Brands spend huge sums of monetary and non-monetary efforts on

marketing mix elements to enhance the value for customers and the
customers’ point of view that how they perceive those efforts and
does they actually enhance the value for the customers .
12/15/2022
SUBMITTED TO: SIR ASHFAQUE
BANBHAN

Presented by
QASIM ALI ABBASI 2K20/BF/56
HASNAIN HAIDER 2K20/BF/30
SHAHZEB KHALIQUE 2K20/BF/91
SALAMAT ALI 2K20/BF/83
SAFIULLAH BHATTI 2K20/BF/79
Contents
Acknowledgement.................................................................................................................................3
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................4
1.1 Overview and Background.........................................................................................................4
1.2 Problem Statement....................................................................................................................4
1.3 Research Objectives...................................................................................................................4
1.3.1 General Research Objective:.................................................................................................4
1.3.2 Specific Research Objective:.................................................................................................4
1.4 Theory:............................................................................................................................................4
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................................5
A: HIGH PRICE AND BRAND EQUITY...................................................................................................5
B: HIGH PRICE AND PERCEIVED QUALITY...........................................................................................5
C: PERCIEVED QUALITY AND BRAND EQUITY:....................................................................................5
D: ADVERTISING SPENDING AND PERCIEVED QUALITY:....................................................................5
E: ADVERTISING SPENDING AND BRAND EQUITY..............................................................................5
F: STORE IMAGE AND PERCIEVED QUALITY.......................................................................................6
G: STORE IMAGE AND BRAND EQUITY...............................................................................................6
H: DISTRIBUTION INTENSITY AND PERCEIVED QUALITY....................................................................6
I: DISTRIBUTION INTENSITY AND BRAND EQUITY..............................................................................6
Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODS...........................................................................................................6
3.1 Data Collection:...........................................................................................................................6
3.2 Technique for Sampling:..............................................................................................................6
3.3 Sample Size:.................................................................................................................................7
3.4 Instrument of Data Collection:.....................................................................................................7
3.5 Conceptual Framework:...............................................................................................................7
3.6 Data Cleaning and Analysis:.........................................................................................................7
Chapter 4: RESULTS...............................................................................................................................8
4.1 Interpretation of the Findings:.....................................................................................................8
4.1.1 Table 1: Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) Scores......................................................................8
4.1.2 Table 2: R-Square:.................................................................................................................8
4.1.3 Table 3: Loadings, Ave and composite reliability..................................................................8
4.1.4 Table 4: Bias of Indirect effect..............................................................................................8
4.1.5 Table 5: Hypothesis Assessment Summary:..........................................................................9
Chapter 5: DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................................10
5.1 Price:..........................................................................................................................................10
 5.2 Store Image:..............................................................................................................................10
5.3 Distribution Intensity:................................................................................................................10
5.4 Advertising Spending:................................................................................................................11
5.5 Perceived Quality.......................................................................................................................11
6.1 Limitation......................................................................................................................................11
6.2 Future Research possibilities........................................................................................................11
Appendices..........................................................................................................................................12
Questionnaire..............................................................................................................................12
References...........................................................................................................................................12
 Acknowledgement

All thanks to Almighty Allah, the most merciful and beneficent, who, gave us strength to
accomplish our research project successfully. History of all great work is to witness that no
great work was ever done without support of you delegating hardworking team efforts. We
would submit our heartiest gratitude to our instructor pro. Ashfaque Banbhan his sincere and
continuous efforts to guide and help us for completing this project. We all group members
have put our full efforts in this project. Furthermore, we would like to express our deepest
appreciation to all those who assisted us to complete this report.
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview and Background
Companies perform various marketing mix activities to create value for the customers
and then create value for the firm through various brands available in the market. For that,
they use different marketing tactics to enhance the brand image and make it to reach as a first
priority of consumers list when they are trying to buy that product. Since, customers go
through different decision making processes cognitively it is necessary to understand how
brands can affect their decision making and alter their choice and prefer a specific brand and
become loyal towards that brand. Hence, marketing mix efforts are the four main areas where
brands have the room to play. Therefore, companies use these efforts and try their best in
order to achieve the trust and loyalty of customers.

