See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228446036

Family as a source of consumer-based brand equity

Article  in  Journal of Product & Brand Management · June 2007

DOI: 10.1108/10610420710751564

CITATIONS READS
259 7,530

3 authors, including:

Elena Fraj-Andrés
University of Zaragoza
63 PUBLICATIONS   2,528 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Education View project

Ecological Consumer Behavior View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Elena Fraj-Andrés on 01 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Family as a source of consumer-based
brand equity
R. Bravo Gil, E. Fraj Andrés and E. Martı́nez Salinas
Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragosa, Spain

Abstract
Purpose – The main purpose of the current work is to analyse the role played by the family on consumer-based brand equity. In the proposed model,
information of a brand provided by both the family and the firm (via price, promotion and advertising spending) is analysed as a source of consumer-
based brand equity and its dimensions.
Design/methodology/approach – An empirical study was conducted in young adults (18-35) via structural equations model. Brand equity is
analysed in six different brands of milk, toothpaste and olive oil.
Findings – Results prove that positive brand information provided by the family has effects on the formation of brand awareness-associations and
perceived quality, and this may lead in turn, to brand loyalty and overall brand equity. The effects of the information provided by the family are higher
than those of the marketing variables studied. Results also show that brand loyalty is much closer to the concept of overall brand equity than brand
awareness-associations and perceived quality.
Research limitations/implications – The sample size does not allow to analyse differences in the effects between types of products and consumers.
Practical implications – Due to the importance of the family on the formation of the consumer-based brand equity, firms should analyse how to take
advantage of this factor to approach new generations of consumers. Actions to foster family associations and brand recall may ease the transfer of
brand equity from one generation to another.
Originality/value – Family has been usually considered as an external influence factor of consumer behaviour, however, its importance as information
provider had not been analysed in the process of brand equity formation.

Keywords Family, Consumers, Brand equity, Young adults

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
Since its appearance in the 1980s, brand equity has been one
of the main priorities in marketing research (Marketing
Science Institute, 2002). Its importance stems from the firms’
interest to create strong brands in order to obtain sustainable
competitive advantages and to differentiate their products
(Aaker, 1991; Keller, 2003).
The family has been considered as a powerful influencer in
consumer behaviour. However, its effects on the brand equity
formation has been scarcely analysed. In fact, only Moore
et al. (2002) have directly addressed such effects. As outlined
by these authors, the family may have a considerable influence
on the consumer-brand relationship, and this may result in
the formation of consumer-based brand equity. Thus, the
family puts the individual in contact with brands consumed at
home, providing a higher knowledge of those brands.
Moreover, those brands may be linked to family memories,
which provides an emotional meaning (Olsen, 1993;
Fournier, 1998). Furthermore, repetitive consumption of a
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
brand in the family may generate a habit in the individual that
may explain a subsequent loyalty to that brand.
The relevance of the family in the brand equity formation is
particularly interesting in those individuals who leave home and
have to face new purchase situations, since in this stage, the
consumer hardly has any consumption experience but the one at
his family home. Moreover, these individuals often turn to their
families for advice when buying a product, given that they
consider their parents as a close and reliable reference (Shah
and Mittal, 1997; Feltham, 1998). This information may lead
to the creation of consumer-based brand equity.
The main purpose of the current work is to analyse the role
played by the family on consumer-based brand equity. Thus,
a model will be proposed where information of a brand
provided by both the family and the firm (via price,
promotion and advertising spending) is analysed as a source
of consumer-based brand equity and its dimensions. Results
obtained will enable marketing managers to recognise the
elements that generate higher equity for their brands from the
consumer’s perspective, and thus take actions to foster the use
of those elements.
Our work begins with a revision of the previous literature on
consumer-based brand equity. Next, the effects of the family
and other determining factors on brand equity will be
analysed. This analysis will result in a series of hypotheses to
contrast. In section four we will outline the methodology
used, describing the products and brands analysed, the

Journal of Product & Brand Management
16/3 (2007) 188– 199
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/10610420710751564]
The authors are grateful for the financial assistance provided through the
CICYT project (SEJ2005-02315), through the GENERES (ref. S-09)
and PM062/2004 projects from the Government of Aragon, and through
project Ref. 267-108 from the University of Zaragoza and Ibercaja.

