B)

0.107

0.092

0.119

0.167

0.169

0.164

0.211

0.217

0.204

0.211
0.188
0.195
0.183

0.217
0.198
0.200
0.186

0.206
0.180
0.190
0.180

242sij02.qxd

06/02/04

11:03

26

Page 26

T H E S E RV I C E I N D U S T R I E S J O U R N A L

TABL E 4
C O M P O N E NT S CORE COE F F I CI E NT MAT R IX FO R TH E R E-RU N PRIN CIPA L
C O M P O N E NT S ANALYS I S OF T HE CONS UMER-BA SED EQ U ITY MEA SU RE WITH
OUT L I E RS OMITTED

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA] at 13:06 01 August 2016

Consumer-based equity
Conative brand loyalty: consider using other products
Conative brand loyalty: prepared to recommend brand to other people
Affective brand loyalty: liking for brand
Overall satisfaction with the brand
Satisfaction with staff
Satisfaction with the product(s)
Brand reputation

Component 1
0.094
0.159
0.217
0.217
0.194
0.203
0.192

using the random sample function of SPSS. Principal components analysis of

the two samples yielded comparable results, both between the split samples
and with the original combined sample. The scree plots all indicated a single
factor solution, which accounted for 58.3 per cent and 63.2 per cent of the
variance in the two split sample analyses (60.8 per cent of the variance was
accounted for in the combined sample). As Table 3 shows, the component
score coefficient matrix in each analysis was very similar. These results
suggested that the obtained solution was robust across the sample.
As a further validation check, the principal components analysis on the
full sample was re-run with outliers on the seven scales omitted, as
recommended by Hair and colleagues [1998]. The results of this re-analysis
proved comparable to the original principal components analysis. Again,
both the eigenvalues greater than 1.00 criterion, and scree plot, indicated
a one factor solution, which accounted for 58.4 per cent of the variance. As
Table 4 shows, the component score coefficient matrix was similar to those
obtained previously.
Other issues in assessing the validity of the measure include
consideration of various types of validity: content or face validity (the
extent to which the scale represents the concept it is intended to measure);
convergent validity (the extent to which the scale values correspond to other
similar measures); discriminant validity (the extent to which the scale
values diverge from dissimilar measures) and nomological validity (the
accuracy with which the scale is able to predict other concepts in a
theoretical model) [Hair et al., 1998].
As care was taken to ensure all seven scales represent types of
consumer-based equity, the measure may be considered to have adequate
content validity.
The measures convergent validity was assessed by correlating the
corporate brands consumer-based equity scores from the measure with the
mean consumer ratings of the extent to which the corporate brands

242sij02.qxd

06/02/04

11:03

Page 27

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA] at 13:06 01 August 2016

DEVELOPING A BRAND PERFORMANCE MEASURE

27

personality characteristics were like (i) their ideal self-concept, and (ii) their
actual self-concept (measured on 5-point scales). This data was collected as
part of the survey. When forced with competing brands, consumers prefer
brands whose perceived personality match their personality since this allows
consumers to express their actual self [Belk, 1988] or ideal self [Malhotra,
1988]. One would therefore expect a positive significant correlation between
the consumer-based equity scores and the two measures of the corporate
brands personality characteristics. In both cases, significant correlations
were obtained. The consumer-based equity measure was significantly
correlated with consumers mean rating for ideal self-concept (r=0.942;
N=10; p=0.000). The better the consumer-based equity score, the more
consumers rated the corporate brands personality characteristics as being
similar to their ideal self-concept. Similarly, the consumer-based equity
measure was significantly correlated with consumers mean rating for actual
self-concept (r=0.942; N=10; p=0.000). These results suggest that the
measure demonstrated acceptable convergent validity.
The data collected did not enable the measures discriminant validity to
be assessed.
Nomological validity was assessed by correlating the corporate brands
consumer-based equity scores with their increase in sales for 1998 and
1999, when the study was undertaken. We used this as a guide since we
excluded short-term financial measures, as earlier discussed, and were
measuring brand performance based on consumer-based equity. Thus if our
consumer-based equity measure has nomological validity, it should predict
increased sales. Sales data was obtained from the FAME financial database
and annual changes calculated. A significant correlation was obtained
between the measure of consumer-based equity and the increase in sales
(r=0.912; N= 10; p=0.004). This suggested the brand performance measure
provides satisfactory nomological validity.
D I S C U S S I O N A N D M A N A G E R I A L I M P L I C AT I O N S

