Upload
others
View
25
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
TOWARDS A CLIENT-BASED BRAND EQUITY FRAMEWORK
FOR SELECTED BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS SERVICES
Steenkamp, P., Herbst, F.J, de Villiers, J.C and Terblanche-Smit, M
ABSTRACT
Economics and marketing dictate that brands should be built in an effective manner. The article
presents a conceptual framework to guide effective brand building strategies in a selected
business-to-business (B2B) services context. The model was developed empirically by applying
the Brand Resonance model to a B2B services context. Results prompted the inclusion of a
people dimension and elevated the importance of relationships in an amended model called the
Client-Based Brand Equity (CL-BBE) model. The model proposes that people are at the centre
of service brand building and includes the dimensions of attitude and demeanour, personality
and values, personableness, product knowledge and client knowledge. Relationships, as the
ultimate aim of the model, concern both interpersonal relationships and partnerships. The CL-
BBE model could assist marketing practitioners and researchers to improve the effectiveness of
strategic brand management for B2B services.
KEYWORDS
Brand equity, customer-based brand equity, brand awareness, brand imagery, brand loyalty,
services branding, B2B, industrial.
INTRODUCTION
The indiscriminate use of the Brand Resonance model for business-to-business (B2B) services
may lead to suboptimum brand building strategies, which may result in sources of brand equity
being enhanced that are not applicable and/ or sources that may be important, not being
considered.
2
Brand building strategies create brand equity, which is a base for competitive advantage and
future earnings. The Brand Resonance model [formerly called the Customer-Based Brand
Equity (CBBE) model] incorporates theory and practice to provide a framework for building,
measuring and managing a strong brand. This model approaches brand equity from the
consumer’s point of view. The basic argument of the model is that a brand’s power resides in
the consumer’s mind, that is, that the power of a brand is built through all experiences with a
brand (Keller, 2008: 37-38).
Marketing theory was largely developed around the concept of a product even though offerings
are divided into product and service offerings. Marketing management, in turn, focused on the
differences between the two types of offerings or, more specifically, how existing product
marketing theory can be adapted for service offerings (Vargo & Lusch, 2004: 14-15,1-2). The
services sector is an important part of the economy and a major job creator. Contributing to the
proliferation of services are technology, innovation, globalisation and franchising (McDonald, de
Chernatony & Harris, 2001: 335-336). Branding is not merely important for tangible goods, but it
is also fundamental to the success of service organisations (Berry, 2000: 128).
The extant brand management knowledge has been derived from research predominantly in
business-to-consumer (B2C) markets and, more specifically, fast moving consumer goods.
Academic research into the subject of B2B branding is limited, detached and inconclusive, and
while in the B2C context branding has been accepted as multi-dimensional, in the B2B context
branding is still constrained to a narrow and myopic view of the brand (Leek & Christodoulides,
2011: 230). Even though Keller (2001: 25) mentions that the Brand Resonance model should be
refined, edited and embellished to suit the needs of its users, it is not known what an amended
brand equity model for B2B services would entail.
An adapted brand equity model could assist marketing practitioners and brand decision makers
to improve the effectiveness of brand building and strategic brand management strategies for
B2B services.
3
The aim of the article is to report which brand-building blocks and sub-dimensions of the Brand
Resonance model are confirmed, as well as those that are not confirmed and to suggest others
that may be relevant to selected B2B services. Based on this, a Client-Based Brand Equity
framework is proposed. The empirical research contributes to three areas of brand equity
research, namely 1) the offering type – by investigating service offerings rather than product
offerings; 2) the brand level – by investigating organisation-level brands rather than product-
level brands; and 3) context – by investigating a B2B context rather than a B2C context.
Brand equity and the Brand Resonance model are introduced next, followed by the methods
used to collect data. The data were used to test the applicability of the Brand Resonance model
and its building blocks and sub-dimensions in a real world B2B services context. The article
concludes by proposing a CL-BBE framework.