1.2 Problem Statement

Brands spend huge sums of monetary and non-monetary efforts on marketing mix
elements to enhance the value for customers and create the brand equity in the minds of its
customers, hence it is necessary to understand the customers’ point of view that how they
perceive those efforts and does they actually enhance the value for the customers.

1.3 Research Objectives

1.3.1 General Research Objective:
The primary object of the research is to see whether the various marketing mix efforts
actually affect the perceived quality in mind of customer then after does it actually affect the
overall brand equity as judged by the customers. Hence, we have tried to see the four
marketing mix elements’ i.e. Price, Store Image, Distribution Intensity, Advertising
Spending, impact on the overall customer based brand equity and then after what mediating
role does perceived quality play for these variables in affecting the brand equity of the
brands.
1.3.2 Specific Research Objective:
 To see the impact of High Pricing on Brand Equity then after its impact with
mediating effect of Perceived Quality.
 To see the impact of Store Image on Brand Equity then after its impact with
mediating effect of Perceived Quality.
 To see the impact of Distribution Intensity on Brand Equity then after its impact with
mediating effect of Perceived Quality.
 To see the impact of Advertising Spending on Brand Equity then after its impact with
mediating effect of Perceived Quality.

1.4 Theory:
There are various theories in literature that are used to judge the customer based brand
equity, and we have used one of the renowned theory called Aaker Brand Equity Model and
have selected one aspect of perceived quality from it to analyze the marketing mix efforts and
their impact on customer based brand equity.
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

A: HIGH PRICE AND BRAND EQUITY

Companies use various strategies to increase sales, attract customers and perform
various other marketing activities. But, every brand is known by its equity that it has created
in the minds of consumers. Since, brand equity is a very crucial aspect for every brand, it is
necessary to understand what role pricing plays in affecting the brand equity. (Marta Iglesias-
M. Guillén, 2004) suggested that monetary and non-monetary losses associated with the
transaction is insignificant in affecting the perceived value by the customer. In order to better
understand the impact of price on brand equity we have perform the study on shoe industry in
our context of developing countries to see what role price play in affecting the brand equity.

B: HIGH PRICE AND PERCEIVED QUALITY

Pricing also plays its role on the decision making of the customers’ buying behavior.
According to (Dodds et al. 1991; Zeithaml 1988) low price is associated with increased value
perceived by the customer, hence it plays a significant role in affecting the perceived quality
of the customer. In order to understand this phenomenon we have carried out our analysis to
understand its mediating role on brand equity.

C: PERCIEVED QUALITY AND BRAND EQUITY:

