Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 25 (2015) 58–70

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Brand value chain in practise; the relationship between mindset and

market performance metrics: A study of the Swedish market for FMCG
Johan Anselmsson n, Niklas Bondesson
Department of Business Administration School of Economics and Management Lund University, Lund Sweden

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: For decades, managers have analysed, planned and implemented long-term brand strategies based on
Received 24 October 2014 customer mindset metrics (MSMs). Typically, such MSMs are customer satisfaction, liking, brand preference
Received in revised form and Net Promoter Score (NPS). One of the core pillars, in brand management literature, is the assumed link
11 February 2015
between certain customer-based brand assets, often operationalized as MSMs, and future long-term market
Accepted 16 March 2015
Available online 7 April 2015
performance. However, few studies have systematically and broadly evaluated how the most common
MSMs relate to actual performance data. This study investigates the link between the customer MSMs, most
Keywords: commonly used by practitioners, and their relationships with actual market performance. The paper ex-
Market performance metrics plores 10 MSMs and 14 market performance metrics, in 10 categories, in the Swedish fast-moving consumer
Key performance metrics
goods (FMCG) market. The study is based on survey data from 2007 that is compared to purchase panel
Key performance indicators
household data from 2007 and 2010. Although MSMs are highly correlated to each other, their relations to
Market research
Mindset metrics brands' long-term market performance differ. A more nuanced approach to the MSM-market performance
Brand equity link is proposed, as there appears to be no single “silver bullet” MSM to rely on. Using a cash flow-oriented
Brand management framework, the authors recommend opting for different MSMs depending on which of the three generic
types of market performance (enhanced, sustained or accelerated) are targeted.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the market performance outcomes of different brand-related

In brand management literature, the financial value of a brand is
assumed to be entrenched in consumers' mindsets, and can be un-
derstood and evaluated in terms of associations and attitudinal loy-
alty (cf. Aaker, 2014; Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993). This assumption has
been made visible in various brand models, such as Keller and
Lehmann, 2003 brand value chain and similar models (Feldwick,
1996; Wood, 2000; Gupta and Zeithaml, 2006; Anselmsson and
Bondesson, 2013). The chain of events according to these models is
that brand equity is something that builds up in the minds of the
customers, and then converts to market performance and cash flow.
Another central assumption, in this field, is that investments in the
brand do not necessarily pay off in short-term sales effect, but
slowly build equity in the minds of customers that in the long run,
lead to more stable sales and market performances (Lodish and
Mela, 2007). However, they urge for more research and a better
understanding and analysis of the long-term effects on future sales,
profitability and cash flow.
In our view, current brand related and empirical research is
characterized by a rather weak, un-nuanced and scattered focus on
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: johan.anselmsson@fek.lu.se (J. Anselmsson).
customer attitudes. There are, for example, some branding studies
that seem to support an assumed relationship (Kerin and
Sethuraman, 1998; Barth et al., 1998; Mortanges et al., 2003;
Bandyopadhyay and Martell, 2007; Romaniuk et al., 2014; Srini-
vasan et al., 2010), but these studies have focused only on one or
very few customer-based MSMs and their relationships to one or a
few different performance-related outcomes, mostly from a short-
term perspective. The most common approach is to limit the study
to the mindset phase and measure the relationships between
different associations and attitude-based loyalty or customer in-
tentions rather than actual market performance.
The explanation for the narrow academic focus, according to
our view, is an increasing specialisation that the marketing area
has experienced over recent decades. Scholars, as well as practi-
tioners, often strive for a single “silver bullet metric” and several
customer mindset concepts and metrics that have been described
as critical for business success: satisfaction (cf. Fornell, 1992;
Gupta et al., 2006; Hallowell, 1996; Anderson et al., 2004; Ittner
and Larcker, 1998; Rucci et al., 1998) and Net Promoter Score (see
Reichheld, 2003). There are several forms of cash flow-related
market performance metrics, such as sales volume, price premium,
purchase loyalty, market penetration, and market share. Few of the
scholars that assume a relationship between MSMs and market

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.03.006
0969-6989/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J. Anselmsson, N. Bondesson / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 25 (2015) 58–70
performance are specific about the exact type of market perfor-
mance that their MSM is–or is not – supposed to drive. Vague
outcomes, such as business success, increased cash flow, or
growing revenues are often used.
These knowledge gaps are problematic and highly relevant for
practical management as companies in spite of uncertainty about
economic outcomes spend increasingly more time and money
analysing MSMs and how their brands are perceived (Inside
Research, 2005). Some MSMs that emerge from the analytical
process are reported to key stakeholders within the company be-
cause they are believed to be particularly important for overall
business success. These are often referred to as Key Performance
Indicators (KPI) or Key Performance Metrics (KPM). Similar to the
brand value chain model, Ambler (2000) divides KPIs into MSMs or
performance measures. The latter are based on hard market per-
formance data, such as the number of customers/penetration, sales/
market share and relative price level, that reflect true consumer
behaviours, while MSMs reflect target consumers' subjective per-
ceptions and these are based on survey data, for example: perceived
quality, customer satisfaction and purchase intention. The MSMs
often work as an early warning system and a way to evaluate
strategies, set goals and reward personnel and management.
Consequently, a better understanding of the mindset-market
performance link is important both to brand management and the
brand equity research field. The purpose of the present study is to
better understand how customer MSMs found in brand manage-
ment literature and practical brand management relate to long-
term market performance. Our ambition is to develop a broader
and nuanced understanding where we compare the commonly
used MSMs and market performance metrics. The study has a
focus on FMCG, which is one of the sectors that spends the most
resources on brand and marketing research in terms of both
mindset and market performance data. In addition, FMCG brands
are frequently referred to in the brand management literature.
2. Theoretical framework–brand equity and the link between
customers' MSMs and market performance
2.1. Brand value chain
Keller and Lehmann, (2003) and their brand value chain medel
(see Fig. 1) is entrenched in the brand equity concept (Aaker, 1991;
Keller, 1993), which is becoming increasingly employed by practi-
tioners and researchers alike and has an inherent ambition to seize
the tangible economic value from the more intangible and broader
brand concept. Brand equity, today, has developed in a number of
definitions; however, the brand value chain, which has been pre-
sented in some of the most formally acknowledged literature on
marketing management (Kotler and Keller, 2010), serves as a good
reflection of what is considered to be the basic dimensions of brand
equity. Several others have presented models with similar causal
logic; for example: Srivastava and Shocker (1991), Feldwick (1996),
Marketing Customer
programme mindset
Fig. 1. The brand value chain (Keller, 2006. p. 561). The grey areas indicate the main empirical focus of this study.
59
Wood (2000), Keller and Lehmann (2003), Keller (1993), Gupta and
Zeithaml (2006), and Anselmsson and Bondesson (2013).
The marketing programme element deals with those efforts in
which brand-owning firms take to influence their brand. It can deal
with products that are offered under the brand name as well as
pricing, channel decisions (place), and promotion (Keller and
Lehmann, 2003). The customer mindset includes associations linked
to the brand in a customer's memory, or “everything that exists in
the minds of customers with respect to a brand (e.g. thoughts,
feelings, experiences, images, perceptions, beliefs and attitudes)”
(Keller and Lehmann, 2003. Numerous mindset concepts can be
found in previous studies (cf. Brodie et al., 2002; Agarwal and Rao,
1996; Kapferer, 2004; Knowles, 2005; Anselmsson and Bondesson,
2013), including brand preference, satisfaction, perceived quality
and attitude-based loyalty and purchase intention. Market and
brand managers often translate these concepts into survey ques-
tions or MSMs (Keller and Lehmann, 2003). Market- or brand per-
formance can be defined as how customers react or respond in the
marketplace to the brand in a variety of ways, as in what customers
actually have done in relation to a brand, which is manifested in
market performance data, such as: market share, sales, sales
growth, market penetration, (actual) price premium or share-of-
wallet. What these responses have in common is that they decide
the cash flows that a brand contributes. While it should be self-
evident, it is important to highlight that a 100% link between
mindset and performance is never present and a brand's market
performance is not solely influenced by its status in the customer's
mindset (contextual factors, such as competitive actions, distribu-
tion and relations to channel partners, moderate the relationship).
In the literature that deals with the brand value chain, the re-
lationship between the two boxes of mindset and market perfor-
mance is often not specified and there are no commonly agreed-
upon assumptions about what mindset dimensions relate to which
market performance data. The overall assumption behind the brand
value chain is that building a strong brand in the customer mindset
contributes to long-term market performance and ultimately to the
shareholder value that a firm creates. Several methods can be ap-
plied to measure how much the brand contributes to this value,
such as: stock price, P/E ratio and market capitalisation (Kotler and
Keller, 2010).
Marketing-related KPIs can be extracted at each step in this
chain; however, the focus of the present paper is on the customer
mindset-market performance relationship. Although shareholder
value is defined as the ultimate goal for marketing efforts, it falls
too far from what the typical marketing or brand manager is re-
sponsible for and can have a direct influence.
2.2. Brand equity-related customer MSMs
The specific customer MSMs presented in this article (see
Table 1) are both commonly used in practise and essential to the
brand management and equity literature. All MSMs can be found
Market Shareholder
performance value
60 J. Anselmsson, N. Bondesson / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 25 (2015) 58–70

Table 1
Market performance measures used in the present study.