ENHANCING BRAND EQUITY
In order to develop frameworks that seek to provide guidance for the enhancement of brand
equity, a common understanding of the relevant concepts is necessary. This literature review
will, therefore, define brand equity and differentiate between brand equity and brand value, and
this includes a discussion about the two perspectives on brand equity. This will lead into the
focus of this section, namely the brand equity models. The section concludes with the
theoretical positioning of the present study.
There seems to be ambiguity as far as the term ‘brand equity’ is concerned, with different
definitions and no consensus (Juntunen, Juntunen & Juga, 2011: 302-303). In general, brand
equity seems to entail consumer perception of the brand based on associations attached to the
brand as a result of experiences or a relationship, which differentiates and allows greater sales
volumes, market share or profit margins. Brand equity and the relational concept are linked and
focus on long-term value creation rather than a short-term transaction orientation or profit
maximisation. The relational concept treats the brand and the consumer as partners with
congruent personalities and values and the brand and consumer have a relationship, which is
not dissimilar to relationships between people (The Oxford Dictionary, 2010, Ambler, 1995: 386,
4
388-389, 394). Keller (2008: 48) defines customer-based brand equity as “the differential effect
that brand knowledge has on consumer response to marketing of that brand”.
Even though the term brand equity is used most often, in some instances brand equity and
brand value are used synonymously. Brand equity can be financially based and strategy based.
The financially based perspective estimates the economic market value of the brand for
accounting purposes. This refers to the price premium attributable to the brand; brand
preference; replacement value of the brand; share price; and potential future earnings. The
strategy based perspective aims to build brands based on consumers’ perceptions. Nonfinancial
measures of brand equity are used such as brand awareness and attitude. This strategy is
delivered through marketing investment. Therefore, the financial based perspective is
concerned with the value of the asset from an organisation’s point of view, whereas the strategy
based perspective focuses building the brand from the consumers’ point of view. Ambler’s
distinction between brand value (financial worth) and brand equity (strength of brand as asset)
was adopted (Ambler, 1995: 386-387, 392, 394; Pappu, Quester & Cooksey, 2005: 153).
Branding models
Some branding models are simplistic and focus on the tangible aspects of a brand (Schechter,
1994 & Grossman, 1994,) while others focus mostly on the intangible aspects (Kapferer, 1992).
However, the two most cited branding models are Keller’s Brand Resonance model and Aaker’s
Brand Equity model (O’cass & Grace, 2004: 257).
Aaker’s Brand Equity model consists of five dimensions, namely (1) brand loyalty; (2) brand
name awareness; (3) perceived quality; (4) brand associations in addition to perceived quality;
and (5) other proprietary brand assets such as patents, trademarks and channel relationships.
Brand equity, according to this model, is a basis for competitive advantage and future earnings.
Brand knowledge is fundamental to Keller’s Brand Resonance model. Brand equity is the result
of brand knowledge, which creates differential advantage. Brand knowledge consists of brand
nodes in consumers’ minds with associations attached to these nodes (Keller, 1993: 1-22; 2001:
5
15-19; 2008: 60-61). According to the Brand Resonance model, brand knowledge consists of
brand awareness and brand image. Therefore, customer-based brand equity occurs when the
consumer is aware of the brand and strong, favourable, and unique brand associations have
been attached to the brand (Keller, 2008: 49-53).
The Brand Resonance model includes most of Aaker’s Brand Equity model’s dimensions, as
well as other propriety models (Keller, 2001: iv, 25). Kuhn, Alpert and Pope (2008: 41) consider
the Brand Resonance model to be the most comprehensive model to guide the brand
management process. These issues influenced the decision to select the Brand Resonance
model for application to a selected B2B services context. The findings of the application are the
focus of the article, so the Brand Resonance model should be elaborated on.
6
Keller’s Brand Resonance model
The Brand Resonance model (Figure 1) presents brand building as six building blocks, which
correspond with four sequential stages. Each stage is reliant on achieving the objectives of the
previous stage.