Brand equity might be reflected as an appearance of a brand’s current market value
and estimated future possible in terms of its business utility (Bednarik, 2005). Brand equity
measurements includes four factors i.e. perceived quality, brand awareness, brand
associations and brand loyalty (Aaker, 1991). Consumer satisfaction might similarly be an
essential factor in determining how consumer perceives the quality (Dabholkar, 1995.
Consumer’s judgment about the “excellence or superiority” of the product is called as
Perceived quality (Zeithaml, 1988). Similar research was the effect of perceived quality on
brand equity: an empirical study on generic drugs (Nath Sanyal, S., & Datta, S. K., 2011).
D: ADVERTISING SPENDING AND PERCIEVED QUALITY:
Research proposes that advertising spending has great influence on the perception of
consumers that plays a key role in shaping their attitude, it also proposes that advertisement
spending has minor impacts on perceived quality, there are many reasons for that. (Hameed,
F. 2013). This research was also supported by (Muqaddas, M. F., & Ahmad, I. 2016)
E: ADVERTISING SPENDING AND BRAND EQUITY.
Promotions and Advertising has significant relationship with brand equity in the
industry of IT, companies belonging to IT who spends more on advertising tend to build a
strong awareness and association, which ultimately leads to high brand equity.
Its results
prove the effective role of the individual’s attitude toward advertis-
ing in promoting the brand equity. The deficiency of advertising
in affecting the perceived quality and brand association, and the
inefficacy of nonmonetary promotions on brand equity are the
fascinating ramifications. In addition, the findings show that busi-
nesses can improve the process of the brand equity management by
contemplating the relations between the dimensions of the brand
equity.
Its results
prove the effective role of the individual’s attitude toward advertis-
ing in promoting the brand equity. The deficiency of advertising
in affecting the perceived quality and brand association, and the
inefficacy of nonmonetary promotions on brand equity are the
fascinating ramifications. In addition, the findings show that busi-
nesses can improve the process of the brand equity management by
contemplating the relations between the dimensions of the brand
equity.
Its results
prove the effective role of the individual’s attitude toward advertis-
ing in promoting the brand equity. The deficiency of advertising
in affecting the perceived quality and brand association, and the
inefficacy of nonmonetary promotions on brand equity are the
fascinating ramifications. In addition, the findings show that busi-
nesses can improve the process of the brand equity management by
contemplating the relations between the dimensions of the brand
equity.
Its results
prove the effective role of the individual’s attitude toward advertis-
ing in promoting the brand equity. The deficiency of advertising
in affecting the perceived quality and brand association, and the
inefficacy of nonmonetary promotions on brand equity are the
fascinating ramifications. In addition, the findings show that busi-
nesses can improve the process of the brand equity management by
contemplating the relations between the dimensions of the brand
equity.
Its results
prove the effective role of the individual’s attitude toward advertis-
ing in promoting the brand equity. The deficiency of advertising
in affecting the perceived quality and brand association, and the
inefficacy of nonmonetary promotions on brand equity are the
fascinating ramifications. In addition, the findings show that busi-
nesses can improve the process of the brand equity management by
contemplating the relations between the dimensions of the brand
equity.
Its results
prove the effective role of the individual’s attitude toward advertis-
ing in promoting the brand equity. The deficiency of advertising
in affecting the perceived quality and brand association, and the
inefficacy of nonmonetary promotions on brand equity are the
fascinating ramifications. In addition, the findings show that busi-
nesses can improve the process of the brand equity management by
contemplating the relations between the dimensions of the brand
equity.REsearchesRvghs prove the effective role of the individual’s attitude toward advertis-
Research regarding to the promoting impact on the brand equity. The lake of
advertising affects the brand association and perceived quality. Along with that, the findings
illustrate that there can be improvement made in businesses by the process of the brand
equity management and planning the relationships between the dimensions of the brand
equity. (Nikabadi, M. S., Safui, M. A., & Agheshlouei, H. (2015).
F: STORE IMAGE AND PERCIEVED QUALITY

The overall atmosphere of store. Its interior as well as exterior look enhances the
customer experience while shopping. Hence to better understand its influence on customers’
buying decision the literature suggests store quality atmosphere positively influence the
perception of customers. Furthermore, convenience, quality, and value of store positively
influence the affective dimension of brands’ image. (Archna Vahie-Audhesh Paswan, 2006).

G: STORE IMAGE AND BRAND EQUITY

It is important to understand what role does store image play on increasing or
decreasing the brand equity of a brand because brands invest heavily on their store to place
their products in the eyes of customers. Literature suggests that celebrity endorsement,
sponsorships, image of store put significant impact on overall brand image as perceived by
the customers. (Taylor, G., Tong, X., & Hawley, J. M. (2009)). Furthermore, Retailing in an
effective way also creates a value for brand in the minds of customers. With improved
satisfaction the customers’ loyalty towards brand also increases. Dennis, C., King, T., &
Martenson, R. (2007).