Measures of enhanced market performance Time period

H1(a) Penetration The percentage of all households that have purchased the analysed products during the specific time period. 2007
H1(a) Buyer's share Also known as “relative penetration”. This is the percentage of all buying households that have purchased the 2007
analysed product during the specific time period.
H1(b) Price premium The average price per kilo (or litre) of the brand related to the average in the category. 2007
H1(c) Volume market share Volume (kilo/number of units) as a percentage of the product group total. 2007
H1(c) Value market share Value (price
volume) as a percentage of the product group total value. 2007
Measures of sustained market performance Time period
H2 (a) Repurchase rate The percentage of buying households that have purchased the product more than once during the specific 2007
time period.
H2 (b) Loyalty volume (Share of wallet) The percentage of all buying households’ total volume bought in the category that they have bought of the 2007
analysed product.
H2 (b) Loyalty value (Share of wallet) Also known as the share of requirement. This is the percentage of all buying households’ total value spend in 2007
the category that is spent on the analysed product.
Measures of accelerated market performance Time period
H3 (a) Penetration The percentage of all households that have purchased the analysed product during a specific time period. 2007 and 2010
H3 (a) Buyer’s share Also known as “relative penetration”. This is the percentage of all buying households that have purchased the 2007 and 2010
analysed product.
H3 (b) Volume market share Volume/units as a percentage of the product group total. 2007 and 2010
H3 (b) Value market share Percentage of the product group total. 2007 and 2010
H3 (c) Sales growth volume Absolute volume in kilo/number of units purchased by panel households, without adjustment to total market. 2007 and 2010
H3 (c) Sales growth value Absolute value in SEK/number of units purchased by panel households, without adjustment to total market. 2007 and 2010