The stimulus for this research was the challenge of designing a brand
performance measure suitable for a variety of unrelated categories of
financial services corporate brands. The article contributes to advancing
knowledge through showing the use of a process to design a brand
performance measure and also through providing details about the
measure. While the study was based on financial services brands, the
process is suitable when designing brand performance measures in other
services sectors. Furthermore, in view of the paucity of research on
services branding, it extends knowledge about services branding.
The starting point was realising that there is no standard measure of

242sij02.qxd

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA] at 13:06 01 August 2016

28

06/02/04

11:03

Page 28

T H E S E RV I C E I N D U S T R I E S J O U R N A L

brand performance in financial services. We had envisaged that as business

performance is strongly dependent on brand performance, if we could
understand a standardised measure of business performance, it would
enable us to conceptualise a brand performance measure. Our article shows
why there is no standard measure of business performance.
Brand performance could be conceived as a function of short-term
financial elements plus changes in brand equity. Unable to include financial
data, due to the diversity of measures for different financial services sectors,
an analogy could be drawn between our work and developing a consumerbased equity measure of financial services brands. By deliberately seeking
a multi-item consumer-based brand performance measure, we wanted to
appreciate how a cluster of important variables impact on a brands wellbeing. By following through the analogy, we undertook a literature review
into brand equity and, as there is no consensus about how brand equity
should be conceptualised and measured [Vazquez, del Rio and Inglesias,
2002], we adhered to the MSI definition. Through a further literature
review, augmented with depth interviews amongst brand consultants, we
identified consumer-based variables that could drive higher brand volumes.
One of the criteria influencing our selection of items was that they must
be suitable for financial services corporate brands. As such we had to reject
perceived quality, due to the difficulty consumers have assessing financial
services, but included brand reputation, since amongst other reasons it
enables consumers draw quality inferences. As services are about personperson outcomes plus a technical outcome, the brand performance measure
pays attention to the unique services characteristics by monitoring both
these items.
Another criterion driving our selection of items was that, they should
directly relate to increasing a brands volume of sale (cf MSI definition).
This led to the selection of brand loyalty, satisfaction and reputation as the
components of financial services brand performance. Following Churchills
[1979] paradigm, we were able to develop a valid and reliable brand
performance measure.
The measure represents an easily administered tool. It encourages
managers to consider how changes in brand strategies will impact on brand
loyalty, consumer satisfaction and brand reputation. By using this measure
regularly across its portfolio of financial services brands, an organisation
can appreciate relative brand performance, and by building a database, can
better allocate resources.
Through including competing brands in the tracking monitor, managers
should be better equipped to identify competitive threats. By collecting data
about the impact on their brand loyalty, satisfaction and reputations from
changing competitors strategies, managers can assess the likely severity of

242sij02.qxd

06/02/04

11:03

Page 29

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA] at 13:06 01 August 2016

DEVELOPING A BRAND PERFORMANCE MEASURE

29

competitors activities and plan to better protect their brand. Furthermore,

by understanding the weaknesses of competitors brands, in terms of these
three components, strategies could be devised to enhance the attractiveness
of the firms brands over competitors.
Further application of this measure relates to the trends in financial
services for the merger of companies. This leads to considerable debate
amongst managers about the most appropriate naming strategy. The
measure developed enables the consumer-based equity of each of the
corporate brands to be assessed and provides further guidance as to which
of the existing brand names is the most appropriate. It also enables
managers of the newly merged financial services organisation to consider
which of the three items will demand their early attention.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARC H