H: DISTRIBUTION INTENSITY AND PERCEIVED QUALITY

All of the process involved throughout the distribution channel has greater impact on
the quality of the product (Patel, A., Norris, P., Gauld, R., & Rades, T., 2009). Distribution
quality and Product quality both play very much crucial role on Perceived quality in the
minds of customers (Korneliussen, T., & Grønhaug, K., 2003). Quality product on affordable
prices are elements which customers’ mind creates automatically at the time of decision
making of purchasing goods.
I: DISTRIBUTION INTENSITY AND BRAND EQUITY
Brand‐building and Retailer‐based brand equity actions are main reasons of the
success of businesses. Sridhar Samu, Preeti Krishnan Lyndem, Reginald A. Litz (2012).
Additional he communicated that distribution channels are as like as message conveying
networks, Customers in brand cultures show their strong brand loyalty in the form of
consumption and their societal choices of their respective brands. (Algesheimer et al., 2005).
Businesses look at these societies as a progressive growth so they spend/invest more in order
to make brand loyalty stronger than before (Hanlon, 2006; Lindstrom, 2005)

Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODS

3.1 Data Collection:
For our research purpose we chose to perform this study on shoe brands because shoe
brands that we have chosen as our sample produce, sell, and perform all of the business
activities by themselves. So, in order to understand how these brands are perceived by their
customers and how consumer based brand equity is created by them is primary purpose of
this study. Hence, this study was carried out on three shoe brands. i.e. Bata, Borjan, and
Servis.
3.2 Technique for Sampling:
We have used non-probabilistic sampling distribution, and since the population was
the customers who wear shoe brands especially in developing countries context. We have
considered unknown population.
3.3 Sample Size:
As our population was shoe buying customers we went to the exclusive outlets of
three above mentioned brands, and collected data from customers one by one requesting them
to take five minutes in filling the questionnaire. Since, the population was unknown we took
a sample of 385 shoe buyers as suggested by Cochran formula (Cochran, W.G. (1977).
Sampling techniques (3rd Edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons).
3.4 Instrument of Data Collection:
Our data collection instrument was Questionnaire with 5 Likert Scale. The validity
and reliability of questionnaire is authenticated as it was acquired by one of the renowned
publication “An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix Elements and Brand Equity” ( Yoo,
B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000)). 

3.5 Conceptual Framework:

Price

Store
Image

Perceived
Brand
Quality of
Equity
Brand

Distribution
Intensity

Advertising
Spending
3.6 Data Cleaning and Analysis:
For coding and cleaning of Data SPSS was used. In SPSS we can
re-code variables, create new variables, and label and format data. (Kpolovie, 2017). For
analysis of data we used Smart PLS Structural Equation Modeling because it does not require
centrally distributed data. (Ringle et.al, 2015).
Chapter 4: RESULTS
4.1 Interpretation of the Findings:
4.1.1 Table 1: Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) Scores
Variables Brand Equity Perceived Quality
Advertising Spending 2.052 2.052
Distribution Intensity 1.927 1.927
Store Image 1.710 1.710
Price 1.598 1.598

Table 1 shows the co-linearity statistics among variables, as it is illustrated in above table that
VIF score is below 5. It means there is no co-linearity among the independent variables. SO
dependent variables can be predicted independently (Hair et al., 2011)
4.1.2 Table 2: R-Square:
Variables R-Square
Brand Equity 0.524
Perceived Quality 0.605

Here Table 2 shows the statistical results of R-Square, our model predicts 0.524 or
approximately 52.4% as a direct effect which means without mediating role. On the other
hand result shows that there is 0.605 or almost 60.5% as a mediation effect. R-Square
resulting 0.1 or (10%) or greater in research of social sciences are acceptable (Falk& Miller,
1992).
4.1.3 Table 3: Loadings, Ave and composite reliability
Variables Composite Reliability Cronbach's
Alpha rho_A
AS 0.86 0.771 0.819
BE 0.898 0.83 0.834
DI 0.924 0.876 0.878
PQ 0.814 0.74 0.752
PRICE 0.897 0.77 0.772
SI 0.722 0.75 0.467