in the theoretical brand equity literature as well as two empirical
studies specifically aimed at identifying commonly used brand
metrics: Ambler, 2000 general study and the FMCG-focused study
of Anselmsson and Bondesson (2013). In the following, all 10
MSMs (see Table 1) are described in detail. Prior to the study, the
items were also discussed with two of the largest market research
agencies in the world (Ipsos and Gfk) and presented at the
Swedish Market Research Association (SOK) yearly seminar.
2.2.1. Preference
Brand preference has been defined as “the relative preference
for choosing and using the brand” (Chomvilailuk and Butcher,
2010, p. 400) or the extent to which the customer favours buying a
brand compared with other brands in his or her consideration set
(Hellier et al., 2003). Preference is thus supposed to reflect what a
customer wants to buy in contrast to purchase intention, which
reflects what a customer plans or is likely to buy. One important
feature of preference is hence that it principally does not take into
account any external factors that might influence choice; for ex-
ample, economic restrictions or contractual agreements. Pre-
ference has been treated as a dimension of brand equity in several
studies (cf. Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Atilgan et al., 2005; Walley
et al., 2007; Lehmann et al., 2008). For FMCG brands, this was
among the five most commonly used metrics for evaluating the
brand (Anselmsson and Bondesson, 2013).
2.2.2. Attitudinal loyalty
Attitudinal loyalty has been treated as a dimension of brand equity
in several studies (Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Lehmann et al., 2008).
Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) emphasise how loyalty has both a
behavioural and an attitudinal side and defines attitudinal loyalty as “a
degree of dispositional commitment to the brand” (p. 82). Their
measurement items originate from Beatty and Kahle (1988), who in-
stead use the label brand commitment, which they define as “an
emotional or psychological attachment to a brand” (p. 4) and thus
underline the long-term orientation of this form of loyalty. While it is
common to combine attitudinal loyalty and behavioural loyalty into
composite measures of the broader loyalty concept (e.g, Yoo and
Donthu, 2001), here we are specifically interested in interested in at-
titudinal loyalty given the focus on customer mindset metrics and
given that it has been found to be among the most commonly used
MSMs among FMCG firms (Anselmsson and Bondesson, 2013).
2.2.3. Purchase intention
With its focus on what customers plan, or are likely to buy
(Chang and Ming Lu, 2009), purchase intention reflects a conative
response that is supposed to reflect customers' actual brand pur-
chase behaviours. Several brand equity studies assume a linkage to
performance and use purchase intention as an indicator of brand
equity (cf. Cobb-Wahlgren et al., 1995; Netemeyer et al., 2004;
Lehmann et al., 2008). Purchase intentions are presented as being
among the most common MSMs both in Ambler (2000) and in
Anselmsson and Bondesson (2013).
2.2.4. Willingness to pay a price premium
A brand obtains a price premium when the sum consumers are
willing to pay for products from the brand is higher than the sum
they are willing to pay for similar products from other relevant
brands (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993). In existing brand equity work,
price premium has been widely acknowledged, both conceptually
as a way to define brand equity (cf. Aaker, 1996) and operationally
to assess brand equity (Netemeyer et al., 2004; Sethuraman, 2000;
Agarwal and Rao, 1996). Price premium or related assessments
were common brand metrics in Anselmsson and Bondesson
(2013).
2.2.5. Liking
Theoretically, brand liking (or sometimes likeability) is a core
component in brand equity (Aaker, 1996; Lassar et al., 1995). The
degree of the favourability of the associations that a brand evokes
is one of the key criteria that determine the brand's equity,
alongside the uniqueness and strength of these associations
(Keller, 1993). As a survey metric, brand liking reflects the affective
and global evaluation of a brand's image from a customer's per-
spective (cf. Ye and Fred van Raaij, 2004; Sirgy et al., 1997; Lau and
Han Lee, 1999). Liking was used in a study of Scandinavian FMCG
firms, and was in the top three among the most commonly used
brand metrics (Anselmsson and Bondesson, 2013).
2.2.6. Perceived quality
Quality is a cornerstone in most brand equity models (Aaker,
1996; Lassar et al., 1995; Netemeyer et al., 2004; Lehmann et al.,
2008) and reflects consumers' subjective perceptions of quality
rather than the physical quality that a product of a brand provides.
Within the broader marketing literature, quality has also long
 J. Anselmsson, N. Bondesson / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 25 (2015) 58–70
been a key concept for understanding competitiveness, position-
ing and consumer behaviour (Olson and Jacoby, 1972; Zeithaml,
1988; Ophuis and van Trijp, 1995; Dick et al., 1996; Richardson
et al., 1994). Most often, quality is described as a global and highly
subjective perception that encapsulates all the benefits and attri-
butes a brand offers, or a brand's “overall excellence or super-
iority” (Zeithaml, 1988, p. 3). Perceived quality was described as a
common metric in Ambler (2000), used in Srinivasan et al., (2010),
and was among the top three most commonly used brand metrics
in FMCG (Anselmsson and Bondesson, 2013).
2.2.7. Uniqueness
Uniqueness is herein defined as “to what degree consumers feel
that the brand differs from competing brands” (Netemeyer et al., 2004,
p. 211). It is a cornerstone in the marketing literature and the very
foundation on which such concepts as differentiation, unique selling
proposition and point-of-difference are built (Ries and Trout, 1972).
Uniqueness is also fundamental to the concept of branding, as it pri-
marily aims to distinguish the goods of one producer from those of
another (Keller, 1993; Kotler and Keller, 2010). Several operational
brand equity models have included mindset measures of uniqueness
(cf. Netemeyer et al., 2004; Kalra and Goodstein, 1998; Lehmann et al.,
2008). Uniqueness was among the most commonly used brand assets
in Anselmsson and Bondesson (2013).
2.2.8. Extension potential
A brand's extension potential (Lehmann et al., 2008; Keller and
Lehmann, 2003) can be described as a particular form of purchase
intention reflecting customers' interests in new products or services
sold under an existing brand name. Its relevance is based on em-
pirical findings showing how brand extensions are more favourably
perceived and evaluated when deriving from a strong brand than
when deriving from a weak brand (cf. Aaker and Keller, 1990; Hem
and Iversen, 2003; Bottomley and Holden, 2001). This and related
assessments were common ways to evaluate brand performance in
the Swedish FMCG market (Anselmsson and Bondesson, 2013).
2.2.9. Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction is one of the central concepts of the
consumer-oriented field of marketing (Anderson and Fornell,
2000; Bennet et al., 2005). In the brand equity literature,
Table 2
Customer MSMs used in the present study.
Customer MSM Questionnaire item
Preference This brand is my first choice when it comes to this
type of product
Attitudinal loyalty I consider myself loyal to X
Purchase intention The next time I buy this type of product, I intend to 7-point Likert (1 ¼ completely disagree,
buy brand X
Willingness to pay a premium I am willing to pay a higher price for X than I am for 7-point Likert (1 ¼ completely disagree,
other brands
Liking I like this brand
Quality Products from this brand are of high quality
Uniqueness This brand is distinct from other brands
Extension potential If this brand introduced a new product, how likely is 7-point (1 ¼ v ery unlikely, 7¼ very likely)
it that you would try it?
Satisfaction How satisfied are you with brand X?
How well does brand X match your expectations?
Imagine a perfect brand in this category. How close to 7-point (1 ¼very far from, 7 ¼cannot get
this ideal is brand X?
Recommendation (NPS) How likely is it that you would recommend brand X 11-point (0 ¼very unlikely, 10¼ extremely
to a friend or colleague?
61
satisfaction; that is, brand satisfaction has often been described as
an important ingredient in the creation of brand equity (Aaker,
1996). Empirical studies of brand equity in consumer markets have
included satisfaction measures as a global brand equity metric (e.g.
Na et al., 1999). This was stated as one of the most important and
commonly used marketing metrics in Ambler (2000).
2.2.10. Net promoter score (NPS)
Net Promoter Score, or customer recommendations, are similar
to the notion of word-of-mouth, which is an essential part of
branding (Keller, 1993). Studies that have specifically focused on
NPS and customers' willingness to recommend a specific product,
service or brand to someone else are Grisaffe (2007), Keiningham
et al., (2007) and Reichheld, (2003). In more recent years, re-
commendation measured in terms of NPS has gained increasing
attention. This attention is partly due to a well-known paper
published by Reichheld (2003), in which he made the NPS famous
and argued that, in the majority of cases, this single measurement
and score outperforms satisfaction as a predictor of revenue
growth. NPS or related assessments were among the most com-
monly used metrics in Anselmsson and Bondesson (2013).
2.3. Market performance metrics
In the brand value chain, Keller and Lehmann (2003) presents
market - or brandperformance metrics such as: sales, market share,
price premium, retention, expansion success and so on. Several of
these metrics have also been used in other well-known academic
studies looking at similar but isolated relationships, including sales
or revenue growth (cf. Reichheld, 2003), market share (Anderson
et al., 1994; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001) and price premium
(Ailawadi et al., 2003). These types of metrics also comply with
those metrics that are standard in the FMCG industry (see Table 2).
They are often in terms of scanner data provided by Gfk and AC-
Nielsen, who are the world-leading providers of market perfor-
mance data for FMCG companies. Such scanner and panel data has
been used as dependant variable in numerous FMCG studies (e.g.
Fornari et al., 2013; Olbrich and Grewe, 2013; Anselmsson et al.,
2008).
There are several ways in which brands and specific MSMs can be
assumed to generate cash flow and contribute to market performance.
Scale and anchoring Source
7-point Likert (1 ¼ completely disagree, Chomvilailuk and Butcher
7 ¼completely agree) (2010)
7-point Likert (1 ¼ completely disagree, Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)
7 ¼completely agree)
Netemeyer et al. (2004)
7 ¼completely agree)
Netemeyer et al. (2004)
7 ¼completely agree)
7-point Likert (1 ¼ completely disagree, Lau and Lee (1999)
7 ¼completely agree)
7-point Likert (1 ¼ completely disagree, Netemeyer et al. (2004)
7 ¼completely agree)
7-point Likert (1 ¼ completely disagree, Netemeyer et al. (2004)
7 ¼completely agree)
Adapted from Lehmann et al.
(2008)
7-point (1 ¼very dissatisfied, 7¼ very Anderson and Fornell (2000)
satisfied)
7-point (1 ¼not at all, 7 ¼totally)
any closer)
Reichheld (2003)
likely)
62 J. Anselmsson, N. Bondesson / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 25 (2015) 58–70
According to writers that have conceptualised how marketing assets,
including brands, contribute to shareholder value creation by creating
cash flows (Doyle, 2000; Lukas et al., 2005; Srivastava et al., 1998;
Stahl et al., 2003), there are three different ways that marketing assets
have the ability to either enhance, sustain or accelerate cash flow (see
below). As mentioned above, in the existing brand equity literature
there are examples of relationships and outcomes of performing well
in certain MSMs in long-term market performance; however, there are
no systematic studies on these most commonly used and referred to
MSMs and their relative impact on the three different cash flow di-
mensions in a more brand-oriented and long-term perspective. After
reviewing the literature, we argue that trying to predetermine or hy-
pothesise exclusive MSMs to specific market performance would, at
this stage, be too premature and limiting. Further, at this stage in the
research process, we do not want to limit the scope of analysis by
speculating on what types of MSM would impact on specific types of
market performance. Based on these three dimensional structures,
three more general hypotheses can be formulated.
1. Enhance cash flow: A strong brand is a market asset assumed to
generate greater levels of cash flow for the brand-owning firm and
in the end for shareholders (Doyle 2000; Srivatsava et al. 1998). The
enhance dimension can be empirically covered by assessing the link
between MSMs and actual market performance measured as re-
lative sales, actual price premium, market share and market pene-
tration. Examples of studies that have found significant relation-
ships between MSMs and market performance related to enhanced
levels of cash flows are Srinivasan et al. (2010), Gruca and Rego
(2005), and Ittner and Larcker (1998). If a MSM enhances cash flows
the following hypothesis should be verified.
H1. There is a positively significant relationship between MSM
and market performance metrics: (a) market penetration,
