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

net/publication/312353698

Measuring brand equity of foreign fashion apparels in the Indian market

Article  in  J for Global Business Advancement · January 2017

DOI: 10.1504/JGBA.2017.081533

CITATIONS READS

2 2,199

2 authors:

Saima Khan Bilal Mustafa Khan

University of Business and Technology Aligarh Muslim University
17 PUBLICATIONS   42 CITATIONS    48 PUBLICATIONS   262 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Assessment of Advertising Response Model View project

One to One Marketing of Luxury Brands View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Saima Khan on 28 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

26 J. Global Business Advancement, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2017

Measuring brand equity of foreign fashion apparels

in the Indian market

Saima Khan
Department of Marketing,
College of Business,
Effat University,
Jeddah – 21577, KSA
Email: saimakhan631@gmail.com

Bilal Mustafa Khan*

Department of Business Administration,
Aligarh Muslim University,
Aligarh – 202002, UP, India
Email: khanbilalmustafa@gmail.com
*Corresponding author

Abstract: Globalisation, high disposable income, economic prosperity and an

increasing demand for Western wear have ushered the entry of many
international fashion brands in India. Every year, internationally acclaimed
brands are affiliating to the Indian fashion industry, thereby providing
exhaustive purchase options for the modern Indian consumer and exacerbating
the market competition. This paper attempts to assess the consumer-based
brand equity (CBBE) of international fashion apparels and apprehend their
salience in the Indian market. Top five global fashion brands (as rated by
Interbrand (2012)) were selected for this study, and a structured questionnaire
was administered to over 500 respondents aged between 18 and 39 years from
six Indian metropolises. Four hundred and forty eight questionnaires were
found acceptable for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and path analysis.
The results revealed that brand awareness and brand loyalty influence brand
equity more than brand associations and perceived quality.

Keywords: global fashion apparels; brand awareness; brand association; brand

loyalty; perceived quality; brand equity; Indian consumers.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Khan, S. and Khan, B.M.
(2017) ‘Measuring brand equity of foreign fashion apparels in the Indian
market’, J. Global Business Advancement, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.26–42.

Biographical notes: Saima Khan is an Assistant Professor in the College of

Business, Effat University, Jeddah, KSA. Her specialisations are in the areas of
luxury marketing, advertising and brand communications. She has published in
various national and international journals. Besides this, she is a gold medallist
in advertising and promotion management and has been awarded a fellowship
by the Government of India to undertake her research work on account of
her merit in All India Junior Research Fellowship exam conducted by the
Indian Government. She has travelled across Europe, Middle East and
South East Asia for research activities.

Copyright © 2017 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Measuring brand equity of foreign fashion apparels in the Indian market 27

Bilal Mustafa Khan is a Senior Faculty Member in the Department of

Business Administration, Aligarh Muslim University. He was the Head
of the Department of Management Studies at Manipal University, Dubai
Campus, Dubai. He has an engineering background with an MBA
and a Doctorate in the areas of Marketing Management. His areas of interest
include advertising and brand management. He has numerous publications to
his credit, in both national and international journals, such as International
Journal of Business Transformation, International Journal of Business and
Entrepreneurship, Asia Pacific Journal of Business Administration and Journal
of Global Business Advancement.

1 Introduction

Indian economy is blooming expeditiously. Its economic growth was forecast to

surpass China by the end of 2013 and its gross domestic product (GDP) will reach US $2
trillion by 2015 (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2007). Bisson et al. (2010) state that an
emerging economy such as India is a lucrative market for global retailers owing to the
pronounced consumer demand for foreign goods. This entails an opportunity for the
foreign retailers to tap a new market as well as a challenge to sustain local competition
from domestic brands, which have a better understanding of the indigenous market.
India has exuded remarkable economic growth after switching from a socialist-driven
economy to a consumption-driven economy; this growth has boosted the purchasing
power of Indian consumers who possess a high disposable income to spend on branded
apparels (Biyani and Baishya, 2007). At present, the branded apparel market in India is a
distinctive assortment of Indian and international names to gratify the modern Indian
consumer whose choice board constitutes Indian brands such as Westside, Raymond and
Biba, on the one hand, and foreign brands such as Chanel, Dior and Louis Vuitton, on the
other hand. Also, consumers’ tastes and preferences have evolved as a result of the
increasing income levels, changing demographics, urbanisation, globalisation and
technological advancement (Bijapurkar, 2007).
Foreign brands are increasingly proliferating in the Indian apparel market but they
need to adapt themselves to match the sensibilities of Indian consumer because the
products and brands people buy, product attributes they value, and the benefits they
desire are all culturally based. Only then will these foreign brands be able to sustain in
the domestic market and withstand the local competition. In this paper, top five global
fashion brands as rated by Interbrand 2012 report (http://www.interbrand.com/en/
best-global-brands/2012/Best-Global-Brands-2012.aspx) are chosen and their brand
equity in the Indian fashion apparel market is measured. The rationale behind conducting
this study is to assess how well these brands are performing in the Indian market.
A brief literature review on brand building in the Indian apparel market and CBBE is
followed by a conceptual framework and research hypothesis. The research methodology
and data analysis are discussed, leading to the results, discussion and managerial
implications.
28 S. Khan and B.M. Khan