Internal Consistent reliability hence verified that resulted into greater than 0.7, and on the
other hand Cronbach's Alpha is also greater than 0.7 (Henson, 2001)

4.1.4 Table 4: Bias of Indirect effect

Hypothesis Original Sample (O) Sample Mean (M) Bias 2.50% 97.50%

AS -> BE 0.23 0.233 0.003 0.102 0.343

 AS -> PQ 0.255 0.254 -0.002 0.12 0.388

DI -> BE 0.369 0.368 0 0.231 0.498

DI -> PQ 0.165 0.164 -0.001 0.044 0.283

PRICE -> 0.109 0.109 0 -0.014 0.23

BE

PRICE -> 0.142 0.142 0 0.016 0.27

PQ

SI -> BE 0.158 0.159 0 0.018 0.309

SI -> PQ 0.379 0.386 0.007 0.225 0.522

Table 4 shows that Confidence interval bias of indirect effect does not include zero between
upper and lower interval. So, statistical results suggest that our mediation effect is justified.
Mediation effect of our model is justified by Bootstrapping approach (Preacher & Hayes,
2006, 2008)

4.1.5 Table 5: Hypothesis Assessment Summary:

Hypothesis Original Sample Standard T Statistics (| P

Sample (O) Mean (M) Deviation O/STDEV|) Values
(STDEV)

AS -> BE 0.23 0.233 0.062 3.713 0

AS -> PQ 0.255 0.254 0.068 3.767 0

DI -> BE 0.369 0.368 0.068 5.451 0

DI -> PQ 0.165 0.164 0.061 2.704 0.007

PRICE -> BE 0.109 0.109 0.063 1.744 0.081

PRICE -> PQ 0.142 0.142 0.065 2.188 0.029

SI -> BE 0.158 0.159 0.074 2.144 0.032

SI -> PQ 0.379 0.386 0.076 4.97 0

Table 5 shows statistical results of Assessment Summary, in which all hypothesis are supported at
95% level of confidence except only one (Price on Perceived Quality) and there is 5% significance
level with the use of one-tailed test.
Chapter 5: DISCUSSION
This study focused on the impact of marketing mix elements on the overall brand
equity with the mediating role of Perceived quality. In order to perform our study we selected
shoe industry and chosen three major brands of Pakistan’s local market consisting Bata,
Servis, and Borjan. The perceived quality as a mediator was taken from Aaker Brand Equity
model (Aaker 1997). The original model proposed by Aaker 1997 consisted of three elements
i.e. (Perceived Quality, Brand Loyalty, Brand awareness/association). We took one element
from that model that is perceived Quality and the rest is recommended for future research in
developing countries of our context. The independent variables were chosen as High Price,
Store Image, Distribution Intensity, and Advertising Spending as perceived by customers.
The main purpose of this study is to understand the impact of marketing mix elements
that are performed by various brands. The same study was performed in context of developed
countries i.e. USA, and South Korea. But, our purpose was to perform this study and get
insights in the context of developing countries where a lot of unregistered local brands are
playing so how they influence and impact the consumer based brand equity of registered and
well-known brands. Hence in our study we have chosen to understand the direct impact of
above mentioned marketing mix efforts on brand equity as well as with the mediation of
consumers’ perceived quality. And so, we are taking the independent variables and looking at
the results of their impacts on brand equity directly as well as with the mediator.
5.1 Price:
Price is an important factor in decision making of any consumer while buying any
product. Specially goods that are of daily usage like shoes. To see whether the high price is
positively related with brand equity and with perceived quality, the results concluded that
Price is has no positive relation with Brand Equity. But, Price is positively related with the
mediator of perceived quality. Hence, we can get insight from this finding that consumers are
bit price sensitive while buying shoes and higher price make them switch to other brands to
get higher utility, but on the other hand the positive relation of price with perceived quality
shows that higher price creates the image that product is of good quality and if they pay
higher to buy a shoe it would be of a good quality. Hence, higher price increases the
perceived quality of the consumer about product.
5.2 Store Image:
Store Image also plays an important role in overall perception of consumer about the
product. Since, the results showed an overall positive relation of store image with the brand
equity and perceived quality. It can be stated that, if the store is well maintained and
attractive it has a better chance of making a perception in minds of consumer about the
product they buy from that store.