(b) actual price premium, and (c) market share
2.3.1. Sustain cash flow
According to Doyle (2000) and Srivastava et al. (1998) market
assets, including strong brands, generates a more durable, pre-
dictable and less vulnerable cash flow, which reduces the risk for
the firm. By linking customer MSMs to the brand ability to create
repurchase behaviour and purchase loyalty among customers we
can assess an MSM link to the sustain dimension. Examples of
studies that have found relationships between MSMs and sus-
tained market performance are Srinivasan et al. (2010), Loveman
(1998), and Gruca and Rego (2005). If a MSM sustains cash flows
the following hypothesis should be verified.
H2. There is a positively significant relationship between MSM and
market performance metrics (a) repurchase rate and (b) share of wallet
2.3.2. Accelerate cash flow
Stronger brands increase cash flow also by generating cash
flows sooner and faster than otherwise, since their consumers
respond quicker to marketing communication, brand or line ex-
tensions (Doyle, 2000; Srivastava et al., 1998). Studying the growth
rate of the very same market performance measures mentioned
above, under the enhanced dimension, is a way to capture the
accelerate dimension. Examples of studies that have studied cor-
relations between MSMs and accelerated market performance are
Reichheld (2003), Keiningham et al., (2007), and Kerin et al.
(1996). All three studied customer satisfaction and NPS but the
results from these studies are mixed. If a MSM accelerates cash
flows the following hypothesis should be verified.
H3. There is a positively significant relationship between MSM
and market performance metrics (a) growth in market penetration
(b) growth in market share and (c) growth in sales.
3. Methodology
3.1. Context, categories and brands
The empirical study was performed in the Swedish market for
FMCG. We define the Swedish market as typical in a European
context: typical in terms of competition, innovation and level of
manufacturer brands (e.g. Anselmsson and Johansson, 2014;
Anselmsson et al., 2008).
For the empirical study, 30 brands were selected. First, 10 of the
30 largest FMCG categories were randomly chosen: soft drinks,
washing powder, pasta, margarine, marmalade, orange juice, cof-
fee, chocolate bars, toothpaste and shampoo. Then, three manu-
facturer brands (retailer brands were excluded as they compete on
other factors than traditional pull-marketing and mindset brand-
ing) were sampled from each category: the market leader (in
terms of value market share) and two randomly selected chal-
lenging brands among the top 10 (in terms of value market share).
The list of brands had a mix of domestic and foreign brands as well
as growing and declining brands. Among the international brands
were Head & Shoulders, Wella, Colgate, Pepsodent, Barilla, Coca-
Cola, Pepsi Cola and 7-up. Out of the 30 brands, one had to be
excluded from the data set, after the study had been initiated, as it
was acquired by competitors and it was removed from the market
during the time of the study.
3.2. Collection of market performance data
Gfk together with ACNielsen are the two world-leading suppli-
ers of market performance data. It is from them that FMCG extracts
their market shares and market penetration data. The present study
is based on the Gfk database, from which annual market perfor-
mance data (covering 29 brands and their competitors in 10 dif-
ferent categories in the years 2007 and 2010) were purchased. It is
built on a household-purchasing panel that according to Gfk is re-
presentative of Swedish household consumption as a whole (based
on geographical regions and household size) and residing 3000
households that scan and report all their grocery purchases every
week. It should be noted that only data was collected on an ag-
gregated yearly average per brand, we did not follow individual
households, nor did we follow the brands on a weekly basis. The
panel was continuously monitored and adjusted by Gfk in order to
represent the parameters as presented, and beyond that it is not
possible for us to obtain more information about the structure of
the panel. This approach of using scanning data is more valid than
the traditional method of asking survey respondents to assess their
purchases during a given period. Based on the problem formulation
of this study, using the same type of data and metrics used in the
industry would be the most relevant and valid source. The draw-
back is that it is not possible to connect survey answers (mindset
data) to performance data at the individual level. Connections be-
tween survey and performance data need to be made at an ag-
gregate level where the unit of analysis is 29 observations, one for
each remaining brand. Annual data on the 15 performance para-
meters were extracted for 2007 and 2010. In contrast to ACNielsen,
the other leading market performance data provider within FMCG
is Gfk. FMCG draws its sales data from a number of representative
stores, whereas Gfk draws its purchase data from this re-
presentative sample of households. Hence, an important advantage
of the Gfk approach is that it enables the researchers to use mea-
sures such as penetration and behavioural loyalty. Loyalty beha-
viour, which only can be studied through panel data, is an im-
portant way to assess the sustain dimension.
 J. Anselmsson, N. Bondesson / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 25 (2015) 58–70
When it comes to the enhance dimension of market perfor-
mance, the aim is to measure the level of cash flow different brands
obtain during a period of one year. Performance data for 2007 are
used in the form of seven measures that focus on two key dimen-
sions at the cash flow level: the volume a brand sells and the price it
charges. The sustain dimension of market performance is also as-
sessed with data for a period of one year (2007), but by using three
measures of behavioural loyalty. Finally, to measure the accelerate
dimension of performance, we used the same measures as for en-
hanced and sustain performance, but instead assessed the relative
increase or decrease from 2007 to 2010 (calculated as the metric
from 2010 divided by the same metric from 2007) to capture
changes in sales, price and customer purchase behaviour.
3.3. Collection of customer mindset data
Survey-based customer mindset data were also collected with
the help of Gfk, through their consumer web panel, which is a
separate panel that excludes the individuals in the purchase panel.
The market research company does not permit a combination of
the two panels in order to avoid mindset studies affecting the
purchase behaviour of the panel members that provide perfor-
mance data. Gfk's web panel, which was initially recruited by
phone, is widely considered to have high quality. The panel is
based on 12,000 individuals between 15 and 75 years of age, re-
presenting the Swedish population in terms of age, gender and
geographical regions. The web-based survey is the most common
way that FMCG firms perform their strategic brand studies.
Survey data were collected over a three-week period in 2007.
The sample of respondents was randomly selected and re-
presentative of the Swedish population of consumers between the
ages of 15 and 75, with 51% men and with an average age of 42.
Age, gender and geographical regions were in alignment with the
proportions of the Gfk panel as a whole.
No interviews were longer than eight minutes and a total of
1600 unique individuals were interviewed. Overall, each re-
spondent answered 12 questions (seven-point scale with the ex-
ception of the NPS item, which was measured on an 11-point scale
and then calculated according to Reichheld (2003), approximately
no more than three different brands. In order to provide an opi-
nion of a brand, the respondent needed to know and have an
opinion about the brand in question. Each of the 29 brands re-
ceived 100 responses and, based on these, mean index values on a
scale from 1 to 7 were calculated and saved for the next step of the
analysis. Likert scales are by definition ordinal scales, although it is
common to treat them as numerical and use them as predictors in
regression, especially if there are at least seven response alter-
natives with only the endpoints described. For the NPS value each
brand's NPS was calculated to a scale from  100 to þ100 and
saved according to the recommendations of Reichheld (2003). The
construct validity for satisfaction, which was the only multi-item
measurement in the study, was very high and varied between
Alpha values of 0.89  0.97 depending on the brand. The order of
the questionnaire items was rotated between interviews in order
to avoid systematic effects on the responses.
In academic research, customer MSMs are commonly measured
by using multi-item scales and indices. The aim is to capture all
nuances of a theoretical construct by combining several ques-
tionnaire items, which are often semantically close to each other.
The reliability of such a multi-item scale can then be evaluated by
measuring, for example, Cronbach's coefficient alpha. The multi-
item approach has, however, received some criticism from, among
others, Rossiter (2002; 2011), Bergqvist and Rossiter (2007), and
Söderlund, 2006. One drawback they demonstrate relates to the
ability of a multi-item scale to predict dependant variables, such as
true customer behaviours. Even if the scale as a whole shows
63
satisfactory reliability, it can hide the fact that some of the items in
the scale are stronger predictors than other. According to Bergqvist
and Rossiter (2007) and Söderlund, 2006, this shows support for
single-item measures as opposed to multi-item ones in surveys
aiming to explain behaviour. In the present study, the objective is
also to examine measures in the way they are used in practise,
which most commonly means single-item measures (with the
exception of customer satisfaction). Essentially, we choose be-
tween using either theoretically valid measurements or single-
item measurements with higher construct validity, managerial
relevance and probably better correlations to market performance.
In Table 2 the chosen MSMs are presented in relation to the cor-
responding theoretical foundation as well as their original source.
3.4. Linking the data sets
Mindset metrics for 2007 were linked to three different types
of measures of market performance, relating to the three ways in
which cash flows are assumed to be affected. Performance mea-
sures reflecting enhanced and sustained cash flows were based on
data for the same year (2007), while performance measures re-
lated to accelerated cash flows were based on the change between
two points in time (2010 and 2007). The observations from 2007
and 2010 are calculated as the mean value of the increase or de-
crease between 2007 and 2010 for each brand. As a result, the
dependant variable cannot be treated as longitudinal and hence
both the independent and dependant variable are to be defined
and treated as cross-sectional data. The relationships between
mindset and market performance were then examined with sim-
ple linear regressions and the SPSS software. The market perfor-
mance measure was treated as a dependant variable and the
mindset metric as a single independent variable. After the deletion
of the brand that was no longer present in the market perfor-
mance data due to acquisition, the number of observations in each
regression analysis was 29 brands. Multiple linear regressions
using several independent variables would only have been an
option if the number of observations were at least 15 per in-
dependent variable (Hair et al., 1998). The directions and sig-
nificance of the standardized beta coefficients are presented in the
results as indicators of the strength in the relationships–an ap-
proach similar to Reichheld (2003) and Keiningham et al. (2007).
R-squared values and the significance level of the relationships (F-
test significance) are presented in Appendix B.
After the analysis was performed and before the results were
presented in the report, a number of tests were performed. We
carried out the recommended diagnostics such as analysis of lin-
earity, consistent variance of error terms, independence of error
terms and normality of error term distribution. Further, we split
the data into a number of subgroups in order to control for the
effects of category types of brands and the results were quite
consistent and the overall conclusions were the same.
It should be noted that there are high correlations between the
different MSMs. For example, NPS is highly correlated with sa-
tisfaction, which is in line with previous research and assump-
tions. A correlation table of the intercorrelations between the
different mindset variables is presented in Appendix A. Factor
analysis and Alpha tests at the respondent level would allow us to
merge several items into two or three constructs, but the objective
is not to create a new multi-item scale for practitioners or future
research. Instead, we aim to investigate the different metrics in-
dependently. Furthermore, NPS, which is central to MSM in this
study, can only be measured at an aggregate level and does not
allow for analysis on a respondent level. It requires analysis at
brand level. Hence, it is not possible to include NPS in a factor
analysis or run regressions where individual respondents are
treated as independent observations.
64 J. Anselmsson, N. Bondesson / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 25 (2015) 58–70

