Measuring Brand Health
1 1
P.K. Kapur
1
Amity University, Noida, UP, India
pkkapur1@gmail.com
akgupta@amity.edu
2
Department of Operational Research, University of Delhi, Delhi, India
nitin.sach@gmail.com
ABSTRACT - Most of the companies today are unable to identify
how brand health is connected with future revenue expected from
customers. Their sole focus for building brand is through continuous
advertising, which indirectly creates a brand image. In reality, image
building is not the sole purpose of brand health rather the entire
business performance is derived out of few specific interrelated
measurable elements. Often brand equity has been linked to
shareholder value [35] as an intangible, long lasting metric of a
company, which hardly affects top-line growth. By contrast, brand
health is tangible and is linked to current and future value with
consumers. Brand health measures the state of the brand in the minds
of both internal and external stakeholders (e.g. prospects, customers,
employees, investors, and public influencers). Therefore, effective
management & monitoring of brand health can significantly impact
and influence organization’s profit. With special emphasis upon
marketing and business performance measures, brand owners identify
which of the attributes act in favor or against adding value to the
brand, and identify fundamental forces behind these perceptions. For
example, Knowing thoroughly constitutes a brand, drive customers to
choose it over rival brands also assists organization in optimal
allocation of their resources so as to fulfill brand’s potential.
Subsequently these decisions can then be related back to top-line
financial results to measure other performance metrics. Hence, in
order to build and manage brand over time to deliver increased value
to both the customer and business, it is fundamental to measure brand
health.
In this paper, we focus on only few prominent factors as identified
from literature and attempt to analyze and determine the overall utility
derived from these factors in measuring effectiveness of brand health.
The study is based on the responses sought from teachers and staff
members of a private university, located in North India. The
questionnaire relating to the brand health factors instruments was
administered to the sample population and the findings indicate that
these factors enhance organizational performance and play a vital
role in the growth of an organization.
Key words: Brand health, Brand Equity, Utility Measure,
Business Performance
I. INTRODUCTION
In almost all sorts of communications, be it marketing material,
website promotions or for that matter the language consistently
used by an employee, resonates the vision, mission and values
of an organization. These communications very finely represent
sets of visual carriers and an appropriate though concise
978-1-4673-7231-2/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE
Aditya Gupta 2
Nitin Sachdeva
message highlighting company’s success story to be quickly
grasped by the customers. It is therefore applied with
affirmative consistency all across the marketing channels. One
of the major reasons for such an absorption strategy adopted by
a company for its employees and agents, is to build what we
call is brand health. With only such a meticulous application it
is possible that the brand’s effect grows on to become
impressive to the consumers.
For the past several decades, researchers have been concerned
with measuring effectiveness of different kinds of entities in
different activities in many different contexts across the globe.
Sproles ([32]; [33]) postulated that Measures of Effectiveness
(MoE) are required to answer the question “Does this meet my
need?” and hence defined MoE as: “standards against which
the capability of a solution to meet the needs of a problem
may be judged. The standards are specific properties that any
potential solution must exhibit to some extent. MOEs are
independent of any solution and do not specify performance
or criteria”. He distinguishes between Measures of
Performance (MoP) and MoE by declaring that MoP measures
the internal characteristics of a solution while MoE measure
external parameters that are independent of the solution – a
measurement of how well the problem has been solved.
Since companies long back realized that brand lives in the mind
of the brand consumer, and only those at the peak of brand
health have the strength to push through and lodge there.
Hence it’s imperative to deliver a consistent strategy across
both customer and firm to measure brand health effectively.
Brand owners need to take the complete ownership of how their
brand is holding up.
Brand health can be measured taking 360 – degree view of
brand in the marketplace. It is required to be focused on
consumer & competitor. All factors consider in measuring
brand health should be linked to the business performance.
Most of brand health measurement has been done by a few
major global players. They have merged various social and
behavioral data to determine brand Health. Leading vendors of
tomorrow will be those that reinvent themselves to meet
marketers’ demands for more integrated data solutions.