2 Literature review

2.1 Brand building in the Indian apparel market

The branded apparel market is the second largest segment of retail sale in India.
Previously, the entry of foreign retailers in the Indian market was restricted. Thus, only
the rich and elite class could afford foreign brands as they were high priced on account
of their limited availability (Batra et al., 2000). However, owing to post-economic
liberalisation of India in 1991, foreign brands could easily venture into the Indian apparel
market. Since then, internationally renowned brands are increasingly entering the
domestic market and competing with the local brands (Field, 2005).
Apparel is the largest segment of the apparel and non-apparel manufacturing market
in India and contributes to 66.3% of the total market value. India commands a 15.7%
share in the Asia-Pacific apparel and non-apparel manufacturing market. In 2011,
the Indian apparel and non-apparel manufacturing market recorded a growth of 14.4%
and was valued to be worth $62.4 billion. This market value is expected to reach
$130.2 billion, i.e., an increase of 108.7% by 2016 (Market Line, 2012). India boasts a
burgeoning middle class, which is economically affluent and purchases branded foreign
goods (Bharadwaj et al., 2005). Kottak (2009) attributed this purchase behaviour to the
incongruity in economic status amongst the consumers and cognition of branded fashion
apparels as a manifestation of social status.
Ideally, these products and brands are purchased, which promise emotional benefits
(e.g., display of status, wealth and prestige) and functional benefits (e.g., quality and low
price) (Batra et al., 2000). In developing countries, consumers assume the usage of
foreign brands as a powerful expression of wealth and status; they derive feelings of
pleasure, happiness and satisfaction upon buying foreign brand and thereby flash their
elevated socio-economic status (Batra et al., 2000; Bhat and Reddy, 1998; Kinra, 2006).
Indian consumers regard foreign brands to be of a superior quality than local brands
(Kinra, 2006). The fascination with Western culture persuades the consumers of
developing countries to purchase these foreign brands (Batra et al., 2000; Kinra, 2006).
Indian consumers particularly give precedence to emotional attributes over functional
attributes while purchasing a product or brand (Sinha, 2003). Kumar et al. (2009)
observed that emotional benefit plays an important role in formation of purchase
intentions of Indian consumers whether it is a local or US brand.

3 Customer-based brand equity (CBBE)

Brand equity is a core concept in brand management literature, which has been explained
and understood multifariously by the researchers (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 2003; Lassar
et al., 1995; Motameni and Shahrokhi, 1998; Park and Srinivasan, 1994; Simon and
Sullivan, 1993; Yoo and Donthu, 2001). The assessment of brand equity has evoked
serious deliberation amongst the researchers (Yoo and Donthu, 2001; de Chernatony and
McDonald, 2003; Vazquez et al., 2002). Brand equity can be understood as the value
customers hold for a brand vis a vis the competitor brands. Keller (2003) has expressed
brand equity as “a multidimensional concept and complex enough that many different
types of measures are required. Multiple measures increase the diagnostic power of
marketing research” (p.477). He further affirms that from a marketing perspective, brand
 Measuring brand equity of foreign fashion apparels in the Indian market 29

equity can be termed as consumer-based brand equity (CBBE). Lately, brand equity
engulfs the consumer’s evaluation of a brand in totality (Ford, 2005). Pappu et al. (2005)
acknowledged CBBE measurement as an arduous task in brand management.
Considerable measurement tools and methods have been employed to assess brand equity
from the consumer’s perspective but they lack homogeneity (Park and Srinivasan, 1994;
Washburn and Plank, 2002; Yoo et al., 2000). Thus, it is important to combine the
various brand equity measurement approaches and recognise a standard technique to
determine brand equity.
Brand equity concept initially focused mainly on the financial perspective, i.e., it was
employed in the process of financial valuation of the firm, but as the 1990s approached it
became popular in the field of marketing research (Barwise, 1993). Since then, enormous
research has been conducted to provide a comprehensive knowledge about the notion of
brand equity. The concept and definition of brand equity is heavily debated (Chaudhuri,
1995). Several authors have even questioned the dearth of a general conceptual
framework to explain brand equity (Vazquez et al., 2002). Academicians are stressing
both the abstraction and the development of a definite scale to assess brand equity (Yoo
and Donthu, 2001). In spite of the burgeoning popularity of the concept of brand equity,
there is a paucity of a standardised instrument that caters to brand equity measurement
from the context of consumers (de Chernatony and Mc Donald, 2003).
However, some studies have incorporated Aaker’s model of brand equity (Aaker,
1991; Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Konecnik and Gartner, 2007; Tong and Hawley, 2009),
who studied the consumers’ judgement about a brand on the premises of brand
awareness, brand image, brand loyalty and perceived quality. In this study, we have
employed the same model to measure the brand equity of foreign fashion apparel brands
in India.