Churchill [1979] recommends two studies as a prerequisite for constructing a

measure with sound psychometric properties. However, our work, for practical
reasons, was only based on one study. Other researchers are encouraged to use
our study as a springboard for another sample to refine our scale.
We sought to use multi-item measures of our variables, but in the case
of brand reputation, had to use a single-item measure. However, the use of
single-item measures was justified on the grounds of parsimony, rendering
the scale easy to use. While single-item measures are common in financial
services research [e.g. van Montfort, Masurel and van Rijn, 2000],
researchers are encouraged to use a multi-item measure for brand
reputation once the Reputation Quotient is available [Gardberg and
Fombrun, 2002].
Given that the research reported was conducted in the UK, researchers
from other countries are encouraged to extend the study in other contexts in
order to establish the robustness of the measure across cultures. Also it is
hoped researchers will follow this process in other services sectors to assess
the generalisability of a services brand performance measure.
This study has solely focused on consumers. Broadening the stakeholder
base would provide a more comprehensive perspective on brand
performance.
CONCLUSIONS

We have shown how a valid and reliable brand performance measure has
been devised for financial services brands and how this process could be
used across other services sectors. Adopting Churchills [1979] paradigm
has provided a rigorous framework for developing this measure. Based on

242sij02.qxd

30

06/02/04

11:03

Page 30

T H E S E RV I C E I N D U S T R I E S J O U R N A L

this, three key variables, namely brand loyalty, consumer satisfaction and
reputation have emerged as indicators of brand performance.

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA] at 13:06 01 August 2016

REFERENC E S
Aaker, D., 1991, Managing Brand Equity, New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, D., 1996, Building Strong Brands, New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. and A. Biel, 1993, Brand Equity & Advertising: Advertisings Role in Building
Strong Brands, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Aaker, D. and E. Joachimsthaler, 2000, Brand Leadership, New York: The Free Press.
Agarwal, M. and V. Rao, 1996, An Empirical Comparison of Consumer-Based Measures of
Brand Equity, Marketing Letters, Vol.7, No.3, pp.23747.
Ambler, T., 2000, Marketing and the Bottom Line, London: FT Prentice Hall.
Anderson, E.W. and C. Fornell, 2000, Foundations of the American Customer Satisfaction
Index, Total Quality Management, Vol.11, No.7, pp.S86982.
Barwise, P., 1993, Brand Equity: Snark or Boojum? International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol.10, No.1, pp.93105.
Barwise, P. and A. Ehrenberg, 1985, Consumer Beliefs and Brand Usage, Journal of the
Market Research Society, Vol.27, pp.8193.
Belk, R., 1988, Possession and the Extended Self Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.2,
No.2, pp.13968.
Berry, L.L., 2000, Cultivating Service Brand Equity, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol.28, No.1, pp.12837.
Blackston, M., 1992, Observations: Building Brand Equity by Managing the Brands
Relationships, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.32, No.3, pp.7983.
Blattberg, R. and J. Deighton, 1996, Manage Marketing by the Customer Equity Test,
Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp.13644.
Chaudhuri, A. and M.B. Holbrook, B. 2001, The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and
Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty, Journal of Marketing,
Vol.65, No.2, pp.8193.
Chisnall, P., 2001, Marketing Research, Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
Churchill, G., 1979, A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.16, No.1, pp.6473.
Crosby, L. and N. Stephens, 1987, Effects of Relationship Marketing on Satisfaction,
Retention and Prices in the Life Insurance Industry, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol.24, No.4, pp.40411.
Cyert, R. and J. March, 1963, A Behavioural Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
DallOlmo Riley, F., A. Ehrenberg, S. Castleberry, P. Barwise and N. Barnard, 1997, The
Variability of Attitudinal Repeat-Rates, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol.14, No.5, pp.43750.
Day, G. and L. Fahey, 1988, Valuing Marketing Strategies Journal of Marketing, Vol.52,
No.3, pp.4557.
Day, G. and P. Nedungadi, 1994, Managerial Representations of Competitive Advantage,
Journal of Marketing, Vol.58, No.2, pp.3144.
de Chernatony, L. and M. McDonald, 1998, Creating Powerful Brands, Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann.
de Chernatony, L., F. DallOlmo Riley and F. Harris, 1998, Criteria to Assess Brand
Success, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.14, No.7, pp.76581.
de Chernatony, L., K. Daniels and G. Johnson, 1993, A Conative Perspective on Managers
Perceptions of Competition, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.9, No.4, pp.37381.
de Ruyter, K. and J. Bloemer, 1999, Customer Loyalty in Extended Service Settings,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol.10, No.3, pp.32036.