188
 Family as a source of consumer-based brand equity
R. Bravo Gil, E. Fraj Andrés and E. Martı́nez Salinas
measurement scales used and the sample characteristics, and
afterwards, we will show the results obtained in the empirical
work. Finally, the major conclusions, limitations and future
lines of research will be commented.
Consumer-based brand equity
Research on brand equity, from the perspective of the
consumer, is aimed to analyse the consumer response to a
brand name (Shocker et al. 1994; Keller, 2003). In this sense,
Lassar et al. (1995) defines brand equity as “the enhancement
in the perceived utility and desirability a brand name confers
in a product”. and in general, it is the consumer’s perception
of the overall superiority of a product carrying that brand
name when compared to other brands (Lassar et al., 1995).
There are many classifications and dimensions proposed in
the analysis of brand equity. Thus, Keller (2003) considers
brand knowledge, formed by the dimensions of awareness and
brand image, as an indicator of brand equity. Shocker and
Weitz (1988) establish brand equity in function of brand
image and brand loyalty. Agarwal and Rao (1996) consider
overall quality and choice intention as the main dimensions of
brand equity; Vázquez et al. (2002) indicate the importance of
stored associations expressing both functional and symbolic
utilities, etc. One of the most common classifications in brand
equity is the one proposed by Aaker (1991), who distinguishes
five dimensions: awareness, associations, perceived quality,
brand loyalty and other brand-related assets. In practice, only
the first four dimensions are analysed in consumer-based
brand equity research, since the fifth dimension, other brand-
related assets, refers to patents, distribution channels of the
firm and other facets not directly related to consumers.
Briefly, brand awareness refers to “the ability of a potential
buyer to recognize or recall that a brand is a member of a
certain product category” (Aaker, 1991). The first step to
build brand equity is to create brand awareness. Aaker (1991)
considers that brand awareness may result in brand equity in
four different ways: creating a brand node in consumer’s
memory, providing a sense of familiarity of the brand in the
consumer’s mind, acting as a signal of trust in the brand and
being enough reason for the consumer to consider the brand
in his consideration set. Brand awareness is the result of
consumer’s exposure to a brand (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987)
and it is usually measured through brand recognition and
recall (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 2003).
Brand associations are defined as “anything linked in
memory to a brand” (Aaker, 1991), and they represent the
meaning of the brand for the consumer. This dimension is
closely related to brand awareness, since both dimensions
arise from the consumer-brand contact (Aaker, 1991;
Fournier, 1998). Thus, each new experience with the brand
creates, reinforces or modifies the individual’s associations
(Keller, 2003), and there are different classifications in
relation to its relationship to product features, both tangible
and intangible, type of consumer, lifestyle, etc. (Aaker, 1991;
Biel, 1992; Keller, 1993; Park and Srinivasan, 1994).
Associations have to be unique, strong and favourable to
have a positive effect on brand equity (Keller, 2003). Osselaer
and Alba (2000) posit that brand associations may block
consumer’s search of other type of information for the
purchase decision.
Perceived quality is considered as “the consumer judgment
about a product’s overall excellence or superiority” (Zeithaml,
189
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 16 · Number 3 · 2007 · 188 –199
1988). The best way for a brand to increase perceived quality
is to invest in improving its real objective quality. Moreover,
the firm has to communicate the quality of its brands through
quality signals in its marketing actions. Thus, consumers
perceive brand quality through their direct experiences with
the brand and the information obtained in the environmental
factors (Grönroos, 1984; Yoo et al., 2000). As in the case of
brand associations, there are several factors to consider in
order to analyse and measure perceived quality, such as
reliability, durability, appearance, performance, serviceability,
etc. (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Cronin and Taylor, 1992;
Brucks et al., 2000).
Finally, brand loyalty is defined as “a deeply held
commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred product/
service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive
same-brand or same-brand set purchasing despite situational
influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause
switching behaviour” (Oliver, 1997). This dimension is
formed by two different components: attitudinal and
behavioural (Dick and Basu, 1994; Taylor et al., 2004).
Both components explain the formation of brand loyalty. On
the one hand, the attitudinal component indicates that loyalty
formation stems from a positive bond or commitment
between consumer and brand, and this attitude, in turn,
arises from the coincidence between the brand attributes and
the consumer’s preferences. On the other hand, from the
behaviour component, loyalty formation is explained by the
consumer’s prior purchases which result in a certain purchase
habit (Dick and Basu, 1994).
The effect of the family on the brand equity
formation process: proposed model and
hypotheses
There are different models on the literature to explain the
formation of brand equity (Dyson et al., 1996; Na et al., 1999;
Berry, 2000). One of the most commonly used is established
by Aaker (1991), where brand equity is determined by its
dimensions, and creates value for both the consumer and the
firm. Following this schema, Yoo et al. (2000) test the effects
of the information perceived by the consumer from different
marketing actions on the formation of brand equity and its
dimensions.
Based on these models, this work proposes that information
provided by the family can also affect the formation of
consumer-based brand equity. As mentioned previously, the
individual may receive recommendations to buy certain
brands from his parents, and also comes into contact with
several brands used at his family home. The individual
frequently considers his family as a reliable reference in
relation to the purchase of certain products (Childers and
Rao, 1992; Moore et al., 2002), and thus, information on a
brand obtained from the family may determine the consumer
evaluation of a brand, and in consequence, affect the
formation of consumer-based brand equity. In this work
only positive information of a brand is analysed, since both
family recommendations to buy a brand, and observation of a
frequently purchased brand in the family, is perceived by the
consumer as a manifestation that his parents approve the use
of the brand.
The proposed conceptual model can be seen in Figure 1.
We have used this model because it is based on the
conceptualization of brand equity proposed by Aaker
 Family as a source of consumer-based brand equity
R. Bravo Gil, E. Fraj Andrés and E. Martı́nez Salinas
Figure 1 Effects of family on the conceptual framework of brand equity
(1991), since this conceptualization has been frequently
applied in the literature (Baldauf et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2003;
Pappu et al., 2005). Moreover, this selection allows to
compare results from this analysis with those obtained in
recent works, where some of the relationships had been also
studied (Atilgan et al., 2005; Villarejo and Sanchez-Franco,
2005).
Due to the large number of relationships to be analysed,
hypotheses have been classified in three sections. The first
section is devoted to the effects of the information provided
by both the family and the firm through its marketing actions.
The second section refers to the hypotheses concerning the
relationships between dimensions of brand equity. Finally, the
third section is devoted to the relationships between each
dimension and overall brand equity. All the relationships are
shown in Figure 2 and they will be explained in depth in the
following sections.
Figure 2 Structural model
190
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 16 · Number 3 · 2007 · 188 –199
Effects on dimensions of brand equity
Companies can create brand equity through its marketing
actions on the brand. In this sense, Keller (2003) posits that
brand equity should be managed over time by fine-tuning the
supporting marketing program. In the present paper, we
investigate consumers’ perceptions of three marketing
elements: advertising, price and promotion to be included
in our model. Although these variables do not cover the full
domain of marketing variables, they represent typical
marketing actions and their effects on brand equity have
been studied previously (Yoo et al., 2000; Villarejo and
Sanchez-Franco, 2005). This selection allows to compare the
results in our model with the ones obtained in these previous
works, since some of the hypotheses proposed were not
supported by both analysis.
Thus, regarding the dimension of brand awareness, as
pointed previously, this is the result of the individual’s
prolonged exposure to the brand (Keller, 2003). Therefore,
the more intensive the advertising campaign, the more the
consumer is exposed to the brand. Advertising recall as a basis
for reaching brand awareness is related positively to the