4 Conceptual framework and research hypothesis

4.1 Conceptual framework

Brand equity is an important concept in marketing science. On account of its
multi-dimensional and complex nature, it has garnered substantial interest amongst the
researchers but its measurement is heavily debated (Mackay, 2001; Raggio and Leone,
2007). Christodoulides and de Chernatony (2010) suggested that the various approaches
involved in measuring and understanding brand equity made the concept a subject of
debate. The financial perspective emphasised on the value a brand brings to the company
(Simon and Sullivan, 1993; Feldwick, 1996), whereas the consumer perspective
concentrates on individual consumers when it comes to measuring and conceptualising
brand equity (Leone et al., 2006). Farquhar (1989) considered brand equity as the added
value passed on to a product by a brand. Aaker (1991) defined brand equity as ‘a set of
brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol that add to or subtract
from the value provided by a product or service to a firm or to that firm’s customers’.
Keller (1993) described brand equity as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on
consumer response to the marketing of the brand”.
CBBE measures determine the awareness, attitudes, associations, attachments and
loyalties consumers have for a brand (Keller and Lehman, 2006). These measures
identify the effect of brand equity dimensions on the overall brand equity
30 S. Khan and B.M. Khan

(Ailawadi et al., 2003; Gupta and Zeithaml, 2006). Thus, these measures are a prelude to
the brand’s performance in the future.
The exhaustive literature on brand equity endorses two major conceptual models, one
by Aaker (1991) and the other one being that of Keller (1993) as given in Figure 1.
Aaker (1991) conceives brand equity as a consolidation of five attributes – brand
awareness, perceived quality, brand association, brand loyalty and other proprietary
assets. The first four attributes are pertinent from the consumer point of view while the
last dimension is of relevance to a firm. Keller (1993) emphasised brand knowledge
and proposed that brand awareness and brand image constitute brand knowledge.
Many researchers have worked on measuring and conceptualising brand equity
considering the four dimensions, namely brand awareness, perceived quality, brand
associations and brand loyalty (e.g., Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995; Yoo et al., 2000;
Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Washburn and Plank, 2002; Ashill and Sinha, 2004; Pappu et al.,
2005; Konecnik and Gartner, 2007; Tong and Hawley, 2009; Lee and Back, 2010). In this
study, we will also be incorporating Aaker’s model to determine the brand equity of
global fashion apparels.

Figure 1 A conceptual framework for brand equity (see online version for colours)

Source: Aaker (1991)

4.2 The relationship between brand equity and brand equity dimensions
4.2.1 Perceived quality
Perceived quality can be construed as the consumer’s belief that a particular brand has
superlative features or performance in comparison with other competing brands of that
product category. The attitudinal assessment of a brand’s performance subjugates the
genuine quality of the product in case of perceived quality (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993;
Zeithaml, 1988). Brands charge a price premium on the ground of high perceived quality,
enjoy brand preference in the market and can manage successful brand extensions. Thus,
we can acknowledge perceived quality as a ‘core/primary’ attribute amongst CBBE
 Measuring brand equity of foreign fashion apparels in the Indian market 31

models (Aaker, 1996; Dyson et al., 1996; Farquhar, 1989; Keller, 1993). On the basis of
the above-mentioned discussion, the first hypothesis is as follows:
H1: Perceived quality has a significant positive direct effect on brand equity.

4.2.2 Brand awareness

Keller (2008) termed brand awareness as the phenomenon involving brand recall, brand
recognition and brand knowledge in the minds of the consumers. Brand awareness is
pivotal for the existence of brand associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty, which
have a cumulative effect on brand equity. Brand awareness is an amalgamation of two
constituents namely brand recognition and brand recall performance (Keller, 1993).
Brand recognition implies the ability of consumers to identify a brand after a previous
exposure whereas brand recall indicates the capacity of consumers to reminisce the brand
from their cognisance when a particular product category is indicated (Keller, 1993).
Huang and Sarigollu (2012) state that brand awareness precedes building brand equity.
Thus, our next hypothesis is:
H2: Brand awareness has a significant positive direct effect on brand equity.

4.2.3 Brand association

Brand association is a snapshot of a particular brand in the consumer’s mind (Aaker,
1991). Brand associations connect the performance of product with a particular brand
name or brand image (Park et al., 1991; Keller, 1993; Morton, 1994; Park and Srinivasan,
1994; Krishnan, 1996; Bridges et al., 2000) or to the performance of product based on
features, attributes and benefits consumers consort with a brand and it provides a basis
for brand differentiation (Dillon et al., 2001). Brand differentiation in turn translates into
strong brand equity. This discussion forms the basis of the third hypothesis:
H3: Brand association has a significant positive direct effect on brand equity.

4.2.4 Brand loyalty

Brand loyalty can be considered both as a predictor as well as an outcome of brand equity
(Morgan, 2000). Keller (2003) functionalised brand loyalty to be the prime facet of
CBBE. Brand loyalty can be characterised as the fondness of consumers for a particular
brand (Aaker, 1991). Consumers who are brand loyal tend to repurchase that particular
brand frequently in the longer run (Oliver, 1999). The significance of brand loyalty in the
brand equity model was identified in the case of Slovenia (Konecnik and Gartner, 2007).
To test the importance of brand loyalty for brand equity of fashion apparels, we propound
the last hypothesis.
H4: Brand loyalty has a significant positive direct effect on brand equity.

5 Methodology

India has inspired the international haute couture brands and is culled by fashion
designers all over the world as their potential market (Sharma, 2013). This provided the
32 S. Khan and B.M. Khan

background for choosing international fashion brands as the target product category to
check the above-mentioned hypothesised relationships.

5.1 Sample and data collection

India is a growing economy and the Indian consumers are economically sound enough to
indulge in purchase of branded foreign goods (Bhardwaj et al., 2005). The study focused
on young consumers between 18 and 39 years of age because this population maintains
hegemony over the consumer markets (Bhaduri and Ha-Brookshire, 2011; Williams and
Page, 2011).
The questionnaire was administered in six metropolitan cities of India namely New
Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Bangalore and Gurgaon. Two shopping malls from
each city were selected on the basis of their foot count and the consumers were requested
to fill up the questionnaire while they were having refreshments or standing in queue to
pay the shopping bills.