242sij02.qxd

06/02/04

11:03

Page 31

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA] at 13:06 01 August 2016

DEVELOPING A BRAND PERFORMANCE MEASURE

31

Deshpande, R. and F. Webster, 1989, Organizational Culture and Marketing: Defining the
Research Agenda, Journal of Marketing, Vol.53, No.1, pp.315.
Dick, A.S. and K. Basu, 1994, Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual
Framework, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.22, No.2, pp.99-113.
Dowling, G., 1994, Corporate Reputations, London: Kogan Page.
Doyle, P., 2000, Value-Based Marketing, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Drolet, A. and D. Morrison, 2001, Do We Really Need Multiple-Item Measures in Service
Research?, Journal of Service Research, Vol.3, No.3, pp.196204.
Dutton, J. and Dukerich, J. 1991, Keeping an Eye on the Mirror: Image and Identity in
Organizational Adaptation, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.34, No.3, pp.51754.
Dyson, P., A. Farr and N. Hollis, 1996, Understanding Measuring and Using Brand Equity,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.36, No.6, pp.921.
Farquhar, P.H., 1990, Managing Brand Equity, Journal of Advertising Research, AugustSeptember, RC7-12.
Feldwick, P., 1996, What is Brand Equity Anyway, and How Do You Measure It?, Journal
of the Market Research Society, Vol.38, No.2, pp.85104.
Fitzgerald, L., R. Johnston, S. Brignall, R. Silvestro and C. Voss, 1991, Performance
Measurement in Service Businesses, London: CIMA.
Fombrun, C., 1996, Reputation: Realizing Value from Corporate Image, Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Fombrun, C., 1998, Indices of Corporate Reputation: An Analysis of Media Rankings and
Social Monitors Ratings, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol.1, No.4, pp.32740.
Fombrun, C. and V. Rindova, 1996, Whos Tops and Who Decides? The Social Construction
of Corporate Reputations, Working Paper, New York University, Stern School of
Business.
Fombrun, C. and C. van Riel, 1997, The Reputational Landscape, Corporate Reputation
Review, Vol.1, No.1, pp.513.
Fombrun, C., N. Gardberg and J. Sever, 2000, The Reputation QuotientSM: A MultiStakeholder Measure of Corporate Reputation, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol.7,
No.4, pp.24155.
Fornell, C., M.D. Johnson, E.W. Anderson, J. Cha and B.E. Bryant, 1996, The American
Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings, Journal of Marketing,
Vol.60, No.4, pp.718.
Fournier, S. and D.G. Mick, 1999, Rediscovering Satisfaction, Journal of Marketing,
Vol.63, No.4, pp.523.
Fryxell, G. and J. Wang, 1994, The Fortune Corporate Reputation Index: Reputation for
What?, Journal of Management, Vol.20, No.1, pp.114.
Gardberg, N. and C. Fombrun, 2002, The Global Reputation Quotient Project First Steps
towards a Cross-Nationally Valid Measure of Corporate Reputation, Corporate
Reputation Review, Vol.4, No.4, pp.303307.
Grnroos, C., 2000, Service Management and Marketing, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Hair, J.F., R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham and W.C. Black, 1998, Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th
ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hall, R. 1992, The Strategic Analysis of Intangible Resources, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol.13, pp.13542.
Harrison, T., 2000, Financial Services Marketing, Harlow: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Herbig, P. and J. Milewicz, 1993, The Relationship of Reputation and Credibility to Brand
Success, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.10, No.1, pp.510.
Ittner, C. and D. Larker, 1998, Are Nonfinancial Measures Leading Indicators of Financial
Performance? An Analysis of Customer Satisfaction, Journal of Accounting Research,
Vol.35, pp.135.
Jacoby, J. and D.B. Kyner, 1973, Brand Loyalty Versus Repeat Purchasing, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol.10, No.1, pp.19.
Jacoby, J. and R. Chestnut, 1978, Brand Loyalty, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kamakura, W.A. and G.J. Russell, 1993, Measuring Brand Value with Scanner Data,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol.10, No.1, pp.922