In this paper, we introduce a brand health measurement
approach, which is based on a more nuanced model of the
efficiency measurement process that takes into account both
brand owner’s as well as other stakeholder’s perspective, in
order to effectively analyze the performance of a brand based
on utility theory.
To date, efficiency measurement of any brand has tended to
focus solely on indicators or attributes governed by the firm.
With this focus, they have systematically missed the
simultaneous assessment of real and conflicting interest of
various stakeholders in order to measure efficiency of the
brand. This is largely due to the underlying conceptual thinking
behind most efficiency measurement tools, which is the uni-
directional perspective of the developer of the tool.
As a consequence, efficiency measurement tools have paid little
attention to the importance of simultaneously capturing the
perspective of brand developers on one side while the
remaining stakeholders’ viewpoint on the other. These essential
perspectives of the efficiency measurement process often go
un-accounted for in the traditional efficiency measurement
tools despite the often cited failures of big companies in
understanding their stakeholders’ perspectives.
In this paper we intend to measure the effectiveness of factors
leading to a successful brand in the market using utility theory.
We introduce a measurement approach which is based on a
more nuanced model of the efficiency measurement process
that takes into account both the management’s perspective as
well as the consumer’s perspective to effectively analyze
performance of a brand based on utility theory. Following
introduction to the context of this work, the rest of the paper is
as follows: Firstly, very briefly we discuss the key determinants
(elements) of brand health. In the subsequent section we
introduce the methodology in followed by the research section.
Analysis based on surveyed data is performed in the next
section. Towards the end of the paper, we provide additional
insights for manager along with the concluding remarks to the
paper.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Current wellbeing and resistance are two well related yet
distinct components based on which brand has been
conceptualized historically [6]. Brand present wellbeing is
reflected in its updated market share, sales as well as brand
equity [22]. Literature provides for plethora of information on
the various dimensions of brand health with repeat purchase as
central criterion variable. On the other side brand resistance
refers to the central brand’s vulnerability to abnormal
fluctuations in the market, like aggressive promotional
campaign by competitors, launch of disruptive innovation etc.
This kind of vulnerability leads to switching behavior [6]
bringing forward the segment of market known as “spurious
loyalty” ([10]; [18]). Therefore brand health is a much broader
and complex concept than brand loyalty alone. Identifying key
variables that can serve as valid, persistent antecedents to brand
health in the face of sustaining and disruptive forces in the
market remains quite ambiguous and challenging [25].
Marketing Science Institute (MSI) strengthens on the research
priorities of building a strong, healthy relationship with
customers. This is to no surprise since customer retention has a
bigger impact on a firm’s profitability than does customer
acquisition ([5]; [29]). The important ways to build deeper
customer relationship are through brands [15] and value
creation ([2];[12]). As [22] pointed out, “Branding has emerged
as a top management priority in the last decade.” Meanwhile, in
the relationship marketing literature, the inter-relationships
among perceived value, satisfaction, brand loyalty, and market
share figure predominantly [30].
Undoubtedly customer satisfaction is cohesively related to
customer loyalty; however marketing researchers conclude that
satisfaction is not enough [27]. Similarly, [9] proposed that
deep down satisfaction lies satisfaction strength that translates
stated satisfaction into loyalty. Accordingly, researchers
suggest that perceived value, defined as customers’ overall
assessment of “the utility of a product based on perceptions of
what is received and what is given” [39], may represent
benefits and implication of predicting customer loyalty than
customer satisfaction [8].
Present studies have therefore started to lay special emphasis
upon creating a balance on how brands drive short-term gain
while preserving long term growth by introducing what they
call brand health. Ipsos ASI’s Equity Builder extensive
research have identified that there are three distinct dimensions
to brand health: brand equity, brand involvement and price
perception.
The Marketing Science Institute [21] states that the underlying
determinants of consumer-based brand equity are that brands
provide benefits to consumers by differentiating products, as
they facilitate the processing and retrieval of information [37]
Other marketing literatures ([3];[23]) also stress the importance
of the distinctive character of brand positioning in contributing
to the success of a brand. Distinctiveness is defined as the
degree to which the consumer perceives that a brand is distinct
from its competitors [23]. A brand can have a price premium if
it is perceived as being different from its competitors.