4. Results Table 4
Standardized beta coefficients from the simple linear regression analysis between
customer MSMs (2007 data) and sustained market performance (2007 data).
The analysis was split into three parts according to the three
hypotheses, focusing on the relationship between MSMs and Repurchase rate Loyalty value Loyalty vo-
(a) enhance performance, (b) sustain performance, and H2(a) H2(b) lume H2(b)
(c) accelerate performance.
Preference .513nn .441n .293
Attitudinal loyalty .522nn .514nn .369n
4.1. Market performance-enhance Purchase intention .509nn .426n .280
Willingness to pay a .342 .238 .049
Table 3 shows the standardized beta coefficients and their premium
significance levels from the simple linear regression analysis of Liking .280 .179 .035
Perceived quality .286 .197 .036
customer mindset survey data (mean index values for each of the Uniqueness .447n .170  .005
29 brands) and household panel purchase data (mean values for Satisfaction .384n .237 .081
each of the 29 brands) from 2007. Extension potential .188  .062  .141
The results support Hypothesis 1 as a whole and show sig- Recommendation (NPS) .434n .239 .081

nificant correlations (at the 95% level) between the MSMs and
N¼ 29,
performance metrics in 33 out of 50 possible cases. All perfor- n
P-value 0.05,
mance metrics have significant correlations with at least five nn
P-value 0.01
MSMs each. The weakest MSM here is extension potential, fol-
lowed by uniqueness. H1a that concerns correlations between
MSMs and market penetration (Penetration and Buyer's share) is Overall, Hypothesis 2 is supported, as three customer MSMs
supported as there are 15 significant out of 20 possible correla- correlate significantly (at the 95% level) with performance mea-
tions. Uniqueness and extension potential are the only MSMs that sures related to the sustain dimension both hypotheses H2/a) and
did not receive any support. H1(b) that captured Price premium is (b). Note also how attitudinal loyalty emerges as the single
also supported, as 5 out of 10 possible relationships are significant. strongest predictor not only by showing the strongest absolute
Basically it is all the loyalty related MSMs including satisfaction correlations, but also by being the only metric that correlates
that did not correlate to actual price premium. Moreover, it should significantly with all three sustain measures. H2 (a) that concerns
be noted that the performance measure price premium; that is, the ability to predict repurchase rate is supported, as six out of 10
the actual price paid for a brand compared with its category possible correlations were significant. All loyalty related mea-
competitors, behaves quite differently from the other measures. surements including uniqueness were significant. H2 (b) that
Uniqueness, which does not correlate with any other performance captured the link between MSMs and loyalty or more specifically
metric, is the only one that correlates with price premium. H1 share of wallet is supported but only by the three loyalty MSMs
(c) that dealt with market share was supported, as 13 out of 20 (Preference, re-purchase intention and attitudinal loyalty).
possible relationships were significant. Neither uniqueness nor
extension potential had significant correlations to any of the types 4.3. Market performance-accelerate
of market share studied.
Table 5 covers Hypothesis 3 and shows the standardized beta
4.2. Market performance-sustain coefficients from the simple linear regression analysis between
customer mindset survey data from 2007 and the relative change
Table 4 shows the standardized beta coefficients from the in household panel purchase data from 2007 to 2010.
simple linear regression analysis of customer mindset survey data Over all, Hypothesis 3 is supported as the results show that all
and household panel purchase data related to Hypothesis 2, customer MSMs, apart from uniqueness and willingness to pay a
The sustain dimension for 2007. premium, correlate positively with a brand's ability to grow cash flow,
as they significantly (at the 95% level) correlate with at least one of the
Table 3
performance measures in the accelerate dimension. H3 (a) regards
Standardized beta coefficients from the simple linear regression analysis between development in penetration and is supported as 9 out of 20 possible
customer MSMs (2007 data) and enhanced market performance (2007 data). correlations are significant. Extension potential, liking and NPS have
the highest correlations. H3 (b) that assess the link between MSMs
Penetration Buyer's Price pre- Value Volume
and growth in market share is supported but only four out of 20
H1(a) share mium H1 market market
H1(a) (b) share share H1 possible correlations are significant. The only MSM that correlates
H1(c) (c) with both volume and value share is extension potential. H3
(c) captured the link to sales and was supported, as 11 out of 20
Preference .630nn .652nn .249 .655nn .585nn potential relationships were significant. Again extension potential
Attitudinal loyalty .653nn .669nn .179 .709nn .632nn
Purchase intention .622nn .639nn .255 .638nn .563nn
followed by liking and NPS were the most and significant MSMs.
Willingness to pay .395n .419n .445n .419n .328
a premium
Liking .366 .393n .414n .381n .323 5. Discussion
Perceived quality .373n .383n .440n .377n .305
Uniqueness .347 .343 .410n .348 .254
Satisfaction .459n .459n .429n .469n .394n 5.1. Powerful customer MSMs for FMCG product brands
Extension .248 .286 .298 .234 .221
potential Overall, the findings show that there are indeed many significant
Recommendation .505nn .517nn .337 .497nn .425n correlations between customer MSMs and market performance.
(NPS)
There is no single MSM that correlates well on all three types of
N ¼29. performance measure. The best predictors of enhanced and sus-
n
P-value 0.05. tained market performance are preference, purchase intention and
nn
P-value 0.01. attitudinal loyalty. Purchase intention and preference are widely
 J. Anselmsson, N. Bondesson / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 25 (2015) 58–70 65

Table 5
Standardized beta coefficients from the simple linear regression analysis between customer MSMs (2007 data) and accelerated market performance (change from 2007 to
2010).