242sij02.qxd

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA] at 13:06 01 August 2016

32

06/02/04

11:03

Page 32

T H E S E RV I C E I N D U S T R I E S J O U R N A L

Keller, K.L., 1993, Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand

Equity, Journal of Marketing, Vol.57, No.1, pp.122.
Kendall, N., ed., 1999, Advertising Works 10, Henley-on-Thames: NTC Publications.
Krishnan, M.S., V. Ramaswamy, M.C. Meyer and P. Damien, 1999, Customer Satisfaction
for Financial Services: The Role of Products, Services, and Information Technology,
Management Science, Vol.45, No.9, pp.11941209.
Lenz, R., 1981, Determinants of Organizational Performance: An Interdisciplinary Review
Strategic Management Journal, Vol.2, pp.13154.
Levy, M., 1996, Current Accounts and Baked Beans: Translating FMCG Marketing
Principles to the Financial Sector, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol.4, No.2,
pp.959.
Lovelock, C., 2000, Services Marketing, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mackay, M.M., 2001, Evaluation of Brand Equity Measures: Further Empirical Results,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol.10, No.1, pp.3851.
Mackay, M.M., J. Romaniuk and B. Sharp, 1998, A Classification of Brand Equity Research
Endeavours, Journal of Brand Management, Vol.5, No.6, pp.41529.
Malhotra, N. 1988, Self Concept and Product Choice: An Integrated Perspective, Journal of
Economic Psychology, Vol.9, pp.128.
Mitchell, A., 1997, Brand Strategies in the Information Age, London: Financial Times
Business Limited.
Mitchell, A., 2001, Right-Side Up, London: Harper Collins.
Nguyen, N. and G. Leblanc, 2001, Corporate Image and Corporate Reputation in Customers
Retention Decisions in Services, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 8,
pp.22736.
Odin, Y., N. Odin and P. Valette-Florence, 2001, Conceptual and Operational Aspects of
Brand Loyalty: An Empirical Investigation, Journal of Business Research, Vol.53,
pp.7584.
Ogbonna, E. and L. Harris, 2000, Leadership Style, Organizational Culture and Performance:
Empirical Evidence from UK Companies, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol.11, No.4, pp.76688.
Oliva, T.A., R.L. Oliver and I.C. MacMillan, 1992, A Catastrophe Model for Developing
Service Satisfaction Strategies, Journal of Marketing, Vol.56, No.3, pp.8395.
Oliver, Richard 1999, Whence Consumer Loyalty?, Journal of Marketing, Vol.63, Supp.,
pp.3344.
Oliver, R., R. Rust and S. Varki, 1997, Customer Delight: Foundations, Findings and
Managerial Insights, Journal of Retailing, Vol.73, No.3, pp.31136.
Park, C.S. and V. Srinivasan, 1994, A Survey-Based Method for Measuring and
Understanding Brand Equity and its Extendibility, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol.31, No.2, pp.27188.
Perrier, R., ed., 1997, Brand Valuation, London: Premier Books.
Piercy, N., 1997, Market-Led Strategic Change, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Pitta, D. and L.P. Katsanis, 1995, Understanding Brand Equity for Successful Brand
Extension, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.12, No.4, pp.5164.
Reichheld, F. 1996, The Loyalty Effect, Boston: Harvard Business School.
Robinson, J.P. and P.R. Shaver, 1973, Measures of Psychological Attitudes, Ann Arbor, MI:
Survey Research Center Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Robinson, J.P., P.R. Shaver and L.S. Wrightsman, 1991, Criteria for Scale Selection and
Evaluation, in J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver and L.S. Wrightsman (eds), Measures of
Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Rundle-Thiele, S. and R. Bennett, 2001, A Brand for All Seasons? A Discussion of Brand
Loyalty Approaches and their Applicability for Different Markets, Journal of Product
and Brand Management, Vol.10, No.1, pp.2537.
Rust, R., V. Zeithaml and K. Lemon, 2000, Driving Customer Equity, New York: The Free
Press.
Schultz, M., M.J. Hatch and M. Larsen, 2000, The Expressive Organization, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