strength of the advertising spending (Deighton, 1984; Hoyer
and Brown, 1990). The advertising spending in a brand will
increase the scope and repetitions of the advertising message,
and as a consequence, a higher level of awareness will be
obtained for the brand. In general, Cobb-Walgren et al.
(1995) find a positive relation between the amount spent on
advertising and brand equity and its dimensions. In this sense,
advertising spending perceived by the consumer is also
positively related to brand equity as proved in previous works
(Yoo et al., 2000; Villarejo and Sánchez-Franco, 2005).
Likewise, the information provided by the family can foster
consumer-brand contact. Thus, a brand that has been
traditionally consumed in the household for years will
provide awareness in the consumer’s mind that will remain
 Family as a source of consumer-based brand equity
R. Bravo Gil, E. Fraj Andrés and E. Martı́nez Salinas
after leaving home (Olsen, 1993; Fournier, 1998). Moreover,
when facing new purchase situations, young adults may ask
their parents for information and advice (Moore et al., 2002).
Consequently, we propose the following hypotheses:
H1a. The higher the advertising spending of a brand
perceived by the young adult, the higher the brand
awareness.
H1b. The higher the positive brand information provided by
the family of the young adult, the higher the brand
awareness.
Formation of brand associations, like the formation of brand
awareness, arises from consumer-brand contact. In this case,
each new contact creates, modifies or reinforces associations,
that is, it determines the meaning that the consumer
attributes to a brand (Keller, 2003). Therefore, we may
assume that advertising spending and family information may
also determine brand associations.
Hence, the higher the advertising spending of a brand, the
more the consumer is exposed to the brand, and in
consequence, the stronger and more numerous will be the
associations in the consumer’s mind. Again, this relation is
empirically proved by Villarejo and Sanchez-Franco (2005);
the same occurs in the work by Yoo et al. (2000), however, in
the latter, both brand awareness and brand associations are
considered jointly. The family contribution to the formation
of associations may also be crucial. Thus, the studies that
analyse consumer-brand relationships reveal the importance
of this factor. Fournier (1998) shows that the family may
foster the formation of consumer-brand affective bonds.
These associations provide an emotional value to brands that
differentiates them from the rest of competing brands. Olsen
(1993) also stresses the role of the family in the formation of
brand associations, and in the case of the individual leaving
his family home, this author considers that these associations
may act as “bridges” or “fences” in the intergenerational
transfer of brand loyalty. Hence, we posit:
H2a. The higher the advertising spending of a brand
perceived by the young adult, the more the
associations linked to that brand.
H2b. The higher the positive brand information provided by
the family of the young adult, the more the associations
linked to that brand.
The origin of the consumer perception of quality mainly lies
in the perception of quality-related intrinsic and extrinsic
attributes (Na et al., 1999). Among the extrinsic attributes,
the firm’s marketing actions through advertising, price and
promotions, have a predominant role. Advertising spending is
a signal that the firm is investing in the brand (Kirmani and
Wright, 1989), and in the case of consumer, there is a positive
relationship between advertising spending and the consumer’s
perceived quality of the brand (Milgrom and Roberts, 1986;
Simon and Sullivan, 1993; Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995).
Price is also perceived as a quality signal. Thus, high-price
brands are generally perceived as higher quality brands than
those with a low price. This has been outlined in numerous
studies (Milgrom and Roberts, 1986; Rao and Monroe,
1989). Along the same line of argument, price promotions
may erode the brand’s perceived quality since they reduce the
product price (Suri et al., 2000; Jorgensen et al., 2003). The
long-term effect of constant promotions generates uncertainty
about the brand quality (Winer, 1986), which results in a
more negative brand perception.
191
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 16 · Number 3 · 2007 · 188 –199
With respect to the information of the brand provided by
the family, this information may also determine consumer
perceived quality of the brand. Thus, the young adult’s
perception of brands recommended or used by other
experienced consumers, may affect the perception of quality
of such brands. This is especially the case of the family, who is
usually considered by the young adult as an experienced buyer
of certain products (Childers and Rao, 1992; Keillor et al.,
1996). This perception involves a more positive attitude
toward the brand, and it may result in the purchase of that
brand (Feltham, 1998, Moore et al., 2002). Hence, we
postulate:
H3a. The higher the advertising spending of a brand
perceived by the young adult, the higher the
perceived quality of the brand.
H3b. The higher the positive brand information provided by
the family of the young adult, the higher the perceived
quality of the brand.
H3c. The higher the price of the brand perceived by the
young adult, the higher the perceived quality of the
brand.
H3d. The more frequent the price promotions of the brand
perceived by the young adult, the lower the perceived
quality of the brand.
Relationships between dimensions of brand equity
Brand equity dimensions are closely interrelated.
Nevertheless, loyalty has been considered as a construct
preceded by the other three dimensions: awareness,
associations and perceived quality. In order to establish this
causal order, Chiou et al. (2002) have based their arguments
on a cognitive-affective-behavioral hierarchical model. Thus,
they consider perceived quality as a cognitive construct which
results in affective response toward the brand. Finally, this
affective response determine the consumer behaviour, and
they may lead to product purchase and brand loyalty. Roberts
et al. (2004) turn to purchase decision stages to justify a
causal order between perceived quality and loyalty. Thus,
perceived quality would be related to the information
evaluation stage and loyalty would be mainly related to the
purchase decision stage. Yoo et al. (2000) also suggest a
possible causal order between these dimensions. In this case,
their arguments are based on the hierarchy of effects theory
(Lavidge and Steiner, 1961). Thus, they propose that
marketing actions may have an impact on associations and
perceived quality, and this impact may then result in brand
loyalty. Consequently, we hypothesize:
H4a. The higher the brand awareness, the higher the brand
loyalty.
H4b. The more the associations linked to a brand, the higher
the brand loyalty.
H4c. The higher the perceived quality of a brand, the higher
the brand loyalty.
Relationships between dimensions and brand equity
Each dimension of brand equity: awareness, associations,
perceived quality and loyalty, has, in turn, a positive effect on
overall brand equity. Overall brand equity is regarded as a
global preference for the brand over similar alternatives, as
explained in different definitions of this concept (Farquhar,
 Family as a source of consumer-based brand equity
R. Bravo Gil, E. Fraj Andrés and E. Martı́nez Salinas
1990; Aaker, 1991). Thus, higher brand awareness in the
consumer’s mind, along with strong, unique, positive
associations, leads the consumer to increase his preference
for the brand. Likewise, the higher perceived quality and
purchase frequency, the more positive the consumer
assessment of the brand, and therefore the higher
consumer-based brand equity. The results of the preceding
empirical studies have demonstrated, on the whole, effects of
some of the dimensions on overall brand equity (Yoo et al.,
2000; Zinnbauer and Bakay, 2004; Atilgan et al., 2005).
Consequently, this study proposes positive relations between
each dimension and overall brand equity.
H5a. The higher the brand awareness, the higher the overall
brand equity.
H5b. The more the associations linked to a brand, the higher
the overall brand equity.
H5c. The higher the perceived quality of a brand, the higher
the overall brand equity.
H5d. The higher the brand loyalty, the higher the overall
brand equity.
Methodology
The data gathered for the empirical work were obtained
through a survey among young adults in a major city of Spain.
In this work, three types of convenience products were
analysed.
Moore et al.(2002) posit that family influences in young
adult consumer behaviour are specially important in
convenience products. In this type of products, consumer
may search for information about brands only in those
sources that are easy to access, such as his family, and he does
not spend much time asking other experienced consumers as
in the case of durables. Thus, we chose three brands of three
frequently consumed products in Spain: milk, olive oil and
toothpaste. The brand selection was made through a pretest
with university students. In the pretest, students were asked to
indicate their degree of familiarity and level of use of the
brand in a seven-point scale. We chose those brands that were
familiar to the sample, with a familiarity degree above the
mean value of 4. And among those selected brands, we finally
chose the brands with the highest and lowest levels of use for