6 Product stimuli

Five fashion brands namely Louis Vuitton, Nike, Zara, Gucci and Adidas were chosen as
the product stimuli in the study because they featured in the list of top 100 global brands
in 2012 by Interbrand. An attempt was made to determine their brand equity in the Indian
market. The respondents were asked to pick out one brand amongst these five brands and
provide their response to the items in the questionnaire for the brand they had chosen.

7 Instrument and measures

This research employed survey method to explore the brand equity and its four
determinants (using David Aaker’s model of CBBE) and see which of the four
determinants (brand awareness, brand association, brand loyalty and perceived quality)
influences the most on the branded apparel wear. Keeping the above-mentioned objective
in mind, an instrument was devised and tested on a small sample size of 150 respondents
in New Delhi to test the reliability and validity of the instrument.
The items incorporated in the questionnaire covered the dimensions of brand equity
and overall brand equity besides the demographic questions. The responses to statements
pertaining to brand equity dimensions and brand equity were recorded on a five-point
Likert scale (5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree).

8 Data analysis

A total of 500 questionnaires were distributed but only 448 were considered valid for this
study. Fifty two questionnaires were not properly filled and were not taken into account
during data analysis. CFA analysis and path analysis were done using structural equation
modelling. A two-step approach suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was
adopted. Therefore, the reliability and validity of the measurement model was tested to
begin with and then the hypothesis testing was conducted. The goodness of fit (GFI),
 Measuring brand equity of foreign fashion apparels in the Indian market 33

adjusted goodness of fit (AGFI), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square residual
(RMR) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were employed on both
the structural and measurement model by the model fit criteria suggested by Hu and
Bentler (1999). Acceptable models should have (x2)/df ≤ 3, AGFI ≥ 0.80, RMR ≤ 0.1,
RMSEA ≤ 1.0 and GFI and CFI greater than 0.90.

9 Results

9.1 Demographic characteristics

The respondents were measured on the following demographic characteristics: gender,
age marital status and income. It was observed that 48% (n = 215) respondents were
males while 50.6% (n = 233) were females. Majority of the respondents were less than
25 years of age, i.e., 24.55% (n = 110), and 20.08% of the respondents were in the age
group of 31–35 years (n = 90) followed by those aged 36–40 years, which constituted
19.86% (n = 89) responses. However, those between 26 and 30) years were 83 in number
(18.52%) while 40 years and above age group accounted for 16.96% (n = 76). 54.01%
(n = 242) respondents were unmarried and 45.98% (n = 206) were married. Now
coming to the annual income, 23.66% (n = 106) earned between 3.5 lakh and 4.5 lakh
($6425–$8260), 22.32% (n = 100) were dependent on the pocket money given by parents,
20.09% (n = 90) drew a salary of 4.5 lakh ($8260) and above. 18.75% (n = 84) derived an
income ranging 2.5–3.5 lakh ($4590– $6425) while 15.40% (n = 69) reaped an annual
income below 2.5 lakh ($4590).
Lastly, talking about the five brands considered in this study, we got 36.16%
(n = 162) responses for Nike, 32.14% (n = 144) for Adidas, 13.61% (n = 61) for Zara,
10.04% (n = 45) for Gucci and 8.03% (n = 36) for Louis Vuitton.

9.2 Reliability and validity of measures

Cronbach’s alpha determines the internal consistency of the items and if its value R is
greater than 0.7, it means that the data is highly reliable and if R is smaller than
0.3 implies there is low reliability. Here, the value of internal consistency analysis
(Cronbach’s alpha) is 0.838, which is greater than 0.7 that implies that the data is highly
reliable.
To check the appropriateness of data, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of
sampling adequacy was conducted. High values between 0.5 and 1 indicate that factor
analysis is appropriate. The value was found to be 0.616, which implied that data is
appropriate and valid to conduct analysis.
A CFA with Amos 18.0 Graphics software (SEM package) for the measurement
model with five constructs was run. The measurement model matched the accepted
values that indicate a good model fit (df = 1.646; GFI = 0.931; AGFI = 0.951;
CFI = 0.928; and RMSEA = 0.040).
The factor loadings were found to be significant and ranged from 0.21 to 0.82, which
met the criterion of convergent validity as depicted in Table 1.
34 S. Khan and B.M. Khan