Several other brand health determinants have been proposed by
[28] wherein factors like attractiveness, availability,
distinctiveness etc. of a brand are amongst the most common
ones. In this paper we consider the work of [28] to examine the
effectiveness of brand health by using Utility Theory.
III. IMPORTANCE OF MEASURING BRAND
HEALTH ACROSS ALL STAKEHOLDERS
Brand-specific metrics are vital to develop an precise
assessment of a company’s brand health. Metrics let an
organization to emphasis its efforts efficiently .In a
multifaceted working environment, metrics can focus key areas
of brand strength and risk. The accurate metrics provide
executives with the suitable guidance for strategic decision-
making.
Majority of Business Organization measures brand metrics
through customer happiness, brand tracking or customer
relationship management systems. Such brand metrics have
focus on customers rather than monitoring brand health across
all key stakeholders. These brand metrics are do not provide
real time information leading poor decision making business
owners. In order to have proper brand monitoring all
stakeholders metrics are essential. The brand metrics should
capture 360 degree view of brand.
[17] found empirical evidence supporting the idea that
competitive advantage may be built with tacit assets derived
from developing relationships with all primary stakeholders not
only employees and suppliers. The competitive advantage leads
to better management of stakeholders. Trust that is mutual
which can make stakeholder to be a part of the value creation
process [38]. Utility function’s information which key to brand
health can be gathered from these stakeholders. Stakeholder’s
interest in sharing utility function information will make
company to allocate resources wisely.
All stakeholders play vital role in measuring brand health of the
company. In present scenario following are
major stakeholders in a company:
• Client chain: includes loyal customer, current and
prospect customers. These customers by positive word
of mouth help company to add new customers.
• Capacity chain: The internal customers i.e. employees
and also all members that interact as representative
of the company.
• Community opinion: These include general public
feelings towards product offered by the company.
• Opinion Leader: These include an
individual who has a vital role in influencing
consumer decision making for a company’s products.
• Stockholders: These are people who make equity
participation and capital building of an organization.
• Dealers: These are people made goods and service
available to consumers or users.
• Controllers: These are lawmakers at local, state,
national and global levels. These affect the macro
environment of the company.
• Media: These include people,
which create images of the brand in the minds of
Consumers
All the stake holders have important role in company’s brand
health which has to be considered by business organization.
Community opinion can impact the Controllers making policy
for business. The ability to attract talent is a key for technology
firms as well as advertising agencies. Public reputation and
customer loyalty matters greatly to consumer goods companies
as well as large retail outlets. Stockholders and media can
influence the valuations of a company’s worth.
IV. THE KEY ELEMENTS OF BRAND HEALTH
We have identified ten key elements of brand health that form a
statistically reliable core set of measures. All ten elements are
recognized in the management literature, they have not
heretofore been inter correlated, tested through empirical data
and offered as a core set of brand management metrics.
Each element offers a unique measurement perspective:
1. Attractiveness: It measures consumer’s positive
association towards the brand.
2. Availability of a brand: It measures the leadership
position, respect the brand is having in mind of
consumer and presence in various distribution
channels of market.
3. Distinctiveness: It measures uniqueness of brand as
perceived by consumers.
4. Liabilities: measure a brand’s weaknesses, or
damaging associations, and consumer unwillingness.
5. Likelihood of referrals: The satisfied customers
recommend a company product to new customers
leading to increase in sales. It reflects positive word of
mouth by satisfied customers.
6. Switch to Competitors: Customer’s likelihood to
cross shop or switch providers lead to the loss of
revenue to competitors..
7. Total spending in a brand. This is based on the
actual and anticipated increases in spending or
commitment over time and on intent to purchase
additional products.
8. Usage/Frequency
Captures how many customers the brand has so you
can identify heavy, medium, and light buyers. This
helps set the context for other metrics, as well as
providing insight into market structure
9. Brand recognition is the ability of consumer to
recognize prior knowledge of brand.