each category of products. The selected brands are shown in
Table I.
Thus, we designed six different questionnaires where
respondents were asked to answer questions related to their
perception of the brand’s advertising spending, price and
promotions; questions concerning the information provided
by their families; and questions about brand equity and its
dimensions.
Table I Selected brands
High frequency of purchase
Olive oil Carbonell (5.02)
Toothpaste Colgate (5.43)
Milk Pascual (4.41)
Notes: the scores of columns 2 and 3 refer to the mean obtained in the responses to frequency of use, measured in a 1-7 scale where the maximum indicates a
higher frequency of use; the last column refers to the differences in distributions; * ¼ significant differences at 5%
192
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 16 · Number 3 · 2007 · 188 –199
The questionnaires were answered by a random sample of 360
young adults aged between 18 and 35 years. Each individual
answered only one questionnaire, thus each brand was
assessed by 60 young adults.
Requirements to respond to the questionnaire were that
respondents had to live away from the family unit, be regular
buyers of the products of our study and live, both respondents
and their parents, in Spain. This requirement was essential to
guarantee that both parents and children had access to the
same brands and thus assess the family influence effectively.
The sample was composed by 63.1 percent of women and
36.9 percent of men. This distribution is in accordance with
the situation in Spain, since women, much more frequently
than men, are in charge of buying the products considered in
the study. With respect to the variable of age, high
percentages of the sample corresponded to age intervals
18-22 (32.7 percent) and 23-26 (39.3 percent), and low
percentages to age intervals 27-31 (15.5 percent) and 32-35
(12.5 percent). These differences involved no limitation to
our study, since the youngest age intervals were of special
interest for the analysis because our work focuses on young
adults’ first purchases. Approximately half the sample lived
with flatmates (51.7 percent), whereas the rest lived alone or
with his partner (48.3 percent). After the first refinement
process, where questionnaires with unanswered questions or
inconsistent responses were removed, we obtained 349 valid
questionnaires.
The variables were measured by means of the scales
developed in the literature. More specifically, to measure the
young adult’s perceptions of advertising spending, price and
promotions, we made use of the scales developed by Yoo et al.
(2000). These scales are shown in Table II.
Table II Scales of consumer perception of advertising spending, price
and promotion
Advertising spending (ADVE)
AD1 X spends a great amount of money in advertising
AD2 The ad campaigns for X are seen frequently
AD3 X spends more money in advertising than its competing brands
Price (PRIC)
PR1 The price of X is high
PR2 This brand is cheap in relation to its competing brands (r)
PR3 X is expensive
Promotions (PROM)
PM4 Price deals for X are frequently offered
PM5 Too many times price deals for X are presented
PM6 Price deals for X are more frequent than for its competing brands
Note: X refers to the focal brand; (r) reverse coded
Low frequency of purchase Wilcoxon signed rank test
La Española (2.65) Z ¼ 6.77 *
Profiden (2.57) Z ¼ 5.63 *
RAM (1.59) Z ¼ 8.07 *
 Family as a source of consumer-based brand equity
R. Bravo Gil, E. Fraj Andrés and E. Martı́nez Salinas
To measure information of the brand provided by the family,
we have developed a scale that analyses information obtained
via observation and direct communication. This scale can be
seen in Table III. Thus, the first three items in the scale refer
to information through observation (FA1, FA2, FA3), and the
other three to recommendation (FA4, FA5, FA6). Both
observation and direct communication are considered in the
process of family communication cited in the socialization
literature (Moschis, 1985), and they seem to be especially
adequate to the study of young adults (Moore et al., 2002).
Finally, the dimensions of brand equity were measured
according to the work by Yoo and Donthu (2001). We have
chosen these scales for two main reasons. First, they cover the
most commonly accepted dimensions of brand equity (Aaker,
1991); and second, they have been utilised in different
contexts, including the country where the analysis is
performed (Villarejo and Sánchez-Franco, 2005).
Nevertheless, some items were added or modified in order
to obtain a better understanding and to cover other interesting
aspects pointed by Villarejo and Sánchez-Franco (2005) or
Aaker (1996). The composition of such scales is displayed in
Table IV. All the variables were measured through seven-point
Likert scales.
Results
Once the data were obtained, we proceeded to validate the
scales proposed in the context of our study. Thus, we first
propose several exploratory analyses to test the scales
reliability and dimensionality. Therefore, we utilise
Cronbach alpha and item-to-total correlations as reliability
criteria. With respect to dimensionality, we carried out an
exploratory factor analysis of the main components using
varimax rotation for each scale. The results of these analyses
were adequate for all the scales, with Cronbach alpha and
item-to-total correlations above the values generally accepted.
Next, we carried out a confirmatory analysis of the scales
through the EQS software in order to study the convergent
and discriminant validity of the model proposed. Concerning
convergent validity criteria, items with factor loadings or
individual reliability scores below 0.5 were removed (Hair
et al., 1999). Specifically, an indicator in the price perception
scale (PR2) was eliminated. Likewise, the process led to the
successive removal of three items in the family information
scale (FA6, FA4, FA5). All these items corresponded to the
information provided by the family via recommendation.
Therefore, after the purification process, the family scale was
reduced to information via observation. Regarding brand
equity scales and their dimensions, four indicators were
successively removed (AW3, AS4, AS2, BE1).
Table III Scale of positive information provided by the family
Family
(FAMI)
FA1 My parents have bought X for a long time
FA2 I have seen my parents buying this brand in many occasions
FA3 X has been at home since I was a child
FA4 When I left my family home, my parents recommended me to buy X
FA5 My parents’ opinion is that X is a good brand
FA6 My parents recommended me to use X
193
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 16 · Number 3 · 2007 · 188 –199
Table IV Dimensions and overall brand equity scales
Awareness (AWAR)
AW1 When I think about this product, X is the first brand that comes to
my mind
AW2 I can easily recognize this brand among other competing brands
AW3 I am aware of X
Associations (ASSO)
AS1 Some characteristics of X come to my mind quickly
AS2 I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of X
AS3 X has strong personality
AS4 X is different from its competing brands
Perceived Quality (QUAL)
PQ1 X has undoubtedly the best quality in the marketplace
PQ2 I can always trust on X if I want a product of high quality
PQ3 The quality of X is very high
Loyalty (LOYA)
LO1 I consider myself to be loyal to X
LO2 I always buy X
LO3 If I were asked for a recommendation, I would suggest to buy X
LO4 I recommend X whenever I can
Brand Equity (BEQU)
BE1 It makes sense to buy X instead of any other brand, even if they are
the same in quality or price
BE2 Even if another brand has the same features as X, I would prefer to
buy X
BE3 If there is another brand as good as X, I prefer to buy X
BE4 If another brand is not different from X in any way, it seems smarter
to purchase X
Note: X refers to the focal brand
With respect to discriminant validity, we calculated reliability
intervals for each pair of scales. This analysis produced
adequate results for all the intervals. However, the awareness
and associations interval contained the value 1, which
revealed problems in the discriminant validity between these
two scales.
To solve this problem, we considered two alternatives: first,
to consider a joint dimension including awareness and brand
associations; and second, to establish a second order
structure. Thus, we made an analysis comparing the
structure of each alternative. This comparative analysis is
shown in Table V.
The results showed, on the whole, better fit in the first
alternative, that is, the joint dimension of awareness and
associations. The values obtained for the indicators of this
structure were more adequate, with special relevance of the
comparative indexes such as AIC, ECVI, NCP or SNCP that
showed higher suitability in the joint structure of awareness
and associations. Likewise, this type of structure had
previously been used by other authors like Yoo and Donthu
(2001) or Washburn and Plank (2002), who also revealed in
their works the empirical difficulty of differentiating those
dimensions. Hence, reliability and validity analyses were
considered again. We eliminated the same items as in the
previous case, except for the structure of awareness and
associations where five items were removed (AW3, AS4, AW2,
AS2, AS3). The results showed adequate values for all the
 Family as a source of consumer-based brand equity Journal of Product & Brand Management
R. Bravo Gil, E. Fraj Andrés and E. Martı́nez Salinas Volume 16 · Number 3 · 2007 · 188 –199