Table 1 Confirmatory factor analysis for the constructs

Standardised
Latent variables and observed indicators factor loading t-value
Perceived quality (α = 0.823) (CR = 0.827) (AVE = 0.693)
PQ1 I trust the quality of products from X 0.75 –
PQ2 The likelihood that X is reliable is very high 0.73 9.128
PQ3 Products from X offer excellent features 0.82 10.118
PQ4 The price of Brand X reflects its quality 0.69 7.462
PQ5 Brand X has the quality which cannot be easily 0.62 7.346
found in other brands
Brand awareness (α = 0.602) (CR = 0.615) (AVE = 0.547)
BAW1 Some characteristics of X come to my mind quickly 0.64 _
BAW2 I can easily identify Brand X among other Brands 0.62 5.283
BAW3 I know what X looks like 0.58 4.573
BAW4 When I think of _________________ (SPECIFY) 0.67 3.790
product, Brand X comes to my mind.
BAW5 When it comes to purchasing _________________ 0.64 4.275
(SPECIFY) product, Brand X comes to my mind
first
Brand association (α = 0.703) (CR = 0.739) (AVE = 0.617)
BASS1 I have clear idea of the kind of people who uses 0.63 _
brand X
BASS2 I respect and admire people who wear X 0.64 2.676
BASS3 I like the brand image of X 0.80 2.793
BASS4 Brand X comes from a company with a good 0.66 2.746
reputation
BASS5 X has very unique brand image, compared to 0.73 2.775
competing brands
BASS6 Brand X is associated with excitement. 0.63 2.547
BASS7 Brand X is associated with strength 0.60 2.282
Brand loyalty (α = 0.714) (CR = 0.684) (AVE = 0.649)
BL1 I would not buy other brands, if X is available at the 0.57 _
store
BL2 I consider myself to be loyal to X 0.59 4.163
BL3 I would like to buy another product of the same 0.66 3.401
brand next time
BL4 I will keep on buying X as long as it provides me 0.78 4.095
satisfied products
BL5 I am still willing to buy X even if its price is a little 0.69 3.606
higher than that of its competitors
BL6 I would love to recommend X to my friends 0.72 3.809
Overall brand equity (α = 0.71) (CR = 0.776) (AVE = 0.671)
OBEQ1 Even if another brand has the same features as X, I 0.63 2.942
would prefer to buy X
OBEQ2 If another brand is not different from X in any way, 0.71 2.119
it seems smarter to purchase
OBEQ3 X is more than a product to me 0.66 2.567
OBEQ4 With brand X I obtain what I look for in a product 0.63 –
α = Cronbach’s alpha.
‘X’ means the specific brand.
‘–’ means the path parameter was set to 1, therefore, no t-value was given.
All loadings are significant at 0.001 level.
 Measuring brand equity of foreign fashion apparels in the Indian market 35

9.3 Structural model

The statistical significance of the proposed relationship amongst the dimensions of brand
equity and overall brand equity was checked using structural equation modelling
(Figure 2). Brand awareness, brand association, perceived quality and brand loyalty were
the exogenous variables while brand equity was the endogenous variable. Brand
awareness, brand association, perceived quality and brand loyalty were found to be
inter-correlated.

Figure 2 Relationships between four dimensions of brand equity and overall brand equity
(see online version for colours)

All the four hypotheses were strongly supported, which indicated a positive and direct
role of perceived quality (β = 0.56, t = 3.357), brand awareness (β = 0.87, t = 3.343),
brand association (β = 0.67, t = 2.241) and brand loyalty (β = 0.83, t = 3.168) in affecting
brand equity. Also, perceived quality and brand association had low parameter estimates
vis-à-vis brand awareness and brand loyalty. Therefore, it was inferred that brand
awareness and brand loyalty had more pronounced effect on brand equity rather than
36 S. Khan and B.M. Khan

perceived quality and brand associations. Table 2 provides a snapshot of the hypothesis
and results.

Table 2 Results of hypothesis testing

Standardised
Hypotheses Relationships coefficient T-value P-value Results
H1 Perceived quality → brand 0.56 3.357 0.000 Supported
equity
H2 Brand awareness → brand 0.87 3.343 0.000 Supported
equity
H3 Brand association → brand 0.67 2.241 0.025 Supported
equity
H4 Brand loyalty → brand equity 0.83 3.168 0.002 Supported

Explained variance (R²) = 0.80.

10 Discussion and managerial implications

India has emerged as the hotspot for global fashion brands because the branded apparel
market in India is growing. Indian consumers are no longer price sensitive and prefer
design and quality over price when making purchases. They are experimenting with
mainstream fashion (Biswas, 2006). This has brought luxury goods, cosmopolitan
fashions and international brands into the Indian retail market.
As we know the international market has been more or less saturated and the market
growth has been stagnant, India seems to be a propitious market for the global fashion
brands. When it comes to global marketing, culture has been a strong predictor
of marketing policies as far as standardisation vs. localisation decisions are concerned
(Yoo, 2009). National culture of a particular country has a strong influence on the
diffusion of products across countries (Kumar et al., 1998). The Indian culture is
heterogeneous in nature and it becomes tricky for the marketer to identify the essence of
core Indian culture and values (Banerjee, 2008). Thus, it is imperative for these brands to
put their fingers on the sensibilities of Indian consumers to survive the competition from
international as well as domestic brands.
In this research, we have studied the CBBE of top five global fashion brands (as rated
by Interbrand (2012) report) from the perspective of Indian consumers. The results of this
study were interesting because they depicted striking contrast with the Interbrand ratings.
The ranking of global fashion brands by Interbrand (2012) was in the following order:
Louis Vuitton, H&M, Nike, Gucci, Zara and Adidas. Since H&M is yet to start its
operations in the Indian market, it was not considered in the study. But talking about the
responses gathered from Indian consumers for rest of the brands, the rankings stood as
follows: Nike, Adidas, Zara, Gucci and Louis Vuitton. This suggests that the equity of
these brands is not uniform across every country and the brands are perceived differently
in different countries. Thus, the brands need to customise their marketing and branding
strategies differently for a specific country rather than being complacent with the global
ratings and later losing market share to the competition.
 Measuring brand equity of foreign fashion apparels in the Indian market 37