10. Brand recall is the potential of customer to recover
brand from his memory.
V. ABOUT THE RESEARCH
Our work is based on quantitative survey data collected in the
year 2014 from consumers from teaching fraternity of
Delhi/NCR region. Across various FMCG products, consumers
are well-penetrated, competition is wide-ranging and retail
activity is substantial. (It is worth noting that the stickiness of
the customer- provider relationship varies by sector, based on
the presence or absence of contractual arrangements.) The
sample was drawn from major geographic markets citywide
with a sample of 200, nearly equally distributed amongst the
two genders, with over 80% professionally qualified with an
average household income level of above INR 5 lacs annually.
The goal of our research was to explore and measure the impact
of key brand-health elements on current and future revenue
commitments by customers — providing a blueprint for
companies about how and where to invest in brand building to Factors
Weights
Very
Poor
Poor Average Good
Very
Good
Level
Weight
ution to
Total
win in a given marketplace. Across all brands available in the Expecte
(Wi) 2 4 6 8 10 d Utility
sectors and geographic markets we studied, we gathered broad (Ui)
and specific data from individual consumers about who they Brand Recall 12 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.41 0.36 7.88 94.56
are, what and why they buy from certain brands and their future Brand Recognition 18 0 0.18 0.18 0.41 0.23 7.38 132.84
intentions. Availability of Product 9 0.05 0.05 0.27 0.32 0.32 7.68 69.12
Liabilities 9 0.18 0.23 0.32 0.18 0.09 5.54 49.86
VI. ANALYSIS Attractiveness 9 0 0.05 0.18 0.27 0.5 8.44 75.96
Distinctiveness 11 0.09 0.09 0.18 0.36 0.27 7.2 79.2
In this section we calculate the weighted average of the levels Likelihood to Buy 10 0 0.18 0.14 0.36 0.32 7.64 76.4
selected by the consumer for each element of brand health and Switch to a Competitors 6 0.14 0.09 0.32 0.27 0.18 6.52 39.12
subsequently calculated individual utility value for each of Usage/ Frequency 6 0.05 0.05 0.32 0.32 0.27 7.48 44.88
these attributes. Based on the contribution to the total expected Total Spending in the brand 10 0.05 0.09 0.23 0.32 0.32 7.6 76
utility value, we reach to an overall measure of the utility Total
Utility 662
(Table 1) for all the instruments taken as a whole. The overall Measure
utility measure helps an organization in several ways by Table 1: Overall Utility Value
comparing it with the worst and the best case scenarios
(discussed in the next sub-section). Figure 1: Expected Weights of Key Elements of Brand Health
The idea of calculating utilities is to incorporate both the Ideal & Worst Utility Measure
organization’s and consumer’s perspective regarding the
20
various brand health elements employed by the organization. 18 Series1
When an organization employs any set of these instruments 16
Series2
they’re aware of their importance but by incorporating the 14

consumer’s feedback they are able to effectively decide the 12

optimal combination of these instruments for the future.
Consumer’s perspective encourages the company to dig into
detailed analysis and suggest better instruments or work on
improving the existing ones.
The below mentioned probabilities describe opinion concerning
various elements used in measuring brand health by an
organization. The interpretation of this could be that about 41%
(0.41) of the respondents believe that the brand recall of the
organization is good and 18% (0.18) respondents believe that
brand’s attractiveness and distinctiveness has been average.
In order to gauge through individual perception of each
element, the utility measure can then be obtained by
multiplying the element weight, the level of acceptance
received by the consumers, and the probability attached to that
level and summing across each element. Finally to obtain an
overall utility measure taking all the elements together, we sum
all the individual utilities of these elements of brand health.