Table V Comparative of factor structures in awareness and associations scales

Optimal First order 1 factor Second order 2 factors

Global fit indexes

X2 (degrees of freedom) 339.92 (168) 679.92 (208)
p-value p . 0.05 p , 0.001 p , 0.001
S-B x2 257.30 530.60
p-value p . 0.05 p , 0.001 p , 0.001
GFI .0.8 0.91 0.84
RMSEA (0.05-0.08) 0.05 0.08
ECVI Minimum 1.34 2.34
NCP Minimum 171.92 471.92
SNCP Close to 0 0.49 1.35

Incremental fit indexes

NFI .0.9 0.95 0.94
NNFI .0.9 0.97 0.92
CFI .0.9 0.97 0.93
IFI .0.9 0.97 0.94
AGFI .0.8 0.88 0.79

Parsimonious Fif indexes

Normed x2 (1-3) 2.02 3.27
PNFI Maximum 0.76 1.11
AIC Minimum 465.92 815.92

cases, and the final results of the reliability and convergent Table VI Final results of the analysis of reliability and convergent
validity analysis are displayed in Table VI. After this analysis, validity
discriminant validity for the new relationships was tested
again. The final results were satisfactory and are shown in Scale Item l (t) R2 Cronbach Alpha EVA *
Table VII. Determining factors
After the item purification process, we developed the Advertising (ADVE) AD1 0.92 0.85 0.92 0.79
structural model in order to test the hypotheses proposed. Fit
AD2 0.95 0.90
values are shown in Table VIII. These values proved to be
AD3 0.79 0.63
adequate and obtained values above the recommended
Family (FAMI) FA1 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.90
minimum. Thus, in global fit indexes the GFI results are
FA2 0.97 0.95
above 0.8; in incremental fit indexes such as CFI, NFI or IFI
FA3 0.89 0.80
values are above the threshold of 0.9; and in parsimony fit
Price (PRIC) PR1 0.80 0.63 0.85 0.77
indexes the normed chi-square value is within the
recommended 1-3 interval (Hair et al., 1999). PR3 0.95 0.89
The results of the standardized parameters allowed to Promotions (PROM) PM1 0.83 0.70 0.91 0.78
accept the majority of the hypotheses proposed. These results PM2 0.90 0.81
are displayed in Table VIII and Figure 3. PM3 0.91 0.83
Since the dimensions of awareness and associations were Dimensions of brand equity
measured together, the hypotheses that refer to them were Awar.-Assoc. (AWAS) AW1 0.73 0.54 0.68 0.51
also jointly contrasted in every case. AS1 0.70 0.49
Thus, in H1a and H2a we established positive effects of the Perceived Q.(QUAL) QU1 0.79 0.62 0.87 0.71
perception of advertising spending on the dimensions of
QU2 0.88 0.77
awareness and associations. The results obtained are in line
QU3 0.85 0.73
with the hypotheses (b ¼ 0:19* , t ¼ 3:89).
Loyalty (LOYA) LO1 0.90 0.83 0.91 0.71
In a similar way, hypotheses H1b and H2b established effects
LO2 0.88 0.77
of the positive brand information provided by the family on the
LO3 0.87 0.76
dimensions of brand awareness and associations. Results are
also in line with the hypotheses (b ¼ 0:65* , t ¼ 11:51). LO4 0.71 0.51
Hypotheses H3a-H3d refer to the effects of information Brand equity
provided by the firm and the family on perceived quality. In B. Equity (BEQU) BE2 0.88 0.78 0.93 0.81
the case of the firm, this information was obtained by the BE3 0.92 0.84
consumer through the signals of advertising spending, price and BE4 0.91 0.83
promotions of the brand. Results show positive and significant Note: EVA ¼ extracted variance analysis
values in the parameters of advertising spending (b ¼ 0:20* ,

194
 Family as a source of consumer-based brand equity Journal of Product & Brand Management
R. Bravo Gil, E. Fraj Andrés and E. Martı́nez Salinas Volume 16 · Number 3 · 2007 · 188 –199

Table VII Results of the discriminant validity analysis

ADVE FAMI PRIC PROM AWAS QUAL LOYA
FAMI (0.18; 0.38)
PRIC (0.34; 0.54) (0.09; 0.15)
PROM (0.05; 0.19) (0.03; 0.21) (20.3; 0.05)
AWAS (0.38; 0.58) (0.62; 0.82) (0.05; 033) (20.1; 0.18)
QUAL (0.30; 0.50) (0.39; 0.59) (0.19; 0.43) (20.1; 0.17) (0.39; 0.59)
LOYA (0.15; 0.35) (0.48; 0.64) (20.1; 0.11) (20.01; 0.2) (0.79; 0.95) (0.68; 0.80)
BEQU (0.05; 0.29) (0.42; 0.62) (20.1; 0.09) (0.05; 0.29) (0.61; 0.81) (0.54; 0.74) (0.76; 0.88)
Notes: Figures in the table refer to confidence intervals of correlations between each pair of factors; discriminant validity is determined following the criteria
that value 1 be outside of the confidence interval (Peter, 1981)