2.12
RESONANCE
SALIENCE
JUDGMENTS FEELINGS
PERFORMANCE IMAGERY
4. RELATIONSHIPS =
What about you and me?
3. RESPONSE =
What about you?
2. MEANING =
What are you?
1. IDENTITY =
Who are you?
Figure 1: Brand Resonance pyramid
Source: Keller, 2001: 17; 2008: 60; 2013: 108
The aim of stage 1 of the Brand Resonance model is to ensure that consumers are able to
identify the brand; during stage 2 brand meaning is created by attaching tangible and intangible
associations to the brand in the minds of consumers; based on the previous two stages,
consumers are enticed to respond appropriately during stage 3; and stage 4 deals with
converting stage 3 brand responses into loyal relationships between consumers and brands
(Keller, 2001: 15-19).
7
Each of the six brand-building blocks has various sub-dimensions, as shown in Figure 2 below.
• LOYALTY
• ATTACHMENT
• COMMUNITY
• ENGAGEMENT
• QUALITY
• CREDIBILITY
• CONSIDERATION
• SUPERIORITY
• WARMTH
• FUN
• EXCITEMENT
• SECURITY
• SOCIAL APPROVAL
• SELF-RESPECT
• CATEGORY IDENTIFICATION
• NEEDS SATISFIED
• PRIMARY CHARACTERISTICS &
SECONDARY FEATURES
• PRODUCT RELIABILITY,
DURABILITY & SERVICEABILITY
• SERVICE EFFECTIVENESS,
EFFICIENCY & EMPATHY
• STYLE AND DESIGN
• PRICE
• USER PROFILES
• PURCHASE & USAGE
SITUATIONS
• PERSONALITY &
VALUES
• HISTORY, HERITAGE
& EXPERIENCES
SALIENCE
RESONANCE
FEELINGSJUDGMENTS
PERFORMANCE IMAGERY
Figure 2: Sub-dimensions of Brand Resonance building bocks
Source: Keller, 2001: 17; 2008: 61; 2013: 108
Brand Salience is created during stage 1 of the Brand Resonance model by creating brand
awareness through brand recognition and brand recall. The associations that are linked to the
brand in the consumer’s mind during this stage are the sub-dimensions in terms of ‘needs
satisfied’ and ‘offering category’. Brand elements are employed to achieve this.
Stage 2 of the Brand Resonance model corresponds to brand Performance and brand Imagery,
which refers to the image component of brand knowledge. During this stage the brand’s points
of parity and points of difference are communicated. Brand Performance relates to tangible
8
attributes and benefits of the brand, whereas brand Image refers to the more intangible
associations. Imagery in a B2B context relates to the size and type of organisation.
Stage 3 of the Brand Resonance model corresponds to consumer brand Judgments and
Feelings. Brands are judged and feelings towards the brand developed based on the
Performance and Imagery building blocks.
Brand Resonance is created during stage 4 of the Brand Resonance model.
Conceptual framework
There are differences between products and services, and between consumer and B2B
markets, but the applicability of the Brand Resonance model to a B2B services context has not
been comprehensively assessed (Kuhn et al., 2008: 41). Even though Kotler and Keller (2006:
210–212) mention differences between consumer (customer) and business markets, Keller
maintains that the Brand Resonance model is applicable to a B2B context (cited in Kuhn et al.,
2008: 40–58; O’Cass & Grace, 2004: 257).
9
To visualise the contribution of the research reported on a conceptual framework was
developed, which is depicted in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3: Conceptual framework
Source: Incorporating Kotler and Keller, 2006: 25, Kuhn et al., 2008
and Mudambi, Doyle and Wong, 1997: 438
As depicted in the centre of Figure 3 above, the differences between a product and a service
and the product-service spectrum were at the centre of the study. A pure product, pure service
or product-service combination, together with information about the brand and experience of the
brand, constitute the offering, which is supplied by a supplier and demanded by a consumer.