242sij02.qxd

06/02/04

11:03

Page 33

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA] at 13:06 01 August 2016

DEVELOPING A BRAND PERFORMANCE MEASURE

33

Sharp, B. 1995, Brand Equity and Market-based Assets of Professional Service Firms,
Journal of Professional Services Marketing, Vol.13, No.1, pp.313.
Simon, C J. and M.W. Sullivan, 1993, The Measurement and Determinants of Brand Equity:
A Financial approach, Marketing Science, Vol.12, No.1, pp.2852.
Smythe, J., C. Dorward and J. Reback, 1992, Corporate Reputation, London: Century Books.
Srivastava, R. and A. Shocker, 1991, Brand Equity: A Perspective on its Meaning and
Measurement, Marketing Science Institute Working Paper, Cambridge, MA, pp.91124.
Srivastava, R., T. Shervani and L. Fahey, 1998, Market-Based Assets and Shareholder Value:
A Framework for Analysis, Journal of Marketing, Vol.62, No.1, pp.218.
Stewart, T., 1997, A Satisfied Customer is not Enough, Fortune, 21 July, pp.11213.
Szymanski, D. and D. Henard, 2001, Customer satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis of the
Empirical Evidence, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.29, No.1,
pp.1635.
van Montfort, K., E. Masurel and I. van Rijn, 2000, Service Satisfaction: An Empirical
Analysis of Consumer Satisfaction in Financial Services, The Service Industries Journal,
Vol.20, No.3, pp.8094.
van Riel, A., J. Lemmink and H. Ouwersloot, 2001, Consumer Evaluations of Service Brand
Extensions, Journal of Service Research, Vol.3, No.3, pp.22031.
Vazquez, R., A. del Rio and V. Inglesias, 2002, Consumer-Based Brand Equity: Development
and Validation of a Measurement Instrument, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol.18, No.12, pp.2748.
Venkatraman, N. and V. Ramanujam, 1986, Measurement of Business Performance in
Strategy Research: A Comparison of Approaches, Academy of Management Review,
Vol.11, pp.80114.
Wartick, S.L., 1992, The Relationship between Intense Media Exposure and Change in
Corporate Reputation, Business and Society, Vol.31, pp.3349.
Weigelt, K. and C. Camerer, 1988, Reputation and Corporate Strategy: A Review of Recent
Theory and Application, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.9, No.5, pp.44354.
Westbrook, R.A., 1981, Sources of Consumer Satisfaction with Retail Outlets, Journal of
Retailing, Vol.57, No.3, pp.6885.
Woods, R.J., 1998, Can there Be a Common Definition for Brand Equity?, Journal of
Modern Business, available from: <http://www.dcpress.com/jmb/page16.HTML>
(accessed 25 March 2002).
Yeung, M. and C. Ennew, 2000, From Customer Satisfaction to Profitability, Journal of
Strategic Marketing, Vol.8, No.4, pp.31326.
Yoo, B. and N. Donthu, 2001, Developing and Validating a Multidimensional Consumerbased Brand Equity Scale, Journal of Business Research, Vol.52, pp.114.
Yoon, E., H.G. Guffey and V. Kijewski, 1993, The Effects of Information and Company
Reputation on Intentions to Buy a Business Service, Journal of Business Research,
Vol.27, pp.21528.
Young & Rubicam, 1994, BrandAssetTM Valuator, London: Young & Rubicam.
Zeithaml, V. and M.J. Bitner, 1996, Services Marketing, New York: McGraw Hill.