Nike and Adidas have been two of the oldest foreign brands in the Indian market and
thus they enjoy first mover advantage. Zara, Gucci and Louis Vuitton have entered into
the domestic market much later. This has given Nike and Adidas an edge over the other
three brands because of the strong brand awareness, associations and loyalty Indians hold
for Nike and Adidas. However, Zara of late is catching up the fancy of Indian consumers
and has been making profit in two out of three years of its existence (Malviya and Bailey,
2013). Zara was launched in India in May 2011 in a joint venture with Trent (retail arm
of Tata Group. Mr. Vineet Gautam (country head for Best seller retail) has attributed this
success to the remarkable supply chain of Zara, which ensures fresh fashion delivery
every week, which in turn pushes the consumers to buy the product before it goes off the
shelves (Malviya and Bailey, 2013). Also, celebrities are often spotted wearing Zara to
social occasions, which have worked for the brand equity of Zara as the celebrity equity
has translated into the brand equity. Ohanian (1990) observed that the more credible and
attractive a spokesperson is the more persuasive endorser he or she will be and induce
favourable attitudes towards an endorsed brand or product. Louis Vuitton came to India
in 2003 and Gucci in 2007, but Zara clobbered both of them within three years of its
existence in the Indian fashion apparel market. Louis Vuitton and Gucci have focused
primarily on maintaining their associations as a high-end luxury brand. This narrows
down the consumer base for Louis Vuitton and Gucci in India, which is reflected in this
study as consumers have preferred lower-priced brands like Nike and Adidas.
Now, coming to the relationship between brand equity constructs and overall brand
equity, it was observed that all the four dimensions of brand equity namely brand
awareness, brand association, perceived quality and brand loyalty influenced overall
brand equity. However, the effect of brand awareness on brand equity was most
pronounced (β = 0.87, t = 3.343), which could be on account of the product stimuli taken.
Since five foreign fashion brands were used in this study, the knowledge about these
brands was important for the Indian consumers, which would lay the foundation for brand
equity development. Consumers might associate brand knowledge to brand name, which
ultimately formed brand equity (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993). Brand awareness is often
used as a purchase decision heuristic by consumers (Hoyer and brown, 1990; Macdonald
and Sharp, 1996).
Next to brand awareness, brand loyalty influenced brand equity (β = 0.83, t = 3.168).
Brand loyalty and brand equity have been acknowledged as two favoured and plausible
metrics of marketing success in the market (Rust et al., 2004). Brand loyalty cuts down
the promotional expenditures and enables the marketer to charge a price premium for its
brands as the loyal customers have strong faith in the brand proficiency, which leads to
steady and long-term profits (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). When the customers
purchase the same brand over and again, in a way they become its brand ambassadors
amongst their reference groups, which prompt non-users to try the brand and thus the
market share of the brand increases. Aaker (1991) stated that brand loyalty enables a firm
to change price premium without affecting the market share. Thus, brand loyalty is a
brand’s insurance against market competition, brand switching and brand obsolescence.
Besides brand loyalty, strong brand associations are also required to establish strong
brand identity in the market (Aaker, 1996). Brand association leads to successful brand
extensions and creates brand differentiation (Dillon et al., 2001). Owing to intense
competition, marketers these days are resorting to innovative and ingenious brand
imaging ideas that helps them maintain brand relevance and market profitability (Abend,
2000; Ailawadi, 2001). This study revealed that brand associations have a significant
38 S. Khan and B.M. Khan

impact over brand equity (β = 0.67, t = 2.241). Brand equity is predominantly a derivative
of brand associations held in the minds of consumers that creates unique brand image
(Keller, 2008; Yasin et al., 2007). Bello and Holbrook (1995) said that if consumers have
to choose amongst brands with similar product quality, they will prefer the one that has
sounder brand association. Perceived quality is also a quintessential attribute of brand
equity, and its relationship with brand equity in the present research was (β = 0.56,
t = 3.357). Purchase decisions and customer evaluations are primarily governed by
perceived quality. Perceived quality stands for the perceptions a consumer holds about a
product’s fineness or perfection (Zeithaml, 1988). It is imperative for a particular brand
to continue improving its product quality to develop a strong brand equity, which puts
them in a position to charge price premiums and also inculcate brand goodwill amongst
the consumers. Perceived quality also shields the brand from market competition and
catapults market profitability.

11 Future research directions

This study focused specifically on international fashion apparel brands; local apparel
brands can be considered and a comparison between brand equities of international and
domestic brands can be done. Similarly, the research can also be conducted in smaller
cities, which would represent a larger segment of Indian consumers and uncover many
interesting and fruitful insights for the brand managers, which can be later considered in
brand strategy formulation keeping these consumers in mind. Apart from fashion
apparels, brand equity of FMCG products, consumer durables, cosmetics, accessories,
smart phones, automobiles, etc., can be measured.
The interaction amongst brand equity constructs was not probed in this research and
this interaction can be taken into account in future studies. Furthermore, there are various
approaches to studying brand equity besides David Aaker’s approach. Thus, Keller’s
model of brand equity, Franzen’s Brand Equity model or Kapferer’s Brand Equity model
can be employed instead of David Aaker’s Brand Equity model. Lastly, firm-based brand
equity measurement can also be included in the later studies.