After obtaining the overall utility measure for all the elements
we can easily compare this measure with the organization’s
‘ideal’ and the ‘worst’ case scenarios to conclude whether the
applied set of elements did perform to the expected level of
satisfaction or not. The process also highlights the perception of
consumers towards each element and if the organization
believes that the desired level of utility has not been derived
from any specific or important element then they can bring this
concern in front and try to make necessary changes. Once again
the impact of making any changes can be evaluated using the
same process time and again until the desired level of utility is
not attained.
Critical Brand Levels Expected Contrib
10
8
6
4
2
0
The overall utility measure encompasses overall effectiveness
of brand health elements but is unable to reflect the benchmark
or an acceptable level of utility to be derived from these
elements. In order to set these standards for elements or to say
‘acceptable’ level of utility derived from any individual
element, we make use ‘best’ and ‘worst’ utility measures.
Best Utility Measure: This can be easily calculated by
considering each respondent claiming that all the elements
utilized by the organization were highly effective and thereby
assigns ‘10’ as the rating for each of them. The probability of
each element being highly effective takes a value ‘1’
subsequently leading to the highest/ideal utility value for each
element (Table 2). This eventually gives us the highest utility
(Table 2) that can be derived from these set of instruments.
Worst Utility Measure: This on the other hand can be easily
calculated by considering each respondent claiming that all the
elements utilized by the organization were least effective and
thereby assigns ‘2’ as the rating for each of them. The
probability of each element being least effective takes a value
‘1’ subsequently leading to the lowest/worst utility value for
each element (Table 3). This eventually gives us the lowest
utility (Table 3) that can be derived from these set of elements
of brand health.
 Average Utility Measure: This is obtained by considering each in the brand
Total
respondent claiming that all the elements utilized by the Overall Utility Measure 'Average Case Scenario' Utility 600
organization were average and thereby assigns ‘6’ as the rating Measure

for each of them. The probability of each element being on an Table 4: Overall Utility Measure ‘Average Case Scenario’
average effectiveness takes a value ‘1’ subsequently leading to
VII. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
the average utility value for each element (Table 4). This
eventually gives us the average utility (Table 4) that can be In this paper, the proposed utility model helps in monitoring the
derived from these set of elements of brand health. key attributes of brand health from both organization’s as well
Levels as customer’s perspective. Such a metric helps organization in
revealing their true market position in comparison to its
Critical Brand Factors Weights Very Very Expected
Contribution to
Total Expected
competitors. Additionally the proposed framework provides a
Poor Average Good
Poor Good Level Weight
Utility (Ui) platform for dynamic brand management and assists in
designing appropriate strategies to rationalize the allocation of
(Wi) 2 4 6 8 10 their resources in positioning themselves to win in a market and
Brand Recall 12 1 10 120 subsequently improve top-line sales.
Brand Recognition 18 1 10 180
Availability of Product 9 1 10 90
Liabilities 9 1 10 90
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
Attractiveness 9 1 10 90
Distinctiveness 11 1 10 110 There are so many elements that don’t capture the essence of
Likelihood to Buy 10 1 10 100
Switch to a
whatever they are supposed to do for a healthy brand. Some of
6 1 10 60
Competitors them don’t even recognize the importance of defining the
Usage/ Frequency 6 1 10 60
Total Spending in the
application type and development environment to measure and
10 1 10 100
brand identify the relative importance of brand health. This paper
Total Utility
Overall Utility Measure 'Best Case Scenario'
Measure
1000 demonstrates the use of utility of attributes alone and taken
Table 2: Overall Utility Measure ‘Best Case Scenario’ together and compares the results to validate the importance of
measuring brand health in order to enhance overall brand
Very
Levels
Very
Contrib
ution to
equity. The relative weights assigned to each of the brand
Critical Brand Weights
Poor
Poor Average Good
Good Expected Total attributes in the proposed work model highlights the
Factors Level Weight Expecte
(Wi) 2 4 6 8 10 d Utility consumer’s perspective towards the importance of that attribute
Brand Recall 12 1 2
(Ui)
24
and provides better insight in overall estimation of the utility
Brand
18 1 2 36
value. One of the major contributions of this paper lies in
Recognition
Availability of
identifying brand attributes that require immediate attention
Product
9 1 2 18
based on the utility derived from each of them. Additionally,
Liabilities 9 1 2 18 the technique can also be used for benchmarking system
Attractiveness 9 1 2 18
Distinctiveness 11 1 2 22 standards based on organizational goals and objectives.