Penetration change H3 Buyer's share Market share value Market share volume Sales growth value Sales growth volume
(a) H3(a) change H3(b) change H3(b) H3(c) H3(c)

Preference .325 .305 .284 .208 .374n .274

Attitudinal loyalty .379n .356 .329 .27 .429n .345
Purchase intention .342 .328 .308 .233 .393n .299
Willingness to pay a premium .238 .211 .188 .127 .291 .192
Liking .467n .442n .369n .323 .474nn .395n
Perceived quality .358 .331 .284 .244 .377n .306
Uniqueness .207 .173 .112 .052 .213 .12
Satisfaction .413n .400n .355 .295 .424n .341
Extension potential .601nn .563nn .403n .371n .573nn .506nn
Recommendation (NPS) .478nn .455n .380n .33 .480nn .405n

N ¼29.
n
P-value 0.05.
nn
P-value 0.01.

used metrics in brand equity research (Yoo and Donthu, 2001;
Atilgan et al., 2005; Washburn and Plank, 2002; Netemeyer et al.,
2004) as well as in practise by FMCG firms (Anselmsson and
Bondesson, 2013), possibly because they can intuitively be assumed
to reflect choice and intended behaviour. Both encompass conative
psychological responses, as in intentions to behave, and their link to
performance measures is therefore not surprising from a face va-
lidity perspective. This study further underlines their relevance.
Among the three, attitudinal loyalty shows the strongest re-
lationship with real behaviour. For example, the R-square values
from the regression analysis in Appendix B explains that 50% of
the variation in market share and 27% of that in terms of the re-
purchase rate. Attitudinal loyalty (I consider myself loyal to …)
reflects a mental response, with both behavioural and affective
components. Previous work has indeed indicated that attitude-
based loyalty or affect can be related to real behaviour (Verhoef
et al., 2002), while other work has shown that explicit intentions
are not always directly transferable to action (Jamieson and
Bass, 1989). Attitudinal loyalty is less commonly used than pre-
ference and purchase intention in FMCG firms (Anselmsson and
Bondesson, 2013). Therefore, from the results in this study, more
attention as an indicator of market performance is fitting. Purely
affective scales such as “I feel loyal to this brand” (Lehmann et al.,
2008) could be investigated in future studies.
When it comes to accelerated market performance (for ex-
ample, growth in market penetration, sales growth in terms of
value and volume), the strongest predictors are brand extension
potential, liking and NPS (five or six significant relationships out of
a possible six). Extension potential is the most powerful, correlating
strongly (at the 99% level) with four of the seven performance
measures and explaining 36% of the development in market pe-
netration and 33% of the sales growth over a three-year period
(see Appendix B). This is a plausible finding considering how a
brand's possibility of succeeding with brand and product exten-
sions is commonly described as something that helps grow future
revenues (Stahl et al., 2003; Srivastava and Reibstein, 2005). NPS
(recommendation) also shows strong correlations with accelerated
market performance, and most interestingly, stronger correlations
than satisfaction. Hence, the present study supports those that
have recently argued that NPS is a stronger predictor of future
growth than is satisfaction, although the correlation between the
NPS and future sales growth is not as strong as that shown in
Reichheld (2003). However, by focusing on several MSMs, the
present paper does not support the claim that NPS is the only
metric needed for growth. Here, both extension potential and liking
correlate to a greater degree with performance measures related
to sales growth and the accelerate dimension as a whole.
5.2. Weak customer MSMs for FMCG product brands
In the present study, a number of common MSMs show vir-
tually no, or very weak, correlations with market performance in
the form of market share, behavioural loyalty and revenue growth.
Surprisingly, we found little evidence that suggests that brands
that are perceived to be unique, perform better in the market given
that uniqueness and differentiation are clearly central in the
marketing and branding literature (Trout, 2000; Lehmann et al.,
2008). That a competing organisation or brand must stand out
from its competitors is generally taken for granted that it is seldom
reflected upon more thoroughly. However, to look more closely at
the three generic strategies presented by Porter (1985), more
nuanced conclusions could be drawn. The differentiation and
niche strategies, focusing on building revenues by being different
and serving a smaller segment of the market, are described as one
way to avoid price competition. This strategy seems to be reflected
in the empirical data, because the uniqueness metric correlates
only with average price and repurchase rate (the former re-
lationship can also be said to strengthen the validity of the data as
such). A plausible interpretation that needs more investigation
would therefore be that perceived uniqueness is more relevant for
niche brands that are not included in this study. Another ex-
planation for why uniqueness emerges as relatively weak could be
that the MSM does not take into account whether it is linked to
something positive or negative; it only reflects uniqueness per se.
Porter (1985) argued that differentiation should be based on at-
tributes that are valued by consumers, albeit studies have shown
that irrelevant or “meaningless” differentiation also builds pre-
ference (Carpenter et al., 1994). Furthermore, it is important to
take into consideration that this is one of several alternative
means to measure uniqueness and thus uniqueness should not be
ruled out as a relevant concept in a marketing performance per-
spective. We use the measurement proposed by Netemeyer et al.
(2004), although other ways to assess uniqueness could be “This
brand stands out from its competitors” or “This brand stands for
something unique” (Lehmann et al., 2008).
As expected, consumers' willingness to pay a premium corre-
lates more strongly with actual price premium and value market
shares than it does with volume market shares. Overall, however,
this MSM is not greatly related to market performance. A rather
significant correlation to actual price premium and development
in price premium might have been expected; however, one ex-
planation for this absence could be that prices, in this particular
66 J. Anselmsson, N. Bondesson / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 25 (2015) 58–70
market, are set by retailers, which makes it difficult for brand
owners to fully capitalise on consumers' willingness to pay more.
Although it does not emerge as one of the most powerful metrics,
it deserves to be highlighted, as it is less commonly used than
other metrics (Anselmsson and Bondesson, 2013). Considering the
present study, more attention is warranted when dealing with
premium brands. Perhaps alternative items for assessing will-
ingness to pay a premium could be tested against what people
actually pay. Examples of other price premium scales are: “I am
willing to pay ___% more for (brand name) brand over other
brands of (product): 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30% or more” and “I
am willing to pay a lot more for (brand name) than other brands of
(product category)” (Netemeyer et al., 2004).
Perceived quality is one of the weakest MSMs in this study:
only five significant correlations out of a possible 15 were found
and all of them at the 95% level. This is interesting as it was long
hailed as the route to success and profitability (e.g., Zeithaml,
1988; Lubin and Esty, 2010) and also because of the focal role it
plays in brand equity and marketing theory (Aaker and Keller,
1990). In this study, brands that are perceived to offer greater
quality do not perform any better than other brands. This might
be because quality is not such a global evaluation (Zeithaml,
1988), or since metrics such as attitudinal loyalty and preference
better encompass consumers' global evaluations of the brands'
attractiveness, and therefore they are more closely related to
their behaviours and the subsequent performance measures they
result in. Another explanation could be that most of the cate-
gories in this study are mature, and that quality has become what
satisfaction theory labels a basic, or “hygiene”, factor (Kano, 1984;
Matzler et al., 2004). The assumption would be that most brands
in a mature category have already proved themselves and are
perceived to deliver acceptable quality, which means that quality
is no longer decisive for the consumer's choice.
Satisfaction correlates significantly to nine out of 15 possible
performance metrics, but they are only significant at the 95% level.
According to Appendix B, the R-square value for satisfaction is
never above 0.22. Satisfaction has been one of the most researched
marketing-related MSMs over the past two decades and one of the
most commonly used metrics in management practise (cf. Ambler,
2001), and its relationships with different performance measures
seem to be well established in the marketing literature (cf. Gupta
and Zeithaml, 2006). The present study confirms that the sa-
tisfaction metric is related to market performance, as it shows
significant correlations, especially to the enhanced market per-
formance measures. One explanation for the relatively low corre-
lations could be that the FMCG industry, likewise retail (Anderson
et al., 1997), is one of the exceptions of the positive satisfaction-
performance link. Another interpretation could be that satisfaction
is too weak or basic an assessment to use as a target for growth
and loyalty, as discussed by Jones and Sasser (1995) and Reichheld
(2003). A third consideration could be the one discussed in
Rossiter (2011) and Söderlund, 2006 concerning the use of multi-
item measures. Satisfaction is the only metric based on multi-item
measurement in this study. The rationale was that the multi-item
measurement for satisfaction is commonly used in both theore-
tical and practical contexts. In spite of the high construct validity,
for several relationships some of the strength in the correlations
seems to be lost compared to if only the best of the three items
were selected.
6. Conclusions
First and foremost, it needs stating that this study has a very
practical way of operationalizing the MSMs and a simplistic way of
assessing the relationships through a cross-sectional approach,
and that it is limited to one geographic region, the Swedish mar-
ket. Hence, the results should be interpreted with caution. While
the study has certain limitations, it nevertheless supports a
number of significant relationships and interesting results.
6.1. The role and complexity of the customer mindset-market per-
formance relationship
First of all, the findings of this study support the idea that
having brand equity in terms of high performance in the right
MSMs means a brand will enjoy a better long-term market per-
formance in terms of sales, customer retention and sales growth
(Keller and Lehmann, 2003; Keller, 1993; Gupta and Zeithaml,
2006). This is support to one of the main assumptions within
brand equity that building brand equity in customer mindset is a
way to avoid the drawbacks with the short-sighted and non-
brand-related marketing activities that show direct relations to
weekly sales and profit (Aaker, 1996).
Performance measures are all based on market data and true
purchase behaviour rather than survey-based attitudinal measures
of intended behaviour or approximated assessments. The study
thereby avoids the common bias problem that arises when general
mindset measures and conative measures of behaviour; that is,
intention, are included in the same survey partly due to the halo
effect (Mazursky and Geva, 1989). By using multiple MSMs as well
as multiple market performance measures, a richer view emerges,
for example in comparison to Srinivasan et al. (2010), who studied
three mindset measures against sales performance. The way in
which consumers' attitudes are transformed to economic out-
comes is complex because different metrics predict cash flows in
different ways. Although the findings from this study cannot be
directly generalised to other industries, they do indicate that not
only the most common metrics must be taken into account in
order to understand the economic benefits of brands. In contrast
to articles such as that presented by Reichheld (2003), the main
contribution of this paper is that we cannot point out one single
metric as a “winner”. Instead, we suggest a more nuanced con-
ceptualization and measurement of the customer mindset-market
performance link.
In the study, 10 MSMs are compared to 15 performance mea-
sures conceptualised in three categories based on how shareholder
value theory defines how cash flows are enhanced, sustained and
accelerated (e.g. Doyle, 2000; Lukas et al., 2005; Srivastava et al.,
1998). An interesting finding is that although the mindset mea-
sures are highly correlated to each other, the results show that
different MSMs have very different correlations to the three forms
of cash flow and performance. For example, three loyalty-related
MSMs correlate with the sustain dimension and three other
measures correlate to acceleration. Initially, we stated that there
were too few concrete suggestions of what mindset concept
should be related to which market performance metrics. We be-
lieve that the results presented in this study could be the basis for
further theory testing. Future research should attempt to test and
validate these findings in more industries, other regions and for
other constructs. The latter apply to cases where scholars use
multi-item scales. As our results show that loyalty is connected to
sustain performance, also testing the relationships by using multi-
item scales in order to test the relationships to the theoretical
constructs is one possibility. Further research could delve more
deeply into dimensions of loyalty and compare affective, conative,
behavioural loyalty measures and their relation to sustainment
performance.
6.2. Managerial implications
The lack of empirical research on the customer mindset-market
 J. Anselmsson, N. Bondesson / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 25 (2015) 58–70
performance link pertains to, and can possibly explain, an ob-
servation made by a number of writers that state: marketing
managers have been losing influence at the strategic level in
companies (Schultz, 2003; Nath and Mahajan, 2008), arguably
because of a failure to show how their mindset-based concepts are
linked to market performance, cash flow and revenue. Aaker
(1996; 2014) means that in order to enter the board, marketing
managers need to prove the strategic and long-term effect of
marketing. Depending on what KPIs are chosen, the marketing
department's influence within the firm will be affected (Ambler,
2000; Petersen et al., 2009; Rust et al., 2004; Stewart, 2009). This
study provides some support that there are significant relation-
ships between MSMs typically managed and controlled by the
marketing department; such as liking, attitudinal loyalty, purchase
intentions and so on. In addition, it shows that there are reasons to
invest in brand assets in the customer mindset and as a result the
study could help marketing and brand managers to argue for their
participation at the strategic level and in the boardroom.
In practise, firms tend to choose one or several customer MSMs
to focus on as KPIs in their analytical processes; for example,
during planning and controlling. In some cases, they even reward
managers based on how one specific metric develops from year to
year (Reichheld, 2003). From the general marketing and strategy
literature, satisfaction has been one such common metric, and
recently recommendation (NPS) has been gaining increasing po-
pularity. This study suggests that companies should be careful not
to limit themselves to one or too few MSMs. As noted by other
academics (Ambler and Roberts, 2008), the idea of a single “silver
bullet metric” is an attractive idea, as it is easy to understand.
However, if that metric is not chosen carefully, it risks leading the
firm into less optimal directions or even on unprofitable journeys.
Our view is that companies of today have limited understanding of
the outcomes that MSMs can have in general, and also of the
different types of outcomes that specific MSMs have in terms of
market performance. The main managerial conclusion from the
present study is that firms can benefit from having a more
nuanced view of how customers' attitudes are transformed into
actual behaviour and economic benefits by conducting marketing
analytics. Firms should carefully and broadly analyse which mar-
ket performance outcomes to prioritise and then set relevant
MSMs during goal and strategy formulation.
At this stage we hesitate to generalise; however, drawing on
the results from this industry, region and competitive setting we
recommend managers consider one or more of the following
measures. For managers that want a mindset measurement that
corresponds with the enhanced measures (for example, if they
want to see whether sales correspond with the mental strength of
the brand), they could consider Preference, Attitudinal loyalty,
Purchase intention and Recommendation (NPS). If managers want
an MSM that corresponds to sustained performance and the am-
bition to keep current customers, they could elect for metrics such
as Preference, Attitudinal loyalty and Purchase intention. Finally, if
managers want MSMs equivalent to organic growth, they might
evaluate measurement related to Liking, Extension potential or
Recommendation. Some brands want to perform in all three di-
mensions and should probably use MSMs that reflect all three
types of performance.
Ideally, firms should analyse how these relationships work for
their industries and brands by linking survey data with market
data rather than choosing metrics that are said to be general or to
cover all types of market performance. The former approach,
where mindset and performance data are linked together, is
described by Ambler (2003) as a “tailored approach” (p.?), while
it has also been favoured by Doyle (2000) and Munoz and Kumar
(2004). This approach emphasises how the analytical process is
important because it enables a deeper understanding of how
67
business works, how cash flow is generated and how customer
perceptions are related to firm performance. Since the account-
ability of a marketing department decides its influence and sta-
ture in the firm ([Verhoef and Leeflang, 2009, O’Sullivan and
Abela, 2007]), this tailored approach has the potential to offer
marketing and brand managers more influence. In addition, as
many firms already collect vast amounts of marketing data, sig-
nificant steps forward with this approach by applying relevant
analytics to existing data, rather than having to collect new data
can be taken.
6.3. Limitations and future research
There are a number of limitations in the present study. First, it
was limited to 10 categories and three brands per category in one
country. Although these categories were randomly selected, an-
other 40 or so FMCG categories could have been studied. In ad-
dition, although the three brands chosen represent 30–70% of sales
in these categories, by using more of a case study approach with
fewer categories, future studies could investigate complete cate-
gories involving all brands as well as their marketing activities;
that is, including the first box in the brand value chain.
Second, the cross-sectional approach has several limitations.
Survey data were collected over a three-week period, and any
major promotion campaigns during this period could have tem-
porarily affected market performance as well as customer mind-
sets. One way to avoid this problem would have been to collect
survey data over a 12-month period. However, we did not identify
any major campaigns, and it is unlikely that smaller campaigns
would have caused major bias in the data. At the same time, this is
the way many practical market research and brand analytics is
performed. Another approach is a time series approach (cf. Lodish
and Mela, 2007), but as changes of the more global attitudes and
judgements as well as branding have time spans over several
years, it is pointless breaking up mindset and performance data
into shorter time units. Additionally, a time series approach over a
four-year period would be far more costly as we would need to
gather and pay for data on more than one point (MSM) and two
points (performance data) in time.
Third, the limitations of the single-item approach from a stance
of theoretical contribution have already been discussed. When
possible, we also urge future academic research to test some of our
findings by using more theoretically relevant multi-item ap-
proaches. However, simultaneously, multi-item scales risk con-
cealing important nuances when the combined items do not re-
flect unidimensional latent constructs, but instead different con-
structs ([Gerbing and Anderson, 1988, Diamantopoulos and
Winklhofer, 2001, Söderlund, 2006]); thus, a single-item approach
can have its advantages. Some scholars have therefore argued that
by keeping seemingly similar loyalty facets separate, it is possible
to show richer relationships (cf. Söderlund, 2006; Rossiter, 2002;
2011; Bergkvist and Rossiter, 2007), which fits well with the pur-
pose of the present study.
Forth, the regression models in this study are based on simple
regression modelling. An alternative approach would be to in-
corporate all MSMs simultaneously. However, as the analysis in
this case, due to the nature of the NPS, needed to be performed at
the aggregate level, the 29 remaining observations do not allow for
more than one independent variable per regression model (e.g.
Hair et al., 1998). Future research could employ a multivariate
approach using more observations (brands) or gather performance
data at respondent level.
Finally, another limitation is that brand equity, brand man-
agement and specifically the brand value chain model have a lo-
gical and historical-empirical assumption that mindset and atti-
tudes are antecedents of performance. We follow this rather
68 J. Anselmsson, N. Bondesson / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 25 (2015) 58–70