5.3 Distribution Intensity:

It is significantly important if a brand wants to succeed in creating a greater brand
equity for consumers. Distribution is also important because if consumer wants a particular
product and it is not easily available then it makes the situation irritating for consumers.
Hence, a proper supply chain and easily availability of goods makes it really effective for
brands to improve their brand equity. Considering this, findings of our study are consistent
with the overall importance of distribution intensity that it is positively related with both
brand equity and perceived quality of the products perceived by buyers. Hence, brands should
focus on making the distribution intensity more efficient and effective.
5.4 Advertising Spending:
Where brands spend millions and expect the returns, boost in sales and better
positioning of that brand in the minds of target market. Therefore, it is significantly important
to understand the role of advertising spending on brand equity and perceived quality of
product. Our research findings, as shown in results above, show a positive relation of
advertising Spending on Brand Equity and Perceived Quality of products and consumers
perceive the product more prestigious if the product’s advertisement is perceived expensive.
5.5 Perceived Quality
It is necessary to understand because it is one of the determining factor of consumers’
perception about any product and/or service. Hence, how brands can affect this perceived
quality and create a strongly positive perception of that product makes it important to study
and understand those factors. In our study, we have tried to incorporate the four prime
elements of marketing mix elements and have used the perceived quality as a mediator for the
dependent variable of Brand Equity. And as per our findings, there is a positive relation
between the perceived quality and brand equity.

6.1 Limitation
The study was performed within a short period of 18 months, and this was our first
project in the field of research, but with the great support of our supervisor we made it
happen to conduct and fulfill this whole research project within such short interval of time.
The main limitation was using only one mediator to testify the customer based brand equity
which was perceived quality as shown in conceptual framework model of our project. But,
Aaker model consist of four aspects i.e. Brand Loyalty, Brand Awareness, Brand Association
and Perceived Quality. Hence, due to time and expertise constraint we just made it to
conclude our research using one mediator from Aaker Model.

6.2 Future Research possibilities

This research was not performed in the developing countries context, and our research
contribution was to perform it in our context of a developing country. As per the findings and
results, we have set the grounds about the validation and authenticity of this research and so
future research aspirants can perform this study using rest of the mediators of Aaker Model of
Brand Equity. Furthermore, we chose to perform this study on shoe brands only. Hence,
Researchers can also select other industries and run analysis to understand the impact of these
factors in rest of the industries.
 Appendices
Questionnaire

English Questionnaire
Questionnaire
Note: We are students of Sukkur IBA University conducting this survey for looking at
consumer’s preferences. We appreciate your participation in this regard and data provided
through this survey will be kept confidential to be used for research purpose only.
Bata Servis Borjan
X represents your selected brand

