Investigating relationship among various factors of Brand

Equity: A Study on fast food brand

MBM 542 :DISSERTATION

Supervisor : Submitted By:

Mr. Abhinav Pandey Rahul chauhan
Faculty of social science MBA Regular

Roll No. 167640

1
 CERTIFICATE

It is certified that Mr. Rahul chauhan MBA (Regular) Student

of Dayalbagh Educational Institute, Dayalbagh, Agra has
completed his dissertation under my supervision during the
semester Jan-2018 to May-2018. His dissertation report
entitled “ Investigating relationship among various factors of
brand equity: A study on fast food brand” which he is
submitting genuinely as his own original work and fit for
submission.

Date: / / (Mr. Abhinav Pandey)

2
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the project report entitled “ Investigating

relationship among various factors of brand equity: A study on
fast food brand” is my

original piece of work carried out under the guidance and supervision of Mr.
Abhinav Pandey, Faculty of Social Sciences, Dayalbagh Educational Institute
(Deemed

University), Dayalbagh, Agra. No Part of this research work has been published

by any other University or Institute for any purpose whatsoever concerned.

Date: / / RAHUL CHAUHAN

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I owe deep feelings of my humble gratitude to the almightily who has enabled me to
compute this dissertation.

I feel great pleasure to acknowledge my deep indebtedness to my esteemed

supervisor, Mr.Abhinav Pandey, Faculty of Social Sciences, DEI for his kind
guidance and motivation throughout the project. It is no exaggeration to say that I
would
not have brought-out this project without his personal encouragement and unstinted
co-operation. His diligence and dedication led my work towards the gateway of
success.

I express my sincere thanks to my beloved family members for their kind assistance
with intrinsic inspiration, affection and moral support without which task is impossible
to be completed. At last but not least, I would like to extend my co-ordial thanks to
all my well-wisher and all those who helped me directly or indirectly during the
preparation of this dissertation.

RAHUL CHAUHAN

4
 CONTENT

CHAPTERS PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

KChapter -1 Introduction
6-8

1.1.0 Introduction
1.2.0 Objectives of the study

Chapter -2 Literature Review

8-11

2.1.0 Customer based brand equity

Chapter -3 Research Methodology

11-13

3.1.0 Introduction

3.2.0 Measures

3.3.0 Sample identification and data

collection

3.4.0 Sample size

Chapter -4 Analysis, Findings and Conclusion

14-18

4.1.0 Data Analysis

4.2.0 Demographics of participants

4.3.0 Results

4.4.0 Direct Relationship

4.5.0 Conclusion

References

5
 Chapter-1
Introduction

1.1.0 Introduction
Food diversity in India is an implicit characteristic of India’s diversified
culture consisting of different regions and states within. Traditionally,
Indians like to have home-cooked meals—a concept supported religiously by
individuals. However, with the passage of time, there has been increasing
awareness and influence of Western culture, which has made a paradigm shift in
food consumption patterns among urban Indian families. It started with eating
outside and moved on to accepting a wide variety of delicacies from world over.
This phenomenon has been witnessed since the early 1990s. The subsequent entry
of new players set a significant change in lifestyles and the food tastes of
Indians. The emergence of fast food has gained acceptance of Indian palate
after the multinational fast-food players adapted the basic Indian food
requirements. Fast-food restaurants are highly disposed to building strong
brand names because of their services and the quality of foods served to
customers. The fast-food players have been trying to achieve sustainable
competitive advantage over their competitors in India as they identify India as
a good market owing to the rising disposable incomes of customers and
favourable demographics. Eating out in India has evolved from an occasion-
driven activity to an everyday activity. With the rising number of nuclear
families, exposure to global trends, the increasing number of employed women
and an increase in the number of dual-income households, the concept of eating
out has been strongly supported. Coupled with these factors, international
chains entering India offered a wide variety of options to individuals.
Multinationals launching value for money offerings also helped fuel growth.
Companies are enhancing their reach to small and medium-sized cities to drive
sales. The Indian fast-food market has been witnessing rapid growth due to
positive developments and presence of massive investments. Currently, market
growth is largely fuelled by the rising young population, working women, hectic
schedules and increasing disposable income of the middle-class households. Some
of the unique properties of fast food, such as quickly served and cost
advantage, are making it highly popular among the masses. Thus, India offers
enormous opportunities for both domestic and international players. The Indian
fast-food industry was anticipated to grow at a compound annual growth rate
(CAGR) of around 34 per cent during 2011–2014. Anticipating such a growth, many
big international players entered into the market by making deals with domestic
players. And those already present in the Indian market expanded their presence
in different provinces of the country. This trend emerged more strongly during
the expansion period, providing opportunities to local players to widen their
product portfolios and creating brand equity with customers.