References
Aaker, D.A. (1991) Managing Brand Equity, Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. (1996) Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Abend, J. (2000) ‘Battle of the brands’, Bobbin, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp.36–40.
Ailawadi, K.L. (2001) ‘The retail power-performance conundrum: What have we learnt’, Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 77, No. 3, pp.299–318.
Ailawadi, K.L., Lehmann, D.R. and Neslin, S.A. (2003) ‘Revenue premium as an outcome measure
of brand equity’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67, No. 4, pp.1–17.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988) ‘Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, No. 3, pp.411–423.
Ashill, N.J. and Sinha, A. (2004) ‘An exploratory study into the impact of components of brand
equity and country of origin effects on purchase intention’, Journal of Asia – Pacific Business,
Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.27–43.
 Measuring brand equity of foreign fashion apparels in the Indian market 39

Banerjee, S. (2008) ‘Dimensions of Indian culture, core cultural values and marketing implications
– an analysis’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15, No. 4,
pp.367–378.
Barwise, P. (1993) ‘Brand equity: snark or boojum?’, International Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.93–104.
Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. and Ramachander, S. (2000)
‘Effects of brand local and non-local origin on consumer attitudes in developing countries’,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.83–95.
Bello, D.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1995) ‘Does an absence of brand equity generalize across product
classes?’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp.125–131.
Bhaduri, G. and Ha-Brookshire, J.E (2011) ‘Do transparent business practices pay? Exploration of
transparency and consumer purchase intention’, Clothing & Textiles Research Journal,
Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.135–149.
Bharadwaj, V.T., Swaroop, G. and Vittal, I. (2005) ‘Winning the Indian consumer’, The McKinsey
Quarterly (Special Edition), pp.42–51.
Bhat, S. and Reddy, S.K. (1998) ‘Symbolic and functional positioning of brands’, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.32–43.
Bijapurkar, R. (2007) We Are Like That Only: Understanding the logic of consumers in India,
Penguin Group, New Delhi.
Bisson, P., Krikland, R. and Stephenson, E. (June 2010) The Great Rebalancing, McKinsey
Quaterly, https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/PDFDownload.aspx?ar=2627 (Accessed on
6 April, 2012).
Biswas, R. (2006) ‘India’s changing consumers’, Chain Store Age, Vol. 82, No. 5, pp.2–6.
Biyani, K. and Baishya, D. (2007) It Happened in India, Rupa & Co, New Delhi.
Bridges, S., Keller, K.L. and Sood, S. (2000) ‘Explanatory links and the perceived fit of brand
extensions: the role of dominant parent brand associations and communication strategies’,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.1–11.
Chaudhuri, A. (1995) ‘Brand equity or double jeopardy?’, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.26–32.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001) ‘The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect
to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, No. 2,
pp.81–93.
Christodoulides, G. and de Chernatony, L. (2010) ‘Consumer based brand equity conceptualization
and measurement: a literature review’, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 52,
No. 1, pp.43–66.
Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Beal, C. and Donthu, N. (1995) ‘Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase
intent’, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.25–40.
de Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (2003) Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer, Service and
Industrial Markets, 3rd ed., Elsevier, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
Dillon, W.R., Madden, T.J., Kirmani, A. and Mukherjee, S. (2001) ‘Understanding what’s in a
brand rating: a model for assessing brand and attribute effects and their relationship to brand
equity’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp.415–429.
Dyson, P., Andy, F. and Nigel, S.H. (1996) ‘Understanding measuring and using brand equity’,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 36, No. 6, pp.9–21.
Farquhar, P.H. (1989) ‘Managing brand equity’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 1, No. 3,
pp.24–33.
Feldwick, P. (1996) ‘What is brand equity anyway, and how do you measure it?’, Journal of the
Market Research Society, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp.85–104.
Field, A. (2005) Passage to India, http://retailtrafficmag.com (Accessed on 3 April, 2010).
Ford, K. (2005) Brands Laid Bare: Using Market Research for Evidence-Based Brand
Management, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
40 S. Khan and B.M. Khan