Sr.no Questions Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Agree Disagree
Price
01 The price of Xc is high.
02 The price of X is low.
03 X is expensive.
Store image
04 The stores where I can buy X carry products of high quality.
05 The stores where I can buy X would be of high quality.
06 The stores where I can buy X have well-known brands.
Distribution intensity
07 More stores sell X, as compared to its competing brands.
08 The number of the stores that deal with X is more than that
of its competing brands.
09 X is distributed through as many stores as possible.
Advertising spending
10 X is intensively advertised.
11 The ad campaigns for X seem very expensive, compared to
campaigns for competing brands.
12 The ad campaigns for X are seen frequently.
Perceived quality
13 X is of high quality.
14 The likely quality of X is extremely high.
15 The likelihood that X would be functional is very high.
16 The likelihood that X is reliable is very high.
17 X must be of very good quality.
18 X appears to be of very poor quality.
Overall brand equity (OBE)
19 It makes sense to buy X instead of any other brand, even if
they are the same.
20 Even if another brand has same features as X, I would prefer
to buy X.
21 If there is another brand as good as X, I prefer to buy X.
22 If another brand is not different from X in any way, it seems
smarter to purchase X.
URDU QUESTIONNAIRE FILLED AND UNFILLED

G
References
Aaker, D. A., & Equity, M. B. (1991). Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. New
York, 28(1), 35-37.
Pedraja Iglesias, M., & Jesus Yagüe Guillén, M. (2004). Perceived quality and price: their
impact on the satisfaction of restaurant customers.  International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 16(6), 373-379.
Marta Iglesias-M. Guillén - International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management –
2004
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store
information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of marketing research, 28(3), 307-319.
Pedraja Iglesias, M., & Jesus Yagüe Guillén, M. (2004). Perceived quality and price: their
impact on the satisfaction of restaurant customers.  International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 16(6), 373-379.
Nath Sanyal, S., & Datta, S. K. (2011). The effect of perceived quality on brand equity: an
empirical study on generic drugs. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 23(5),
604-625.
Muqaddas, M. F., & Ahmad, I. (2016). Determinants of brand equity: an empirical study of
IT industry. SEA-Practical Application of Science, (12), 555-560.
Hameed, F. (2013). The effect of advertising spending on brand loyalty mediated by store
image, perceived quality and customer satisfaction: A case of hypermarkets.  Asian Journal of
Business Management, 5(1), 181-192
Nikabadi, M. S., Safui, M. A., & Agheshlouei, H. (2015). Role of advertising and promotion
in brand equity creation. Journal of Promotion Management, 21(1), 13-32.
Vahie, A., & Paswan, A. (2006). Private label brand image: its relationship with store image
and national brand. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 34(1), 67-84.

Tong, X., & Hawley, J. M. (2009). Creating brand equity in the Chinese clothing market: The
effect of selected marketing activities on brand equity dimensions.  Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 13(4), 566-581.
Dennis, C., King, T., & Martenson, R. (2007). Corporate brand image, satisfaction and store
loyalty. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management.
Patel, A., Norris, P., Gauld, R., & Rades, T. (2009). Drug quality in South Africa: perceptions
of key players involved in medicines distribution. International journal of health care quality
assurance, 22(5), 547-560.
Korneliussen, T., & Grønhaug, K. (2003). Quality perceptions in international distribution: an
empirical investigation in a complete distribution chain. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 8(5), 467-475
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand
community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of marketing, 69(3), 19-34.
Samu, S., Krishnan Lyndem, P., & Litz, R. A. (2012). Impact of brand-building activities and
retailer-based brand equity on retailer brand communities. European Journal of
Marketing,46(11/12), 1581-1601.
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques-3.
Kpolovie, P. J., Ewansiha, S., & Esara, M. (2017). Continental Comparison of Human
Development Index (HDI).International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education
(IJHSSE), 4(1), 9-27.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing
science, 43(1), 115-135.
Rudnicka, L., Olszewska, M., Rakowska, A., & Slowinska, M. (2011). Trichoscopy update
2011. Journal of dermatological case reports, 5(4), 82.
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press.
Bednarik, J., Vondracek, P., Dusek, L., Moravcova, E., & Cundrle, I. (2005). Risk factors for
critical illness polyneuromyopathy. Journal of neurology, 252(3), 343-351.
Henson, R. K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual
primer on coefficient alpha.(Methods, plainly speaking). Measurement and evaluation in
counseling and development, 34(3), 177-190.