The supplier and consumer can be any entity, including a person or organisation. Depending on
the situation, the end-user consumer may or may not be more important than the actual
purchaser (Ambler, 1995: 388). The offering contains a value proposition, which provides a
benefit or value to the consumer that satisfies a need. The brand enhances the offering with
10
meaning that differentiates it from other brands. Represented to the left-hand side of the
conceptual framework, the Brand Resonance model (as mentioned, formerly called the CBBE
model) originated from an individual B2C product brand equity perspective; from the supplier-
customer perspective - predominantly a person who purchases a product offering. The right-
hand side of the conceptual framework depicts the need for an amended B2B services brand
equity model. An amended framework is proposed next.
DESIGN AND METHODS
As stated, the purpose of the research was to propose an amended brand equity framework for
B2B services. The present study worked with a known conceptual model, tested the applicability
thereof in a B2B services context, and identified additional dimensions to amend the conceptual
model.
A qualitative research approach was appropriate because the brand equity phenomenon is
complex and multifaceted with many dimensions (Zikmund & Babin, 2010: 61). The aim of the
data collection was to obtain a depth of understanding and not merely to indicate quantity
(Henning et al., 2004: 1, 3, 5). The study was a cross-sectional study and open-ended questions
were used to elicit participants’ perceptions of the Brand Resonance model’s current and
potential sub-dimensions. The study attempted “to understand people’s perceptions,
perspectives, and understandings of a particular situation” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010: 135, 137-
145), which necessitated lengthy interviews. The interview data was analysed through content
analysis.
Data collection
Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 participants based on judgemental
selection over a period of five months. Selection of participants was based on inclusion on the
Cape Town Tourism and www.booking.com databases, and location (within Cape Town, South
Africa area). All participants had to have some influence on the decision regarding which short-
term insurance brand the hotel was insured with. The interviews were conducted on the fixed
premises of the hotels (demand-side client organisations). The interview guide included mostly
open-ended questions.
11
Interview guide
Some indicators from previous research were included in the interview guide. These include the
candidate measures of the brand-building blocks of the Brand Resonance model (Keller, 2008:
75-76), as well as key findings and questions from Kuhn et al. (2004; 2008: 40–58).
The interview guide was divided into four sections:
• Section A: five open- and closed-ended qualifying questions that
ensured that the interviews were conducted with participants who could
provide sufficient information about the short-term insurance brand with
which the hotels were insured;
• Section B: five closed-ended classification questions to ascertain the hotels’ star-
grading, number of rooms, number of full-time employees and years in
operation;
• Section C: 31 open-ended questions to test the applicability and appropriateness of
the brand-building blocks and sub-dimensions of the Brand Resonance
model for a B2B services context. This section followed the sequence of
the Brand Resonance model and each question was linked to the building
block or sub-dimension being investigated by its specific conceptual
purpose; and
• Section D: 2 open-ended questions, which solicited insights about the
appropriateness of the interview guide to investigate brand equity of
short-term business insurance.
Data analysis
Following the interviews, the audio recordings were transcribed. Data manipulation was done by
coding the transcriptions and categorising the codes into themes (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010: 142)
with the aid of the computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) programme,
Atlas.ti7.
12
Extendibility of findings
For qualitative research the term naturalistic generalisabilty is more appropriate than the more
familiar statistical generalisability. Naturalistic generalisability depends on the reader’s opinion,
which is based on the reader’s experience, awareness and knowledge (Seidman, 2006: 23).
The research reported on makes no claims as to the generalisabilty of the findings to a broader
population; rather, the findings may be extended to similar contexts. Additional comparative
research in different contexts can support extendibility. The location of the present study within
a specific theoretical framework increases the possibility of analytic (theoretical) generalisations.
For the present study the concepts of representativeness and generalisability were subordinate
to the value of exploratory research to identify the building blocks and sub-dimensions of brand
building in the selected context.