A major weapon of building sustainable competitive advantage and creating a

differential advantage is through brand equity . The other differential tool is
price which often results in price war, reduced loyalty and revenue . The issue
of brand equity has emerged as one of the most crucial topics for marketing
management since the 1990s. There are different perspectives for brand equity:
the customer-based perspective, the financial perspective and the non-financial
perspective. The present study focuses on customer-based brand equity which
6
refers to the measurement of cognitive and behavioural brand equity at the
individual through a consumer survey. In recent years, customer-based brand
equity has gained significant attention in the field of academics and
industries. Customer-based brand equity usually concentrates on two distinct
aspects: consumer perception and consumer behaviour. According to Mahajan, Rao
and Srivastava customer-based brand equity can be measured by the level of
consumer’s perception, while Farquhar et al. identified that brand equity can
be reflected by the change of consumer attitude while purchasing a product.
Besides using these two approaches, that is, consumer perception and consumer
attitude, some researchers tried to combine and link them with other variables
as antecedents and consequences of brand equity.

Considering its comprehensiveness, Aaker introduced the concept of

brand equity by establishing the four -dimensional model of consumer-
based brand equity; these dimensionalities subsequentl y have been
tested by some of the researchers to validate their acceptability
Consistent with Aaker’s concept, Cobb -Walgren et al. (1995) propagated
four dimensions of brand equity, whereas Yoo and Donthu (2001) and
Washburn and Plank (2002) identified only three dimensions of brand
equity taking the cognizance of Aaker’s invention. Previous studies
were tested and found to have associative relationship among different
dimensions of brand equity. Despite the fact that numerous local and
global product categories have been employed to measure the brand
equity, literature on brand equity within the hospitality industry is
very limited (e.g., Kim and Kim [2005] conducted a study on luxury
hotel and chain restaurant; Atilgan et al. [2005] analyze d the beverage
industry; and Pappuet al. [2005] conducted a study on car brands

and television brands). The present article tries to test the direct
and indirect relationship existing among various dimensions of brand
equity in the fast-food industry. With this backdrop, the present
article is structured into six sections. The first section introduces
the concept of brand equity relevant for fast -food industry, followed
by the second section with related literature review. The third section
deals with the objective of the study supported by the relevance of
undertaking such a study. The fourth section discusses the relationship
existing among different brand equity measures. The fifth section
analyzes the result and the sixth section concludes the study.

1.2.0 Objectives of the Study:

The main objective of the present study is to identify the relationship that
exists among the various constructs of brand equity with special reference to
Indian fast-food brands. Strong brand equity has become a very important factor
that influences consumers’ perception of a brand. The $13 billion branded fast-
food market in India is gradually expanding and has been attracting
international brands. Under such a scenario, measurements of brand equity for
7
any brand from the customers’ perspective are of paramount importance. Success
in brand management arises from understanding and managing brand equity to
produce strong attributes that will influence consumers when making their
choices. The present study focuses on the importance of these constructs (i.e.,
BAW, BA, BL and PQ) of fast-food brands in India. This is based on the
assumption that all these constructs of brand equity will have some
relationship while studying the fast-food restaurant brands.

Chapter-2 Literature Review

It is defined as a set of assets and liabilities linked to the brand, which add
value to or subtract value from a product in its relationship with customers
(Aaker, 1991). Aaker identifies that the value of brand equity is a composition
of five brand equity assets, namely, brand loyalty (BL), brand awareness (BAW),
perceived quality (PQ), brand associations (BA) and other proprietary brand
assets, in which PQ and BA are the two most significant ones. All these brand
equity

