Understanding (customer‐based) brand equity in financial services

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to advance marketers' understanding of customer‐based brand equity (CBBE) within the context of a B2B financial service marketing setting.Design/methodology/approachTwo nation‐wide studies were used to investigate whether brands are in fact differentiated in the minds of the target audience; test two competing explanations of the formation of CBBE using structural equation analyses; and reconcile satisfaction and CBBE theories within a single theoretical model.FindingsThe results suggest that these customers do differentiate brands, and that Netemeyer et al.'s model of CBBE is generally supported. In addition, the extended model of CBBE proposed herein explains more variance in loyalty intentions, while simultaneously demonstrating the importance of customer satisfaction in CBBE models, and incorporates customer attitudes into conceptualization of CBBE.Research limitations/implicationsFirst, the current research focuses specifically on CBBE. Second, the reported MDS results are exploratory in nature and must be interpreted with caution.Practical implicationsThe results will help financial service marketers measure CBBE as well as relate brand power to customer satisfaction and customer attitude measurement through implementing the proposed framework in their own competitive setting.Originality/valueThe two nation‐wide studies reported herein enhance our understanding of CBBE and its relationship to customer attitudes and satisfaction research within a single theoretical model, as well as identifying the influential roles of both hedonic and utilitarian forms of brand attitudes in the formation of CBBE.

Marketing assets: Relating brand equity and customer equity

“…(In our study loyalty is a consequence and not a component of BE, consistent with previous research, e.g. : Taylor, Hunter & Lindberg, 2007;Chen & Myagmarsuren, 2011;Juntunen, Juntunen & Juga, 2011;Geigenmüller & Bettis-Outland, 2012). On the one ha nd, strong brands generate loyal customers who value these brands above all others in the market, who repurchase the brand on a regular basis, and who consider entirely reasonable to pay more for it (Aaker, 1991;Park & Srinivasan, 1994;Taylor et al, 2007;Jobber & Shipley, 2012).…”

“…: Taylor, Hunter & Lindberg, 2007;Chen & Myagmarsuren, 2011;Juntunen, Juntunen & Juga, 2011;Geigenmüller & Bettis-Outland, 2012). On the one ha nd, strong brands generate loyal customers who value these brands above all others in the market, who repurchase the brand on a regular basis, and who consider entirely reasonable to pay more for it (Aaker, 1991;Park & Srinivasan, 1994;Taylor et al, 2007;Jobber & Shipley, 2012). On the other hand, a high CE implies high retention rates and margins that ensure stable income flows in the future (Berger & Nasr, 1998;Gupta & Lehmann, 2003).…”

Applicability of Keller’s brand equity model in the B2B chemical market

“…Empirical studies presented by Davis, Golicic, and Marquardt (2008) and Kuhn et al (2008) support Keller's (1993) conceptualisation of brand equity in the context of B2B services. In their study of financial services Taylor, Hunter and Lindberg (2007) reconcile elements of both Keller's and Aaker's conceptual models.…”

Service quality & marketing: a practical relation

“…This term is known as "consumer based brand equity" and it is the 'added value' endowed to a product in the thoughts, words and Customers also asses each brand equity based on their knowledge about that brand. It is why Keller (2003) defines it as "the differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer response to the marketing efforts of that brand" (Taylor, Hunter, & Linderberg, 2007). Other scholars also argue that customers' purchasing behavior is influenced by brand image constituted in their minds Ambler (1992).…”