Likelihood to
10 1 2 20
Buy
Switch to a
6 1 2 12
Competitors REFERENCES
Usage/ Frequency 6 1 2 12
Total Spending in
the brand
10 1 2 20 [1] Aaker, David A. and Erin Joachimsthaler (2000), “The Brand
Total Utility Relationship Spectrum: The Key to the Brand Architecture Challenge,”
Overall Utility Measure 'Worst Case Scenario' 200
Measure California Management Review, 42 (4), 8-23.
Table 3: Overall Utility Measure ‘Worst Case Scenario’ [2] Agustin, Clara and Jagdip Singh (2005), “Curvilinear Effects of
Consumer Loyalty Determinants in Relational Exchanges,” Journal of
Levels Marketing Research, 42 (1), 96-108.
Critical Brand Weigh
Ver
Very Expected Contribution to Total [3] Al Ries, Jack Trout (1985), “Positioning: The Battle for your Mind”,
y Poor Average Good
Factors ts
Poor
Good Level Expected Utility (Ui) McGraw Hill, pp 224
(Wi) 2 4 6 8 10
Weight [4] Bagozzi, Richard P. (1975), “Marketing as Exchange,” Journal of
Brand Recall 12 1 6 72 Marketing, 39 (4), 32-9.
Brand
18 1 6 108
Recognition [5] Blattberg, Robert C. and John Deighton (1996), “Manage Marketing
Availability of
Product
9 1 6 54 by the Customer Equity Test,” Harvard Business Review, 74 (4), 136-44
Liabilities 9 1 6 54
Attractiveness 9 1 6 54 [6] Bhattacharya, C.B.,and Leonard Lodish (2000), “Towards a System
Distinctiveness 11 1 6 66 for Monitoring Brand Health from Store Scanner Data,” MSI Working
Likelihood to Paper, Report No. 00-111.
10 1 6 60
Buy
Switch to a
[7] Barwise, P., Higson, C., Likierman, A. and Marsh, P. (1990) “Brands
6 1 6 36 as Separable Assets”, Business Strategy Review, 1, 2, pp. 43-59.
Competitors
Usage/
6 1 6 36
Frequency
Total Spending 10 1 6 60
[8] Bolton, Ruth N. and James H. Drew (1991), “A Multistage Model of
Customers’ Assessments of Service Quality and Value,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 17 (4), 375-84.
[9] Chandrashekaran, Murali, Kristin Rotte, Stephen S. Tax, and Rajdeep
Grewal (2007), “Satisfaction Strength and Customer Loyalty,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 44 (1), 153-63
[10] Day, G.S., "A Two-Dimensional Concept of Brand Loyalty," Journal
of Advertising Research, 9, 1969, p. 29-36
[11] D. Aaker, “The Power of the Branded Differentiator,” MIT Sloan
Management Review 45, no. 1 (fall 2003): 83-87; and K.L. Keller and
S.Sood, “Brand Equity Dilution,” MIT Sloan Management Review 45,
no. 1 (fall 2003): 12-15
[12] Dodds, William B., Kent B. Monroe, and Dhruv Grewal (1991),
“Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers’ Product
Evaluations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (3), 307-19.
[13] D. Stiff, “So You Think You Know Your Brand,” MIT Sloan
Management Review 47, no. 4 (summer 2006): 95-96
[14] David May, Peter Zandan, Karlan Witt,” An executive view of brand
metrics “Research Data Insights Page 1-8,(access date 22/2/2014)
[15] Erdem, Tülin, Joffre Swait, and Aana Valenzuela (2006), “Brands as
Signals: A Cross-Country Validation Study,” Journal of Marketing, 70
(1), 34-49.
[27] Oliver, Richard L. (1999), “Whence Consumer Loyalty?” Journal of
Marketing, 63 (Special Issue), 33-44.