assets can bring value for the business and customers. From the viewpoint of
Aaker, it has been observed that brand equity can bring value for both customer
and manufacturer, and the customer value from brand equity is the base to
create value for the manufacturer. In the five assets model, the other
proprietary brand assets, namely, patent, trademark and distributors, are
harder to be measured from the customer’s perspective. In such a case, PQ, BL,
BAW and BA are considered to be the most significant variables influencing
brand equity. This observation is based on the findings of the seminal works
carried out by Aaker, Keller and subsequently these four variables have been
considered as the true identification of brand equity. Rust & Oliver considered
brand equity to be ‘the customer’s subjective and intangible assessment of the
brand, above and beyond its objectively-perceived value’. Keller, finally,
defined brand equity as ‘the differential effect of brand knowledge (consisting
of awareness and image) on consumer response to the marketing of the brand’.
The issue of brand equity has emerged as one of the most crucial topics for
marketing management Aaker, Brand equity has been considered in many contexts:
as value added to the product as value of the firm (Aaker, 1991; Kim & Kim,
2005); as value of the customer (Aaker, 1991); as brand preference and purchase
intention (Cobb-Walgren et al. 1995; Zeithaml, 1988); as BL, BAW, PQ and BA
(Aaker, 1991; Atilgan et al., 2005; Keller, 1993; Pappu et al., 2005); as
differential effect of brand knowledge of consumer response to the marketing of
brand (Keller, 1993); as incremental utility (Simon & Sullivan, 1993); and as
an outcome of marketing efforts. The available literature also reveals that
brand equity provides value for both the customers and the firm. Brand equity
creates value to customers by enhancing efficient information processing and
shopping, building confidence in decision-making, reinforcing buying and
contributing to self-esteem. It creates value to firms by increasing marketing
efficiency and effectiveness, building BL, improving profit margins, gaining
leverage over retailers and achieving uniqueness over the competition Apart
from the customer-based perspective, there have been two more different
perspectives for considering brand equity, namely, the financial perspective
and non-financial perspective. However, the present study takes the cognizance
of only customer-based perspective of measuring brand equity as this
perspective is assumed to have significant bearing on the fast-food brands.

8
 2.1.0 Customer-based Brand Equity
It can be defined as the differential effect that brand knowledge has on
consumer reaction to the marketing of the brand (Keller, 1993). The advantage
of conceptualizing brand equity from the consumer’s perspective is that it
enables managers to consider especially how their marketing programme improves
the value of their brands in the minds of consumers. Within the marketing
literature, operationalization of customer-based brand equity usually falls
into two groups, namely, consumer perception (BAW, BA and PQ) and consumer
behaviour (BL and willingness to pay a high price). Mahajan et al. claimed that
customer-based brand equity can be measured by the level of customer’s
perception. According to them, costumer-based brand equity indicates only
perceptual dimensions, not the behavioural or attitudinal factors, such as
loyalty or usage intention. This study differs from Aaker’s observation, who
suggested that to measure brand equity, it is important to include both the
behavioural and attitudinal dimensions. Farquhar (1989) maintains that brand
equity is reflected by the change of consumer attitude while purchasing a
product. For the present study, the four dimensions of brand equity as
identified by Aaker (1991), namely, BAW, BA, PQ and BL, have been considered.

The areas of brand equity and fast-food brands remain under-researched despite
a growing number of studies undertaken in most of the Western countries in
recent years. While measuring the brand equity, Muller and Woods (1994) are of
the opinion that the importance of fast-food brands is always superior to that
of a product brand. Basically, brand equity subsumed to brand value and brand
strength where it could be classified into two measurement perspectives,
namely, financial (brand value)-based measurement and customer-based (brand
strength) brand equity measurement. From the financial perspective, brand
equity is sometimes addressed with a firm-level approach or from a company-
oriented perspective (Feldwick, 1996). On the other hand, customer-based brand

9
equity reflects customer perceived value, which is usually formed by the
combination of a product’s functional performance, emotional benefits and
consumer’s lifestyle. In this article, the interrelationship among various
dimensions of customer-based brand equity, namely, BA, BL, PQ and BAW, in fast-
food brands has been discussed and measured in the Indian context.

s.

Chapter-3
Methodology

3.1.0 Introduction
This section first describes the different constructs of customer-based brand
equity and subsequently analyzes the interdependency of these by identifying
the relationship existing among them. The present study explores the
relationship existing among the four most important dimensional constructs of
brand equity which include BAW, BA, BL and PQ as has been shown in Figure 1.

10
3.2.0 Measures
Measures of brand equity consist of four constructs of customer-based brand
equity. The present study employed a seven-point Likert scale anchored from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) which was in consonance with the
scale adopted by Atilgan et al. 2005and Kim and Kim (2005) for their studies.

Brand Awareness: Awareness refers to the ability to identify or recall a

particular product category. The sample responded to four items designed to
assess their ability to recognize and recall the brand as a member of a certain
project category. The four items of BAW have been adopted from Atilgan et al.’s
(2005) study. These items are as follows: ‘I am aware of this restaurant’
(BAW1), ‘I can recognize this restaurant among other restaurants’ (BAW2), ‘I
know what this restaurant looks like’ (BAW3) and ‘Some characteristic of
restaurants comes to my mind quickly’ (BAW4).