Table VIII Results of the structural model

Hypotheses Standardized Beta (t) Hypotheses support
H1-2a (Advertising ! Awareness and Associations) 0.19 * (3.89) Yes
H1-2b (Family ! Awareness and Associations) 0.65 * (11.51) Yes
H3a (Advertising ! Perceived Quality) 0.20 * (3.97) Yes
H3b (Family ! Perceived Quality) 0.45 * (8.12) Yes
H3c (Price ! Perceived Quality) 0.22 * (5.59) Yes
H3d (Promotions ! Perceived Quality) 2 0.01 (20.48) No
H4a,b (Awareness and Associations ! Loyalty) 0.94 * (6.45) Yes
H4c (Perceived Quality ! Loyalty) 2 0.10 (20.80) No
H5a,b (Awareness and Associations ! Brand Equity) 0.24 (1.28) No
H5c (Perceived Quality ! Brand Equity) 2 0.07 (20.60) No
H5d (Loyalty ! Brand Equity) 0.66 * (5.41) Yes
Model fit indexes Global fit Incremental fit Parsimony fit
x2 ¼ 544 (218) (p , 0:001) NFI ¼ 0.92 x2 (normed) ¼ 2.50
x2 (SB) ¼ 964 (p ¼ 0:000) NNFI ¼ 0.94 PNFI ¼ 0.80
GFI ¼ 0.87 CFI ¼ 0.95 AIC ¼ 660
RMSEA ¼ 0.06 IFI ¼ 0.95
ECVI ¼ 1.90 AGFI ¼ 0.84
NCP ¼ 326
Notes: See Table IV; * p , 0:05

t ¼ 3:97) and price (b ¼ 0:22* , 5.59), but not in the case of
promotions (b ¼ 20:01, t ¼ 20:60). Thus, only hypotheses
H3a and H3c were supported. In relation to the effect of positive
brand information provided by the family, results were also
positive and significant (b ¼ 0:45* , t ¼ 8:12) and thus
hypothesis H3b was supported.
Regarding brand loyalty determining factors, we established
in hypotheses H4a-H4c that this dimension is determined by
the effect of awareness, associations and perceived quality.
The results obtained showed a positive and significant
relationship between the awareness-associations dimension
and brand loyalty (b ¼ 0:94* , t ¼ 6:45). H4c establishes a
positive relationship between perceived quality and loyalty.
The results for this relationship were not significant, thus this
hypothesis was not verified (b ¼ 20:10, t ¼ 20:80).
Finally, with respect to H5a-H5d, these hypotheses analysed
the effects of awareness, associations, perceived quality and
loyalty on brand equity. As we explained above, the hypotheses
referred to the effect of awareness and associations were jointly
considered in the analysis, thus H5a and H5b, concerning
awareness and associations respectively, were also jointly
analysed. The results obtained for this relationship show that
the effect of the awareness-associations dimension on brand
equity is not significant, thus none of these hypotheses can be
confirmed (b ¼ 0:24, t ¼ 1:28). The same occurs for H5c,
where we analyse the effect of perceived quality on brand equity.
In this case the results were not significant either (b ¼ 20:07,
t ¼ 20:60), thus H5c is not confirmed. On the other hand, H5d,
concerning the effect of loyalty on brand equity, did obtain
positive and significant results. Therefore, we can state that
loyalty has a positive effect on brand equity (b ¼ 0:66* ,
t ¼ 5:41).
Conclusions
In the light of these results, the main conclusion is that
positive brand information, provided by the family to the
young adult via observation, has an important influence on
the brand equity formation process. Furthermore, the
regression coefficients of this analysis show that the effects
of family information on the dimensions of awareness,
associations and perceived quality are higher than those