[28] Peter Berg, Hans Roy, Patricia L. Wilberg, (2007) “Eddy correlation
flux measurements: The sediment surface area that contributes to the
flux”, Limnol, Oceangor, 52, pp 1672-1684
[29] Reichheld, Frederick F. (1996), The Loyalty Effect. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
[30] Sheth, Jagdish N, Bruce I. Newman, and Barbara L. Gross (1991),
“Why We Buy What We Buy: A Theory of Consumption Values,”
Journal of Business Research, 22 (2), 159-70.
[31] Shankar, V. Azar, P. and Fuller, M. (2008) “BRAN*EQT: A
Multicategory Brand Equity Model and its Application at Allstate”
Marketing Science, 27, 4, pp.567-584.
[32] Sproles, N. (2001) "The Difficult Problem of Establishing Measures
of Effectiveness for Command and Control: A Systems Engineering
Perspective", Systems Engineering, Vol 4, pp. 145-155.
[33] Sproles, N. (2002) "Formulating Measures of Effectiveness", Systems
Engineering, Vol 5, pp. 253-263.
[34] Swait, J., Erdem, T., Louvière, J. and Dubelaar, C. (1993) “The
Equalization Price: A Measure of Consumer-Perceived Brand Equity”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10, 1, pp. 23-45.

[16] Freeman, R. E. (1984), Strategic Management: A stakeholder
approach, Boston: Pitman.
[17] Hillman, A. J., &Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder Value,
Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues: What’s the Bottom Line?
Strategic Management Journal, 22, 125– 139.
[18] Jacoby, Jacob and Robert W. Chestnut (1978), “Brand Loyalty,
Measurement and Management, New York, John Wiley & Sons, 120 pp
[19] Julie Dexter Berg, John M. Matthews and Constance M. O’Hare
Boston, “Measuring Brand Health to Improve Top-Line Growth,” MIT
Sloan Management Review 49, no. 1 (Fall 2007): 61-68.
[20] Kamakura, W.A. and Russell, G.J. (1993) “Measuring Brand Value
with Scanner Data”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10,
1, pp. 9-22.
[21] Leuthesser, Lance. (1988) Defining, measuring and managing brand
equity: A conference summary.Report #88-104, Cambridge, MA:
Marketing Science Institute.
[35] T.J. Madden, F. Fehle and S. Fournier, “Brands Matter: An Empirical
Demonstration of the Creation of Shareholder Value Through Branding,”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34, no. 2 (April 2006):224-
235.
[36] Vázquez, R., Del Rio, A.B. and Iglesias, V. (2002) “Consumer-
Based Brand Equity: Development and Validation of a Measurement
Instrument”, Journal of Marketing Management, 18, 1/2, pp. 27-48.
[37] Wayne D. Hoyer and Steven P. Brown, “Effects of Brand Awareness
on Choice for a Common, Repeat-Purchase Product”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Sep., 1990), pp. 141-148
[38] Whysall, Paul, “Stakeholder Mismanagement in Retailing: A British
Perspective,” Journal of Business Ethics, January 2000, 19-28.
[39] Zeithaml, Valerie A. (1988), “Consumer Perceptions of Price,
Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence,”
Journal of Marketing, 52 (2), 2-22.

[22] Keller, Kevin Lanes and Donald R. Lehmann (2006), “Brands and
Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities,” Marketing Science,
25 (6), 740-59.

[23] Kapferer, Jean-Noël (1991), Strategic Brand Management. New

York: The Free Press

[24] Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. and Wood, D. J. (1997), “Toward a

theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle
of who and what really counts”,Academy of Management Review, Vol.
22, No. 4, pp.853-886.

[25] Moore, Elizabeth S., William L. Wilkie, and Richard Lutz (2002),
“Passing the Torch: Intergenerational Influences as a Source of Brand
Equity,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (2), 17-37

[26] Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995) “Measuring Customer-

based Brand Equity”, Journal of Consumer Marketing 12, 4, pp. 11-19.