Brand Associations: A BA is a specific perception, whether real or imagined,

that a customer has about a product, service or organizationTiwari, 2010). It
is central to brand equity. In conceptualizing brand equity, Keller depicts
attitudes as the most abstract and highest level of BA. From the measurement
standpoint, BAW, brand familiarity and brand image are all considered to be BA,
and are viewed as primary customer-based brand equity facets, consistent with
several previously proposed brand equity frameworks. Ten items of BA have been
adopted from Kim and Kim (2005) to measure anything linked in memory to the
brand which are as follows: ‘It is crowded’ (BA1), ‘It is noisy’ (BA2), ‘The
price is reasonable’ (BA3), ‘Service is prompt’ (BA4), ‘It is conveniently
located’ (BA5), ‘It has a differentiated image from other restaurant brands’
(BA6), ‘It tastes good compare with price’ (BA7), ‘Employees are very kind’
(BA8), ‘It has a very clean image’ (BA9) and ‘It has cheerful and enchanting
atmosphere’ (BA10).

Perceived Quality: Perceived quality has been found to be correlated with

financial performance (Aaker, 1996b) and is the pivotal force driving brand
equity As outlined by Netemeyer et al. (2004), PQ is considered as a core
customer-based brand equity factor because it has been associated with the
willingness to pay a price premium, brand purchase intent and brand choice.
Nine items have been adopted from Kim and Kim to measure customer perception
of overall quality or superiority of a product or service with respect to its
intended purpose relative to alternatives which include: ‘The physical
facilities (e.g., building, sign, room décor, illumination) are visually
appealing’ (PQ1), ‘The restaurant staff gives customers individual attention’
(PQ2), ‘The appearance of staff members is clean, neat, appropriately dressed’
(PQ3), ‘The restaurant has operating hours convenient to all their customers’
(PQ4), ‘The staff provides prompt service at promised times’ (PQ5), ‘The staff
handle customers’ complaints effectively’ (PQ6), ‘The knowledge and confidence
of the staff are good’ (PQ7), ‘The food quality of the restaurant is good’
(PQ8) and ‘The restaurant insists on error-free service’ (PQ9).

Brand Loyalty: Brand loyalty can be defined as a deeply held commitment to re-
buy or re-patronize a preferred product/service consistently in the future. Six
items have been adopted from Kim and Kim (2005) to measure the attachment that
customer has to a brand including: ‘I regularly visit this restaurant’ (BL1),
‘I intend to visit this restaurant again’ ( BL2), ‘I usually use this
restaurant as my first choice compared to other restaurants’ (BL3), ‘I am
satisfied with the visit to this restaurant’ (BL4), ‘I would recommend this

11
restaurant to others’ (BL5) and ‘I would not switch to another restaurant for
the next time’ ( BL6).

3.3.0 Sample Identification and Data Collection

Initially, a pilot study will be conducted to understand the food preference of
Indian consumers who visited restaurants. Convenience sampling method will be
used in the present study for data collection. The restaurant that has been
considered for the study is Mc.Donald’s as it is one of India’s largest and
fastest growing brands with a network of 500+ restaurants with local
adaptation.1 Questionnaires were distributed in the spot location of
Mc.Donald’s restaurants (Agra). We chose Indian sample because Indian fast-food
habits are one of the fastest growing habits in Asia and are an important
marketplace to grow (Goyal& Singh, 2007). Mc.Donald’s has been targeting
consumers of all age group ranging from children to elders.

3.4.0 SAMPLE SIZE : 103 respondents.

Chapter-4 ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1.0 Data Analysis (Interdependency of the Constructs)

In order to determine the relationship existing among different factors of
brand equity, such as BAW, BA, PQ and BL, one needs to first understand the
basic relationship existing between any two factors which is an outcome of
research studies undertaken in those areas. Aaker (1991, 1996) argues that
brand equity is a multidimensional construct, which consists of BL, BAW, PQ and
BA. Brand equity occurs when the consumer has a high level of awareness and
familiarity with the brand and holds some strong, favourable and unique BA
memory.