simplistic assumption because the order of this chain is not tes- Appendix A
table in a cross-sectional study. We are content to say that there
are more or less significant relationships between the presented See Table A1.
mindset and market performance metrics. Future research might
study the proposed relationships in more detail, choosing to focus
Appendix B
on one or two concepts; for example, how attitudinal loyalty and
sustain performance develop over time.
See Table B1.

Table A1
Pearson correlations among MSM measures

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Preference
2. Attitudinal loyalty .974nn
3. Purchase intention .981nn .952nn
4. Willingness to pay a premium .905nn .844nn .882nn
5. Liking .840nn .781nn .841nn .861nn
6. Perceived quality .823nn .792nn .815nn .897nn .941nn
7. Uniqueness .758nn .722nn .731nn .870nn .704nn .760nn
8. Satisfaction .880nn .837nn .883nn .879nn .946nn .936nn .733nn
9. Extension potential .704nn .642nn .723nn .673nn .892nn .775nn .535nn .839nn
10. Recommendation (NPS) .916nn .898nn .904nn .878nn .892nn .862nn .820nn .890nn .790nn

N ¼29,
n
P-value 0.05.
nn
P-value 0.01.

Table B1
R2 values and F-test significance.

Penetration 2007 Buyer's share Price premium 2007 Value market Volume market share
2007 share

Preference .40nn .43nn .06 .43nn .34nn

Attitudinal loyalty .43nn .45nn .03 .50nn .40nn
Purchase intention .39nn .41nn .07 .41nn .32nn
Willingness to pay a premium .16n .18n .20n .18n .11
Liking .13 .15n .17n .15n .10
Perceived quality .14n .15n .19n .14n .09
Uniqueness .12 .12 .17n .12 .06
Satisfaction .21n .21n .18n .22n .16n
Extension potential .06 .08 .09 .05 .05
Recommendation (NPS) .26nn .27 .11 .25 .18n

Repurchase rate 2007 Loyalty value Loyalty volume 2007

2007

Preference .26nn .19n .09

Attitudinal loyalty .27nn .26nn .14n
Purchase intention .26nn .18n .08
Willingness to pay a premium .12 .06 .00
Liking .08 .03 .00
Perceived quality .08 .04 .00
Uniqueness .20n .03 .00
Satisfaction .15n .06 .01
Extension potential .04 .00 .02
Recommendation (NPS) .19n .06 .01

Penetration change Buyer’s share Sales growth value Sales growth Market share value Market share vo-
2010/ 2007 2010/ 2007 2010/ 2007 volume change 2010/ 2007 lume change

Preference .11 .09 .14n .08 .08 .04

Attitudinal loyalty .14n .13 .18n .12 .11 .07
Purchase intention .12 .11 .15n .09 .09 .05
Willingness to pay a premium .06 .04 .08 .04 .04 .02
Liking .22n .20n .22nn .16n .14n .10
Perceived quality .13 .11 .14n .09 .08 .06
Uniqueness .04 .03 .05 .01 .01 .00
Satisfaction .17n .16n .18n .12 .13 .09
Extension potential .36 .32nn .33nn .26nn .16n .14n
Recommendation (NPS) .23nn .21n .23nn .16n .14n .11