195
 Family as a source of consumer-based brand equity
R. Bravo Gil, E. Fraj Andrés and E. Martı́nez Salinas
Figure 3 Results of the structural model
produced by the information obtained by the consumer
through their perception of marketing variables such as price,
promotion or advertising spending. As a consequence, we
may posit that the family determines the creation of the young
consumer-based brand equity.
Other interesting aspects are those generated by the rest of
relations in the structural model. Thus, awareness and
associations have been proved to be determining factors of
brand loyalty; this loyalty, in turn, significantly influences
overall brand equity. These results are, in general, in line with
the previous literature. Thus, awareness and associations have
been considered as a joint dimension, which is in line with the
previous works by Yoo and Donthu (2001) and Washburn
and Plank (2002), where the difficulties to differentiate
empirically between both awareness and associations are also
shown. Moreover, this joint dimension can lead to brand
loyalty, and this fact is also in line with the argument that in
this type of products, brand awareness may be a determining
factor of the consumer’s brand choice (Hoyer and Brown,
1990; Pitta and Katsanis, 1995). Furthermore, results have
shown that awareness, associations or perceived quality are
not enough arguments to establish the superiority of a brand
over other competing brands. As argued above, the reason
may be that the previous dimensions have a cognitive or
attitudinal character, whereas loyalty also involves the
individual’s commitment to purchase the brand, and thus it
is closer to the concept of brand equity (Yoo et al., 2000;
Zinnbauer and Bakay, 2004).
Regarding limitations, we have analysed six brands from
three different product categories. Thus, the results have to be
interpreted with caution before a generalisation can be made.
Moreover, the small size of the sample does not allow to
196
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 16 · Number 3 · 2007 · 188 –199
analyse differences among the selected product categories.
Likewise, it would have been useful to include other type of
signals or information provided by the firm, such as other
marketing actions, product innovation, distribution strategies,
etc. In the same way, it would be of interest to control not
only advertising spending but also creativity or any facet
related to the advertising impact on the consumer. Besides, it
would be important to analyse the differences between the
effects of the family on young adult students and the effects
on young workers, and also the differences between young
adult consumers with different degrees of family cohesion.
Managerial implications
The family is an important factor to be considered in
consumer behaviour and also in the formation of brand
equity. Young adults obtain information from their parents
that allows them to acquire knowledge, and to foster different
attitudes and behaviours toward certain brands. In
consequence, this information may act in the formation of
consumer-based brand equity and, as seen in the results of
this work, it is a high relevant factor to consider in the process.
Due to this fact, Moore et al. (2002) suggest that marketing
managers should analyse thoroughly family influences in the
research of consumer behaviour. In this sense, it is important
to study whether family is an important factor to consider in
the purchase of a certain category of products, and if so,
which brands are benefiting of these influences. This study is
so-called by these authors as “intergenerational influences
audit”. and may lead managers to plan how to obtain benefits
of these influences.
 Family as a source of consumer-based brand equity
R. Bravo Gil, E. Fraj Andrés and E. Martı́nez Salinas
Thus, firms with experienced brands in the marketplace
may aim actions at fostering the effects of the family on brand
equity. Moore et al. (2002) propose actions such as
communication campaigns that emphasise the family
experience with the brand, or campaigns that highlight the
parental figure as an experienced consumer. As a result, the
individual may recall that a specific brand have been used at
his family home, or may perceive that his parents, as
experienced consumers, recommend the purchase of that
brand. Likewise, the adoption of a classical design for
packaging may ease brand recall and recognition and, in
consequence, may create brand awareness. These actions can
be more important than signals perceived by the consumer
through the price of the brand, its promotions or its
advertising spending.
Moreover, it is also important to highlight the managerial
implications of other relations studied in this work. Thus,
results has shown that the most loyal consumers make the
most positive assessment of a brand, and for that reason,
marketing management should establish consumer loyalty as
its main priority, and brand equity will be the result of such
loyalty.
In the present work, we have attempted to outline that the
influence of the family in consumer behaviour should not be
limited to studies of brand lineages or consumer socialization.
The importance of the family on consumer-based brand
equity is only another example of the relevance of the family
in the marketing research.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. (1996), “Measuring brand equity across products
and markets”, California Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 102-20.
Agarwal, M.K. and Rao, V. (1996), “An empirical
comparison of consumer based measures of brand
equity”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 237-47.
Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1987), “Dimensions of
consumer expertise”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13,
March, pp. 55-9.
Atilgan, E., Aksoy, S. and Akinci, S. (2005), “Determinants
of the brand equity. A verification approach in the beverage
industry in Turkey”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 237-48.
Baldauf, A., Cravens, K.S. and Binder, G. (2003),
“Performance consequences of brand equity management:
evidence from organizations in the value chain”, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 220-36.
Berry, L.L. (2000), “Cultivating service brand equity”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 128-38.
Biel, A.L. (1992), “How brand image creates brand equity”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 6-12.
Brucks, M., Zeithaml, V.A. and Naylor, G. (2000), “Price
and brand name as indicators of quality dimensions for
consumer durables”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 359-74.
Childers, T. and Rao, A. (1992), “The influence of familial
and peer-based reference groups on consumer decisions”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 198-211.
197
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 16 · Number 3 · 2007 · 188 –199
Chiou, J.S., Droge, C. and Hanvanich, S. (2002), “Does
customer knowledge affect how loyalty is formed?”, Journal
of Services Research, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 113-25.
Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N. (1995),
“Brand equity, brand preference and purchase intent”,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 25-41.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service
quality: a re-examination and extension”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.
Deighton, J. (1984), “The interaction of advertising and
evidence”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11,
December, pp. 763-70.
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: toward
an integrated conceptual framework”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Dyson, P., Farr, A. and Hollis, N.S. (1996), “Understanding,
measuring and using brand equity”, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 9-21.
Farquhar, P.H. (1990), “Managing brand equity”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 6-12.
Feltham, T.S. (1998), “Leaving home: brand purchase
influences on young adults”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 372-85.
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands:
developing relationship theory in consumer research”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-74.
Grönroos, C. (1984), “A service quality model and its
marketing implications”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-45.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C.
(1998), Multivariate Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall,
Madrid.
Hoyer, W.D. and Brown, S.P. (1990), “Effects of brand
awareness on choice for a common, repeat-purchase
product”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 141-8.
Jorgensen, S., Taboubi, S. and Zaccour, G. (2003),
“Cooperative advertising in a marketing channel”, Journal
of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 110 No. 1,
pp. 145-58.
Keillor, B.D., Parker, S. and Schaeffer, A. (1996), “Influences
on adolescent brand preferences in the United States and
Mexico”, Journal of Advertising Research, May, pp. 47-56.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring and
managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 53, January, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. (2003), Building, Measuring and Managing Brand
Equity, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kim, H.B., Kim, W.G. and An, J.A. (2003), “The effect of
consumer-based brand equity on firms’ financial
performance”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20
Nos 4/5, pp. 335-52.
Kirmani, A. and Wright, P. (1989), “Money talks: perceived
advertising expense and expected product quality”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 344-54.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995), “Measuring
customer-based brand equity”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 11-19.
Lavidge, R.J. and Steiner, G.A. (1961), “A model for
predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 24, October, pp. 59-62.
Marketing Science Institute (2002), “Research priorities
2004-2006”, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge,
available at: www.msi.org/msi/pdf/MSI_RP04-06.pdf
 Family as a source of consumer-based brand equity
R. Bravo Gil, E. Fraj Andrés and E. Martı́nez Salinas
Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1986), “Price and advertising
signals of product quality”, Journal of Political Economy,
Vol. 55, August, pp. 10-25.
Moore, E.S., Wilkie, W.L. and Lutz, R.J. (2002), “Passing the
torch: intergenerational influences as a source of brand
equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, April, pp. 17-37.
Moschis, G.P. (1985), “The role of family communication in
consumer socialization of children and adolescents”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 898-913.
Na, W., Marshall, R. and Keller, K.L. (1999), “Measuring
brand power: validating a model for optimizing brand
equity”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 170-84.
Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on
the Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Olsen, B. (1993), “Brand loyalty and lineage: exploring new
dimensions for research”, in Rothschild, M. and McAlister,
L. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 20,
Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 575-9.
Osselaer, S. and Alba, J. (2000), “Consumer learning and
brand equity”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27, June,
pp. 1-16.
Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W. (2005),
“Consumer-based brand equity: improving the
measurement – empirical evidence”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 14 Nos 2/3, pp. 143-55.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985),
“A conceptual model of service quality and its implications
for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4,
pp. 41-50.
Park, W.C. and Srinivasan, V. (1994), “A survey-based
method for measuring and understanding brand equity and
its extendibility”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31
No. 2, pp. 271-88.
Peter, P.J. (1981), “Construct validity: a review of basic issues
and marketing practices”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 133-45.
Pitta, D.A. and Katsanis, L.P. (1995), “Understanding brand
equity for successful brand extension”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 51-64.
Rao, A.R. and Monroe, K.B. (1989), “The effect of price,
brand name, and store name on buyers’ perceptions of
product quality: an integrative review”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 26, August, pp. 351-7.
Roberts, J., Morrison, P., Chandrashekaran, M. and
Gordon, A. (2004), “Measuring sources and outcomes of
brand equity”, Communication in ANZMAC Conference
(Australian and New Zealand Marketing Conference),
proceedings: available at: http://130.195.95.71:8081/
WWW/ANZMAC2004/CDsite/papers/Roberts1.PDF
Shah, R.H. and Mittal, B. (1997), “Toward a theory of
intergenerational influence in consumer behaviour:
an exploratory essay”, in Brucks, M. and MacInnis, D.J.
(Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 24, Association
for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 55-60.
Shocker, A. and Weitz, B. (1988), “A perspective on brand
equity principles and issues”, Defining, Measuring and
Managing Brand Equity: Conference Summary (Report
no 88-104), Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Shocker, A., Srivastava, R.K. and Ruekert, R.W. (1994),
“Challenges and opportunities facing brand management:
An introduction to the special issue”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 31, May, pp. 149-58.
198
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 16 · Number 3 · 2007 · 188 –199
Simon, C.J. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993), “The measurement
and determinants of brand equity: a financial approach”,
Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 28-52.
Suri, R., Manchada, R.V. and Kohli, C.S. (2000), “Brand
evaluations: a comparison of fixed price and discounted
price offers”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9
No. 3, pp. 193-206.
Taylor, S.A., Goodwin, S. and Celuch, K. (2004),
“The relative importance of brand equity to customer
loyalty in an industrial setting”, Journal Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 217-27.
Villarejo, A.F. and Sánchez-Franco, M.J. (2005), “The impact
of marketing communication and price promotion on brand
equity”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 431-45.
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, Vol. 18 Nos 1/2, pp. 27-48.
Washburn, J.H. and Plank, R.E. (2002), “Measuring brand
equity: an evaluation of a consumer-based brand equity
scale”, Journal of Marketing, Theory and Practice, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 46-63.
Winer, R.S. (1986), “A reference price model of brand choice
for frequently purchased products”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 250-7.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing and validating a
multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), “An examination of
selected marketing mix elements and brand equity”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 195-211.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price,
quality and value: a means end model and synthesis of
evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, July, pp. 2-22.
Zinnbauer, M. and Bakay, Z. (2004), “Modelling brand equity
in a modern business contex”, VIIth World Congress SAM/
IFSAM (International Federation of Scholarly Associations of
Management) Proceedings, available at: www.handels.gu.se/
ifsam/Streams/etm%20isy/241%20final.pdf
Further reading
Srivastava, R.K. and Shocker, A.D. (1991), “Brand equity:
a perspective on its meaning and measurement”, working
paper series, report no. 91-124, Marketing Science
Institute, Cambridge MA.
About the authors
Rafael Bravo Gil is Assistant Professor in Marketing at the
University of Zaragoza, Dpto. de Economı́a y Dirección de
Empresas. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales,
Zaragoza (Spain). He is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: rbravo@unizar.es
E. Fraj Andrés is Associate Professor in Marketing at the
University of Zaragoza. Dpto. de Economı́a y Dirección de
Empresas, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales,
Zaragoza (Spain).
E. Martı́nez Salinas is Senior Lecturer in Marketing at the
University of Zaragoza, Dpto. de Economı́a y Dirección de
Empresas, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales,
Zaragoza (Spain).
 Family as a source of consumer-based brand equity
R. Bravo Gil, E. Fraj Andrés and E. Martı́nez Salinas
Executive summary
This executive summary has been provided to allow managers and
executives a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those
with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the
article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive
description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full
benefit of the material present.
Family first?
How young adults receive brand information
Parents often worry about their diminishing influence. In an
undefined, far-off time, nostalgia dictates that parents spoke
and children listened. In the modern era of mass
communication, of course, the world has changed. Recent
conventional wisdom would seem to dictate that the men and
women of the marketing profession shape the world’s young
people’s minds. A scary thought, even for marketers.
TV advertising, guerrilla marketing, viral marketing, and
product placement – these are the tools with which
impressionable minds are shaped. The strong patriarch in
the home is a joke figure; the strong matriarch exists only as a
character in costume drama. Or so it would seem. One of the
great joys of the research process is its occasional ability to see
conventional wisdom turned on its head. It is the media-age
equivalent of silencing the bar room bore, seeing pomposity
pricked.
In Spain, at least, family matters. The influence of
information from the family turns out to be a vital element
in the purchasing decisions of 18-35 year-olds, according to a
study by Gil, Andrés and Salinas of the Universidad de
Zaragoza. It is an under-researched area of the brand equity
debate. This study could change all of that. The first question
it raises is “if this is the Spanish experience, what about each
of my major markets?”
Proof positive
Every parent whose advice seems to routinely go unheeded
can take heart from the knowledge that when it comes to
consumer products, at least, they have a powerful voice. In
this survey, information from the family was a greater
influence than the other marketing variables studied. That is,
at least when it comes to convenience products – three types
of convenience products provided by six different brands were
studied.
As in any study of this type, a number of hypotheses were
put forward and tested as data were gathered and analysed.
Some hypotheses stood up. For others there was no significant
evidence to support them. The significant findings were:
.
There are positive effects from advertising spend on brand
awareness and associations.
.
Similarly positive effects from information provided by the
family were established.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
199
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 16 · Number 3 · 2007 · 188 –199
.
The hypothesis “the higher the positive brand information
provided by the family of the young adult, the higher the
perceived quality of the brand” was proved to be true.
.
The higher the brand loyalty the higher the overall brand
equity.
Three convenience products were tested, and admittedly this
is an area where past research has indicated a stronger than
normal influence by the family, but there was a definitive feel
to the results from this study, that will give firms cause to
reflect.
Taking things forward, with a glance to the past
Businesses since earliest times have known that regular
customers and positive word-of-mouth is the key to their
success. One provides a steady income, the other the basis for
new customers and growth. Sometimes big business, for all its
sophistication, loses sight of the most basic lessons.
There is a sense that if the Sumerian people who lived in
what is now troubled Iraq had written management texts they
would have written about customer loyalty and customer
advocacy. The Sumerians distinguished themselves in ancient
times as the civilization that developed writing systems to
record data. Their contemporaries in Ancient India wrote in
Sanskrit of religion, in Ancient China philosophy. The
Sumerians recorded facts, figures, bills, accounts and
inventories. They were the first bean counters and the world
has never been the same since. Sumerians were business
people, and marketers follow in their tradition – more closely
than modern marketers might care to imagine. The influence
of family was strong then, it is now – even in these fractured
times.
Brand managers need to better understand these family
influences. It is a Cinderella area of research whose time has
come. It is a vital factor to consider in building brand equity.
It is word-of-mouth steroids. Parents impart knowledge that
helps form attitudes and shape behaviours. It is the parenting
role, and it continues long after the nest is empty.
Marketing research can appear more concerned with
fashion than with reality. Reality would seem to state that
human behaviour doesn’t change all that much. Media-driven
fashion needs to generate more excitement. A message that
can be extrapolated from Gil, Andrés and Salinas’ work is
don’t lose sight of the basics.
The family unit, in all of its post-modern guises, is still the
basic building block of society, and family influence matters.
It matters more than most commentators would have the
world believe. It may be thought that in the battle of the
message the family beats the firm. The truth is that both can
win. For the heads of families there is comfort. For the firms
there is work to be done.
(A précis of the article “Family as a source of consumer-based
brand equity”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

View publication stats