Fiske and Taylor (1995) contended that BA can be recalled in a customer’s mind
as emotional impressions. Brand awareness influences a consumer’s decision-
making by affecting the strength of the BA in his mind (Keller, 1993, 1998).
Pitta and Katsanis (1995) have pointed out that there are several dimensions of
BAW with BA. They have further identified that BA of the product can be stored
in a consumer’s mind even after the BAW of the product which has already been
there in his memory. Brand awareness and BA are found to be correlated (Atilgan
et al., 2005; Pappu et al., 2005). Moreover, high levels of BAW positively
affect the formation of the product’s brand image (association) (Villarejo-
Ramos & Sánchez-Franco, 2005). Esch et al. (2006) have also observed that BAW
affects brand image (association). This leads to the relationship that BAW may
have a positive direct effect on BA. This relationship has been identified as
R1.

Yoo, Donthu and Lee (2000) have indicated that BAW with BA has a significant
positive effect on brand equity. Brand loyalty can be defined as a combination
of elements including the degree of customer satisfaction and the positive
12
outcomes of BA. Thus, it can be seen that if customers have higher BA and
awareness, BL will increase. Similarly, Atilgan (2005) has observed that the
more favourable associations consumers have towards a brand, the more their
loyalty would be for that brand and vice versa. A review of the above-stated
studies led to the development of following relationships: (i) BAW may have a
positive direct effect on BL (R2) and (ii) BA may have a positive direct effect
on BL (R3).

As studied by Aaker (1991), Keller (1993) and Pappu et al. (2005), consumers
who hold favourable associations towards a brand are also likely to develop
favourable perceptions of quality and vice versa. In those studies, BAW has
been defined as the consumers’ ability to recall that a brand is a member of a
particular product category. Consumers’ BAW is likely to be high when they have
strong associations with the brand and when they perceive the quality of the
brand to be high and vice versa. The abovediscussed literature led to the
development of the following relationships: (i) BAW may have a positive direct
effect on PQ (R4) and (ii) BA may have a positive direct effect on PQ (R5).

Several studies have identified that BL is somehow related to PQ of a product

(Mc Connel, 1968; Shapiro, 1970; Szybiloo & Jacoby, 1974) as reviewed by Lau
and Lee (1999). Atilgan et al. (2005) studied the relationship between the
various dimensions of brand equity. They have concluded that BL is the most
significant dimension of brand equity. Even their study does not give enough
support to the existence of a direct causal relationship between the four
dimensions of brand equity, that is, BAW, BA, PQ and BL. They have observed
that concentrating on BL should not undervalue the effect of BAW and PQ on BL.
The study of Pappu et al. (2005) corroborates the fact that consumers’
perception of quality can be associated with their BL. The more loyal a
consumer is to a brand, the more he or she is likely to perceive the brand as
offering better quality and vice versa. The above discussion leads to the
following relationship: Perceived quality may have a positive direct effect on
BL (R6).

4.2.0 Demographics of participants

The data was collected in regards with three variables of demographic
segmentation of respondents, i.e. age (18-25 years, 26-35 years, 36-45 years,
and 46+ years), gender and occupation (full-time employed, part-time employed,
unemployed, student, and pensioner). Based on the statistical analysis of the
data, it was found that majority of the respondents were males. Out of the
total of 103 respondents 54.4 % were males and 45.6 % were females. A total of
47.6% of respondents were between the age of 18 and 25, with the following
largest group being between age of 26-35 years (33%), followed by the 36-45
years (12.6 %) and 46+ years (6.8%). In respect to occupation, unsurprisingly,
most of the respondents identified themselves as “student” (40.8 %), while 27.2
% identified as full-time employed, 22.3 % part-time employed, 8.7% unemployed
and only 1% identified himself as a pensioner (See Table 1). Demographic
information is the basis of many marketing strategies at a macro and micro
level so establishing this information first is important.

13
Table 1. DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE RESPONDENTS

DEMOGRAPHICS Number of Percentage %

respondents

GENDER MALE 45.6 %

FEMALE 54.4 %

18-25 YEARS 47.6 %

AGE
26-35 YEARS 33 %

35-45 YEARS 12.6%

46+ 6. 6.8 %
STUDENT 40.8 %
OCCUPATION FULL-TIME 27.2 %
EMPLOYED
PART-TIME 22.3%
EMPLOYED
UNEMPLOYED 8.7%
PENSIONER 1%

4.3.0 Results
This section analyzes the results of the survey undertaken to identify the
relationship existing among the different factors of brand equity.