N ¼29.
n
P-value 0.05.
nn
P-value 0.01.
 J. Anselmsson, N. Bondesson / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 25 (2015) 58–70
References
Aaker, David A., 1991. Managing Brand Equity. Free Press, San Francisco.
Aaker, David A., 1996. Measuring brand equity across products and markets.
California Manag. Rev. 38 (3), 102–120.
Aaker, David A., 2014. The first step in building a brand. Mark. News 48 (10), 20–21.
Aaker, David A., Keller, Kevin L., 1990. Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. J.
Mark. Res. 54 (1), 35–51.
Agarwal, Manoj K., Rao, Vithala R., 1996. An empirical comparison of consumer-
based measures of brand equity. Mark. Lett. 7 (3), 237–247.
Ailawadi, K.L., Lehmann, D.R., Neslin, S.A., 2003. Revenue premium as an outcome
measure of brand equity. J. Mark. 67 (4), 1–17.
Ambler, Tim, 2000. Marketing metrics. Business Strategy Rev. 11 (2), 59–66.
Ambler, Tim, 2001. What does marketing success look like? Mark. Manag. 10 (1),
12–18.
Ambler, Tim, 2003. Marketing and the Bottom Line, 2nd edition. FT Prentice–Hall,
London.
Ambler, Tim, Roberts, John H., 2008. Assessing marketing performance: don’t settle
for a silver metric. J. Mark. Manag. 24 (7–8), 733–750.
Anderson, Eugene, Fornell, Claes, Mazvancheryl, Sanal, 2004. Customer satisfaction
and shareholder value. J. Mark. 68, 172–185, October.
Anderson, Eugene W., Fornell, Claes, 2000. Foundations of the American customer
satisfaction index. Total Qual. Manag. 11 (7), 869–882.
Anderson, Eugene W., Fornell, Claes, Lehmann, Donald R., 1994. Customer sa-
tisfaction, market share, and profitability: findings from Sweden. J. Mark. 58,
53–66.
Anderson, Eugene W., Fornell, Claes, Rust, Roland T., 1997. Customer satisfaction,
productivity, and profitability: differences between goods and services. Mark.
Sci. 16 (2), 129–145.
Anselmsson, J., Bondesson, N., 2013. What successful branding looks like – A
managerial perspective. Br. Food J. 115 (1), 1612–1627.
Anselmsson, J., Johansson, U., 2014. Manufacturer brands versus private brands:
hoch’s strategic framework and the Swedish food retail sector. Int. Rev. Retail,
Distrib. Consum. Res. 24 (2), 186–212.
Anselmsson, J., Johansson, U., Maranon, A., Persson, N., 2008. The penetration of
retailer brands and the impact on consumer prices–A study based on house-
hold expenditures for 35 grocery categories. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 15 (1),
42–45.
Atilgan, Eda, Aksoy, Safak, Akinci, Serkan, 2005. Determinants of the brand equity:
a verification approach in the beverage industry in Turkey. Mark. Intell. Plan. 23
(2–3), 237–248.
Bandyopadhyay, S., Martell, M., 2007. Does attitudinal loyalty influence behavioral
loyalty? A theoretical and empirical study. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 14 (1), 35–44.
Barth, Mary E., Clement, Michael B., Foster, George, Kaszkik, Ron, 1998. Brand va-
lues and capital market valuation. Rev. Account. Stud. 3, 41–68.
Beatty, S.E., Kahle, L.R., 1988. Alternative hierarcies of attitude-behavior relation-
ships. The impact of brand comittement and habit. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 16
(Summer), 1–10.
Bennet, Rebekah, Härtel, Charmine E.J., McColl-Kennedy, Janet R., 2005. Experience
as a moderator of involvement and satisfaction on brand loyalty in a business-
to-business setting. Ind. Mark. Manag. 34 (1), 97–107.
Bergkvist, Lars, Rossiter, John R., 2007. The predictive validity of multiple-item
versus single-item measures of the same constructs. J. Mark. Res. 44, 175–184,
May.
Bottomley, Paul A., Holden, Stephen J.S., 2001. Do we really know how consumers
evaluate brand extensions? Empirical generalizations based on secondary
analysis of eight studies. J. Mark. Res. 38 (4), 494–500.
Brodie, Roderick J., Glynn, Mark S., van Durme, Joel, 2002. Towards a theory of
marketplace equity. Mark. Theory 2 (2), 5–28.
Carpenter, Gregory S., Glazer, Rashi, Nakamoto, Kent, 1994. Meaningful brands from
meaningless differentiation: the dependence of irrelevant attributes. J. Mark.
Res. 31 (3), 339–350.
Chang, Hsin Hsin, Ming Lu, Ya, 2009. The impact of brand equity on brand pre-
ference and purchase intentions in the service industries. Serv. Ind. J. 29 (12),
1687–1706.
Chaudhuri, Arjun, Holbrook, Morris B., 2001. The chain of effects from brand trust
and brand affect to market performance: the role of brand loyalty. J. Mark. 65,
81–93, April.
Chomvilailuk, Rojanasak, Butcher, Ken, 2010. Enhancing brand preference through
corporate social responsibility initiatives in the Thai banking sector. Asia Pac. J.
Mark. Logist. 22 (3), 397–418.
Cobb-Wahlgren, Cathy J., Ruble, Cynthia A., Donthu, Naveen, 1995. Brand equity,
brand preference and purchase intent. J. Advert. 24 (3), 25–41.
Diamantopoulos, Adamantious, Winklhofer, Heidi M., 2001. Index construction
with formative indicators: an alternative to scale development. J. Mark. Res. 38
(2), 269–277.
Dick, Alan, Jain, Arun, Richardsson, Paul, 1996. How consumers evaluate store
brands. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 5 (1), 19–28.
Doyle, Peter, 2000. Value-based Marketing: Marketing Strategies for Corporate
Growth and Shareholder Value. Wiley, Chichester.
Feldwick, Paul, 1996. What is brand equity anyway, and how do you measure it? J.
Mark. Res. Soc. 38, 85–104.
Fornari, E., Fornari, D., Grandi, S., Menegatti, M., 2013. The influence of retailing-mix
levers on private label market share: the case of the italian FMCG market. J.
Retail. Consum. Serv. 20 (6), 617–624.
69
Fornell, Claes, 1992. A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish ex-
perience. J. Mark. 56, 6–21, January.
Gerbing, David W., Anderson, James C., 1988. An updated paradigm for scale de-
velopment incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. J. Mark. Res. 25
(2), 186–192.
Grisaffe, Douglas B., 2007. Questions about the ultimate question: conceptual
considerations in evaluating Reicheld’s net promoter score (NPS). J. Consum.
Satisf. Dissatisf. Complain. Behav. 20, 36–44.
Gupta, Sunil, Zeithaml, Valarie, 2006. Customer metrics and their impact on fi-
nancial performance. Mark. Sci. 25 (6), 718–739.
Hair, J.R., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis.
Prentice-Hall International, New Jersey.
Hallowell, Roger, 1996. The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty,
and profitability: an empirical study. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 7 (4), 27–42.
Hellier, Philip K., Geursen, Gus M., Carr, Rodney A., Rickard, John A., 2003. Cust.
Repurch. Intent.: a general structural equation model. Eur. J. Mark. 37 (11/12),
1762–1800.
Hem, Leif E., Iversen, Nina M., 2003. Transfer of brand equity in brand extensions:
the importance of brand loyalty. Adv. Consum. Res. 30 (1), 72–79.
Inside Research (2005), Trend and Industry Growth Indexes and Reports, (accessed
2 Dec 20, 2011) [Available at 〈http://www.insideresearch.com/trend.htm〉].
Ittner, Christopher D., Larcker, David F., 1998. Are nonfinancial measures leading
indicators of financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction. J.
Account. Res. 36, 1–35, Supplement.
Jamieson, Linda F., Bass, Frank M., 1989. Adjusting stated intention measures to
predict trial purchase of new products: a comparison of models and methods. J.
Mark. Res. 26, 336–345, August.
Jones, Thomas, Sasser, Earl, 1995. Why satisfied customers defect. Harv. Bus. Rev.
73, 88–99, Nov.–Dec.
Kalra, Ajay, Goodstein, Ronald C., 1998. The impact of advertising positioning
strategies on consumer price sensitivity. J. Mark. Res. 35 (2), 210–225.
Kano, Noriaki, 1984. Attractive quality and must be quality. Hinshitsu (Quality)
14 (2), 147–156.
Kapferer, Jean-Noel, 2004. The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and
Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term. Kogan Page, London.
Keiningham, Timothy L., Bruce Cooil, Tor Wallin, Andreassen, Aksoy, Lerzan, 2007.
A longitudinal examination of net promoter and firm revenue growth. J. Mark.
71, 39–51.
Keller, Kevin L., 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based
brand equity. J. Mark. 57 (1), 1–23.
Keller, Kevin L., Lehmann, Donald R., 2003. How do brands create value? Mark.
Manag. 12 (3), 26–31.
Keller, Kevin., 2006. Measuring brand equity In: Grover, Rajiv, Vriens, Marco (Eds.),
Handbook of Marketing Research: Uses. Misuses and Future Advances. Sage
Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks.
Kerin, R.A., Kalyanaram, G., Howard, D.J., 1996. Product hierarchy and brand strat-
egy influences on the order of entry effect for consumer packaged goods. J.
Prod. Innov. Manag. 13 (1), 21–34.
Kerin, Roger A., Sethuraman, Raj, 1998. Exploring the brand value-shareholder
value nexus for consumer goods companies. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 26 (4), 260–273.
Knowles, Jonathan, 2005. In search of a reliable measure of brand equity In: Patrick,
La.Pointe (Ed.), Marketing by the Dashboard Light. Marketing NPV, Princeton,
pp. 113–122.
Kotler, Philip, Keller, Kevin L., 2010. Marketing Management, 13th edition. Prentice–
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lassar, Walfried, Mittal, Banwari, Sharma, Arun, 1995. Measuring customer-based
brand equity. J. Consum. Mark. 12 (4), 11–19.
Lau, Geok Theng, Han Lee, Sook, 1999. Consumers’ trust in a brand and the link to
brand loyalty. J. Mark.-Focus. Manag. 4 (4), 341–370.
Lehmann, Donald R., Keller, Kevin L., Farley, John U., 2008. The structure of survey-
based brand metrics. J. Int. Mark. 16 (4), 29–56.
Lodish, L.M., Mela, C.F., 2007. If brands are built over years, why are they managed
over quarters? Harv. Bus. Rev. 85 (7/8), 104–112.
Loveman, G.W., 1998. Employee satisfaction, customer loyalty, and financial per-
formance an empirical examination of the service profit chain in retail banking.
J. Serv. Res. 1 (1), 18–31.
Lubin, David A., Esty, Daniel C., 2010. The sustainability imperative. Harv. Bus. Rev.
85 (5), 42–50.
Lukas, Bryan A., Whitwell, Gregory J., Doyle, Peter, 2005. How can a shareholder
value approach improve marketing’s strategic influence? J. Bus. Res. 58 (4),
414–422.
Matzler, Kurt, Bailom, Franz, Hinterhuber, Hans H., Renzl, Birgit, Pichler, Johann,
2004. The asymmetric relationship between attribute-level performance and
overall customer satisfaction: a reconsideration of the importance–perfor-
mance analysis. Ind. Mark. Manag. 33, 271–277.
Mazursky, David, Geva, Aviva, 1989. Temporal decay in satisfaction–purchase in-
tention relationship. Psychol. Mark. 6 (3), 211–227.
Mortanges, de, Charles, P., van Riel, Allard, 2003. Brand equity and shareholder
value. Eur. Manag. J. 21 (4), 521–527.
Munoz, Tim, Kumar, Shailendra, 2004. Brand metrics: gauging and linking brands
with business performance. J. Brand Manag. 11 (5), 381–387.
Na, Woon B., Marshall, Roger, Keller, Kevin L., 1999. Measuring brand power: va-
lidating a model for optimizing brand equity. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 8 (3), 170.
Nath, Pravin, Mahajan, Vijay, 2008. Chief marketing officers: a study of their pre-
sence in firms’ top management teams. J. Mark. 72, 65–81, January.
Netemeyer, Richard G., Krishnan, Balaji, Pullig, Chris, Wang, Guanping, Yagci,
70 J. Anselmsson, N. Bondesson / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 25 (2015) 58–70
Mehmet, Dean, Dwane, Ricks, Joe, Wirth, Ferdinand, 2004. Developing and
validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity. J. Bus. Res. 57 (2),
209–224.
O’Sullivan, Don, Abela, Andrew V., 2007. Marketing performance measurement
ability and firm performance. J. Mark. 71 (2), 79–93.
Olbrich, R., Grewe, G., 2013. Proliferation of private labels in the groceries sector:
the impact on category performance. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 20 (2), 147–153.
Olson, Jerry C., and Jacob Jacoby (1972), “Cue Utilisation in the Quality Perception
Process.” In: M. Venkatesan. Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the
Association for Consumer Research, Chicago: Association for Consumer Re-
search. pp. 167–179.
Ophuis, Peter A.M., van Trijp, Hans C.M., 1995. Perceived quality: a market driven
and consumer-oriented approach. Food Qual. Prefer. 6 (3), 177–183.
Petersen, J., Andrew, Leigh, McAlister, David J., Reibstein, Russel S., Winer, V.,
Kumar, Atkinson, Geoff, 2009. Choosing the right metrics to maximize profit-
ability and shareholder value. J. Retail. 85 (1), 95–111.
Porter, Michael E., 1985. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior
Performance. Free Press, New York.
Reichheld, Frederick F., 2003. The one number you need to grow. Harv. Bus. Rev.
81 (12), 46–54, December.
Richardson, Paul S., Dick, Alan S., Jain, Arun K., 1994. Extrinsic and intrinsic cue
Effects on perceptions of store brand quality. J. Mark. 58 (4), 28–37.
Ries, J., Trout, A., 1972. May 1). Positioning cuts through chaos in marketplace.
Advert. Age 43, 51–54.
Romaniuk, J., Dawes, J., Nenycz-Thiel, M., 2014. Generalizations regarding the
growth and decline of manufacturer and store brands. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.
21 (5), 725–734.
Rossiter, John R., 2002. The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in mar-
keting. Int. J. Res. Mark. 19 (4), 305–335.
Rossiter, John R., 2011. Commentary, marketing measurement revolution: the
C-OAR-SE method and why it must replace psychometrics. Eur. J. Mark. 45 (11/
12), 1561–1588.
Rucci, Anthony J., Kirn, Steven P., Quinn, Richard T., 1998. The employee-customer-
profit chain at sears. Harv. Bus. Rev. Vol. 76 (1), 83–97.
Rust, Roland T., Ambler, Tim, Carpenter, Gregory S., Kumar, V., Srivastava, Rajendra
K., 2004. Measuring marketing productivity: current knowledge and future
directions. J. Mark. 68 (4), 76–89.
Söderlund, Magnus, 2006. Measuring customer loyalty with multi-item scales: a
case for caution. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 17 (1), 76–98.
Schultz, Don E., 2003. Marketing gets no respect in the boardroom. Mark. News
November 24, 9.
Sethuraman, Raj, 2000. Brand Equity: A Perspective on its Meaning and Measure-
ment Marketing Science Institute Paper Series, pp. 00–110.
Sirgy, M. Joseph, Grewal, Dhruv, Mangleburg, Tamara F., Park, Jae-ok, Chon,
Kye-Song, Claiborne, C.B., Johar, J.S., Berkman, Harold, 1997. Assessing the
predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-Image congruence. J. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 25 (3), 229–241.
Srinivasan, S., Vanhuele, Marc, Pauwels, Koen, 2010. Mind-set metrics in market
response models: an integrative approach. J. Mark. Res. 47 (4), 672–684.
Srivastava, R., Shocker, A.D., 1991. Brand Equity: A Perspective on its Meaning and
Measurement, Marketing Science Institute Paper Series, pp. 91–124.
Srivastava, Rajendra K., Reibstein, David J., 2005. Metrics for Linking Marketing
to Financial Performance, Cambridge, Mass: Marketing Science Institute,
pp. 05–200e.
Srivastava, Rajendra K., Shervani, Tasadduq A., Fahey, Liam, 1998. Market-based
assets and shareholder value: a framework for analysis. J. Mark. 62 (1), 2–18.
Stahl, Heinz K., Matzler, Kurt, Hinterhuber, Hans H., 2003. Linking customer life-
time value with shareholder value. Ind. Mark. Manag. 32 (4), 267–279.
Stewart, D.W., 2009. Marketing accountability: linking marketing actions to fi-
nancial results. J. Bus. Res. 62 (6), 636–643.
Trout, Jack, 2000. Differentiate or Die: Survival in Our Era of Killer Competition.
Johan Wiley & Sons, US.
Verhoef, Peter C., Leeflang, Peter S.H., 2009. Understanding the marketing depart-
ment’s influence within the firm. J. Mark. 73, 14–37, March.
Verhoef, Peter C., Nijssen, Edwin J., Sloot, Laurens M., 2002. Strategic reactions of
national brand manufacturers towards private labels-an empirical study in the
Netherlands. Eur. J. Mark. 36 (11/12), 1309–1326.
Walley, K., Custance, P., Taylor, S., Lindgreen, A., Hingley, M., 2007. The importance
of brand in the industrial purchase decision: a case study of the UK tractor
market. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 22 (6), 383–393.
Washburn, Judith H., Plank, Richard E., 2002. Measuring brand equity: an evalua-
tion of a consumer-based brand equity scale. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 10 (1),
46–62.
Wood, Lisa, 2000. Brands and brand equity: definition and management. Manag.
Decision 38 (9), 662–669.
Ye, Gewei, Fred van Raaij, W., 2004. Brand equity: extending brand awareness and
liking with signal detection theory. J. Mark. Commun. 10 (2), 95–114.
Yoo, Boonghee, Donthu, Naveen, 2001. Developing and validating a multi-
dimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. J. Bus. Res. 52 (1), 1–14.
Zeithaml, Valarie A., 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a
means-end model and synthesis of evidence In: Enis, B.M., Cox, K.K., Mokwa, M.P.
(Eds.), Marketing Classics–A Selection of Influential Articles. Prentice–Hall, New
Jersey.
Johan Anselmsson (PhD) is an Associate Professor in Marketing at the School of
Economics and Management, Lund University in Sweden. The food industry is one
of his main research interests, with a focus on product branding issues. His work
has been published in several academic journals: Journal of Marketing Manage-
ment, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, British Food Journal, Journal of
Brand Management and Journal of Product and Brand Management.
Niklas Bondesson (PhD) is an Assistant Professor in Marketing at the School of
Economics and Management, Lund University in Sweden. His research focuses on
brand management in general, and brand equity in particular. His work has been
published in Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Brand Management,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services and Journal of Product and Brand
Management.