Gupta, S. and Zeithaml, V. (2006) ‘Customer metrics and their impact on financial performance’,
Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp.718–739.
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.141–148.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999) ‘Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives’, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6, No. 1,
pp.1–55.
Huang, R. and Sarigollu, E. (2012) ‘How brand awareness relates to market outcome, brand equity
and the marketing mix’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65, No. 1, pp.92–99.
Interbrand (2012) http://www.bestglobalbrands.com/previous-years/2012 (Accessed 20 December,
2012).
Keller, K.L. (1993) ‘Conceptualizing, measuring and managing brand equity’, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp.1–22.
Keller, K.L. (2003) ‘Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge’, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.595–600.
Keller, K.L. (2008) Strategic Brand Management, 3rd ed., Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D. (2006) ‘Brands and branding: research findings and future
priorities’, Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp.740–759.
Kinra, N. (2006) ‘The effect of country-of-origin on foreign brand names in the Indian market’,
Market Intelligence Planning, Vol.24, No. 1, pp.15–30.
Konecnik, M. and Gartner, W.C. (2007) ‘Customer-based brand equity for a destination’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp.400–421.
Kottak, C.P. (2009) Prime Time Society: An Anthropological Analysis of Television and Culture,
Updated Edition, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
Krishnan, H.S. (1996) ‘Characteristics of memory associations: a consumer based brand equity
perspective’, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.389–405.
Kumar, A., Lee, H.J. and Kim, Y.K. (2009) ‘Indian consumer’s purchase intention towards a
United States versus local brand’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62, No. 5, pp.521–527.
Kumar, V., Jaishankar, G. and Echambadi, R. (1998) ‘Cross-national diffusion research: what dowe
know and how certain are we?’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 15, No. 3,
pp.255–268.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995) ‘Measuring customer-based brand equity’, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12, No.4, pp.11–19.
Lee, J.S. and Back, K.J. (2010) ‘Reexamination of attendee-based brand equity’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.395–401.
Leone, P.R., Rao, V.R., Keller, K.L., Luo, A.M., McAlister, L. and Srivastava, R. (2006) ‘Linking
brand equity to customer equity’, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.125–138.
Macdonald, E. and Sharp, B. (1996) ‘Management perceptions of the importance of brand
awareness as an indication of advertising effectiveness’, Marketing Research On-Line,
pp.1–15.
Mackay, M.M. (2001) ‘Evaluation of brand equity measures: further empirical results’, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.38–51.
Malviya, S. and Bailey, R. (February 5, 2013) Zara's Indian unit Inditex Trent Made Profits in Two
Out of the Three Years, http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com (Accessed on 18 April,
2013).
Market Line (May 2012) Apparel and Non Apparel Manufacturing in India, www.marketline.com
(Accessed on 12 April, 2013).
Morgan, R.P. (2000) ‘A customer-oriented framework of brand equity and loyalty’, International
Journal of Market Research, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp.65–120.
 Measuring brand equity of foreign fashion apparels in the Indian market 41

Morton, J. (1994) ‘Predicating brand preference’, Marketing Management, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.32–44.
Motameni, R. and Shahrokhi, M. (1998) ‘Brand equity valuation: a global perspective’, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.275–290.
Ohanian, R. (1990) ‘Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorser's
perceived expertise, trustworthiness and attractiveness’, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 19,
No. 3, pp.39–52.
Oliver, R.L. (1999) ‘Whence customer loyalty?’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, No. 1,
pp.33–44.
Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W. (2005) ‘Consumer-based brand equity: improving the
measurement, empirical evidence’, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 14,
No. 3, pp.143–154.
Park, C.S. 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.271–288.
Park, C.W., Milberg, S. and Lawson, R. (1991) ‘Evaluation of brand extensions: the role of product
feature similarity and brand concept consistency’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18,
No. 2, pp.185–193.
Pricewaterhouse Coopers (2007) Expanding Frontiers: Gearing up on New Opportunities. Retail
Consumer Worlds, http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/retail-consumer/pdf/encart_60.pdf,
January (Accessed on 11 May, 2011).
Raggio, R.D. and Leone, R.P. (2007) ‘The theoretical separation of brand equity and brand value:
Managerial implications for strategic planning’, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14,
No. 5, pp.380–395.
Rust, R.T., Lemon, K.N. and Zeithaml, V.A. (2004) ‘Return on marketing: using customer equity
to focus marketing strategy’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, No.1, pp.109−127.
Sharma, G. (2013) Vindaloo in Vogue, Times News Network, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com,
22 February (Accessed on 11 March, 2013).
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.28–53.
Sinha, P.K. (2003) ‘Shopping orientation in the evolving Indian market’, Journal of Decision
Makers, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.13–22.
Tong, X. and Hawley, J.M. (2009) ‘Measuring customer-based brand equity: empirical evidence
from the sportswear market in China’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 18,
No. 4, pp.262–271.
Vazquez, R., Belen del Rio, A. and Iglesias, V. (2002) ‘Consumer-based brand equity:
development and validation of a measurement instrument’, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 18, No. 1, 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.46–62.
Williams, K.C. and Page, R.A. (2011) ‘Marketing to the generations’, Journal of Behavioral
Studies in Business, Vol.3, pp.1–17.
Yasin, N.M., Noor, M.N. and Mohamad, O. (2007) ‘Does image of country-of-origin matter to
brand equity?’, Journal of Product & Brand Management Management, Vol. 16, No. 1,
pp.38–48.
Yoo, B. (2009) ‘Cross-national invariance of the effect of personal collectivistic orientation on
brand loyalty and equity’, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 21, No. 1,
pp.41–57.
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.
 42 S. Khan and B.M. Khan

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, No. 3, pp.2–22.

Bibliography
Khan, B.M. (2008) ‘Consumers and their brands: deciphering dimensions of loyalty’, International
Journal of Business Insights and Transformation, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.23–32.
Khan, B.M. and Khan, S. (2012b) ‘Brand experience: the emerging paradigm’, Synergy Journal,
Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.27–39.
Khan, B.M. and Khan, S. (2013) ‘Effect of humorous advertising on brand recognition’,
IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.7–36.
Khan, S. (2013) ‘Predictors of fashion clothing involvement amongst Indian youth’, International
Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.70–79.
Khan, S. and Khan, B.M. (2012a) ‘Brand power of fair & lovely (a case study on fair & lovely
fairness cream)’, Asia Pacific Marketing Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.104–114.
Khan, S. and Khan, B.M. (2013) ‘How advertising works: an empirical assessment of advertising
research model’, in Silva, S.D., Laghate, K. and Parab, B. (Eds.): Managing Business in
Turbulent Times, Excel Publisher, New Delhi, pp.535–541.

View publication stats