Correlation:Means, standard deviations and inter-correlations for the study

variables are reported in Table 2. Correlations reflecting the relationship
among research variables are found to be positively significant.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Matrix of the Construct

Variable Mean SD BL PQ BA BAW
BL 3.7700 0.56655 1
PQ 3.5789 0.56775 0.474(**) 1
BA 3.7522 0.51258 0.546(**) 0.725(**) 1
BAW 4.0516 0.61691 0.388(**) 0.344(**) 0.533(**) 1

Note: **correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

14
Table 3. Relationship Effect

Hypothesis Relationship Standard Hypothesis Result

. Error Output

R1 BAW BA 0.10 Positive Supported

R2 BAW BL 0.14 Positive Notsupported

R3 BA BL 0.47 Positive Supported

R4 BAW PQ 0.08 Positive Notsupported

R5 BA PQ 0.17 Positive Supported

R6 PQ BL 0.39 Positive Notsupported

4.4.0 Direct Relationship

Table 3. shows that the relationship existing between BAW and BL is positive
.This observation does not support the relationship (R2) that BAW may have a
positive direct effect on BL. The association between BAW and PQ is
significant. This outcome also does not support the relationship (R4) which
indicates that BAW may have a positive direct effect on PQ. We argue that BA
acts as a suppressor in our model which brings out an inverse relationship
between BA and PQ. The relationship between BAW and BA is positive and thus the
relationship that BAW may have a positive direct effect on BA (R1) is
supported. It is also found that the relationship is positive between BA and BL
.This relationship supports the observation that BA may have a positive direct
effect on BL (R3).

4.5.0 Conclusion
The present study measures brand equity for a particular brand in a given
product category that has not been undertaken in any other previous studies.
The major academic contribution of this study is its result, which establishes
the four-dimensions model of consumer-based brand equity comprising of BAW, BA,
PQ and BL, consistent with the Aaker’s original model (1991, 1996b) and
subsequently supported by Cobb-Walgren et al. (1995) and Pappu et al. (2005).
However, the observations are in contrast with the three brand equity
dimensions as identified by Yoo and Donthu (2001, 2002) and Washburn and Plank
(2002) despite having a basis of their observations on Aaker’s
conceptualization. The present study enriches the existing literature by
15
testing the customer-based brand equity measurement. The result of the study
corroborates the existence of direct as well as indirect causal relationship
among dimensions of brand equity. In this study, it is observed that BA is the
most important variable which affects BL, and BAW affects BL via BA. The
observation of the present study also supports the outcome of the study
undertaken by Pitta and Katsanis (1995) where it is identified that BA of the
product can be stored in consumers’ minds after BAW of the product that are
already stored in their memory. Brand association acts as a suppressor in our
model that leads to an inverse relationship between BAW and PQ as well as
between PQ and BL. This analysis further shows that BA becomes a very important
dimension affecting BL. A positive BA in the fast-food business can be
sustained if the managers put good efforts in maintaining cleanliness,
providing jovial ambiance, maintaining good taste and price and mobilizing
friendly staff members to attend the customers. While targeting a diverse
market ranging from children to elderly people, managers of a particular
restaurant have to take into cognizance the customers’ characteristics relevant
to their age and the individual food habit. The demographic characteristics and
information about individual food habits of the consumers can provide greater
insight in serving the customer which shall lead to positive BA.

References
Aaker, A.D. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a
brand name. New York, NY: Free Press Publisher

——. (1996a). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California
Management Review,
38(3), 102–120.

———. (1996b). Building strong brand. New York, NY: Free Press Publishers.
Anand, K. (2011). A study of south Indian fast food restaurant: An
enterpreniual opportunities with special reference to areas of Kalyan and
Dombivili.

Society and Business Review,6(2), 176–187.

Atilgan, E., Aksoy, S., & Akinci, S. (2005).Determinants of brand equity.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning
, 23(3), 237–248. Bagozzi, R.P., Rosa, J.A., Celly, K.S., & Coronel, F.
(1998).
Marketing management
.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A., & Donthu, N. (1995). Brand equity, brand
preference, and purchase intent.
Journal of Advertising, 24(3), 25–40.

Curran, P.J., West, S.G., & Finch, J.F. (1996). The robustness of test
statistics to no normality and specification error in confirmatory factor
analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 1(1), 512–519.

Dyson, P., Farr, A., & Hollis, N.S. (1996). Understanding, measuring, and
using brand equity.
16
Journal of Advertising \Research, 36(6), 9–21.
Esch, F.R., Langner, T., Schmitt, B.H., & Geus, P. (2006). Are brands
forever? How brand knowledge and relation-ships affect current and future
purchases. Journal of Product & Brand

17