Code of conduct and ethics
The research did not include vulnerable members of the community. In addition to the
requirements of the institution that the researcher is affiliated to, the researcher abided by the
code of marketing and social research of the Southern African Research Association (SAMRA).
The code includes explicit guidelines about informed consent and confidentiality.
Limitations
The present study continued the quest to adapt a major branding model for B2B services and
only considered B2B short-term insurance for hotels, so the results may be sector-specific and
may not be representative of all B2B services markets. As a result of the delineation, the results
may also be area-specific.
In reporting the findings, evidence is provided by using quotes from data for three sections to
follow, namely for the insurer brand equity, broker brand equity and Client-Based Brand Equity
frameworks. Quotes are provided for the most pertinent dimensions of the first two frameworks,
and only for the additional dimensions that were included in the Client-Based Brand Equity
framework.
13
FINDINGS AND INTERPRETIVE DISCUSSION
For the selected B2B services context that this article deals with, namely short-term business
insurance, there seems to be two interrelated brand equity frameworks involved. There is an
insurance brand equity framework (between insurer and broker) and a broker brand equity
framework (between broker and end user client). For short-term B2B insurance, the broker
brand and not the individual insurance/ offering brand is of importance, which is contrary to the
case in B2C markets. In consumer markets the relationship is mostly directly between the
individual brand and the end consumer (Webster & Keller, 2004: 397). All participants reported
that they worked via a broker. None of the participants dealt directly with the insurer. Ten
different brokers were used. Intermediaries are not referred to in the Brand Resonance model
(Figure 2). Kuhn et al. (2008: 50-51) suggest the inclusion of a ‘Sales force’ building block,
which speaks to the importance of the human element. The present study’s findings differ, since
the broker dimension cannot simply be included in an amended model because there are two
branding models involved – one to build insurance brand equity and one to build broker brand
equity. The broker is not a dimension that should be added to the existing Brand Resonance
model; rather, the broker has a brand equity model of its own. The human element involved
from the broker’s side is a dimension that should be included in the broker brand equity
framework. The relationship between the client and broker is indicated by the follow typical
responses (the sub-dimensions were inserted in square brackets by the researcher):
They [the broker] recommended that we change one of the policies, $ – you know to a new policy for the – I think it was as I said the contents – I didn’t really question. I mean he went through the policy, it covered everything [primary characteristics]. It saved us money [price] and you know but it’s not like I went out and did my own investigation (P7: 367, 375); and
$ and because I’m not doing any research into it, but the fact that they came forward and said listen we recommend maybe you go for this you can save money (P7: 551).
14
Figure 4 below indicates all the confirmed sub-dimensions (in bold text) of insurer brand equity.
Figure 4: Confirmed sub-dimensions of insurer brand equity
Even though the Salience brand-building block and the sub-dimensions were confirmed for
insurer brand equity it was found that it did not matter whether the client was aware of the
insurer brand. The following responses speak to this issue:
I can’t tell you much about their brand [the insurer]. I haven’t really done much research to be totally honest – I am dealing with the broker and that is where my real relationship is (P6:44, 45); and
I don’t really deal with them [the insurer] directly$ I actually know nothing about them. (P12:343,347, 359, 363).
What matters was whether the broker was aware of the insurer brand and whether the
participant was aware of the broker brand, which can be gleaned from the comments below:
$ he presented [insurance brand] to me in the first place where I didn’t know about (P13: 317); and
15
Listen there’s a new guy on the block, they’re specially tailoring for the hotels and this is their product (P19: 419).
Therefore, as far as the Salience aspect of the insurer brand is concerned, the insurance
houses should ensure that the brokers are aware of their brand; that the insurer is an option
within the short-term business insurance sector, and that the brokers know what the insurers’
offerings entail.
The insurer Performance sub-dimensions that were confirmed all support the broker brand
equity. The insurer has an influence over the ‘primary characteristics and secondary features’,
or what is covered by the insurance policy. The insurer provides the cover, but the client
specifies their requirements to the broker. Similarly, the insurer influences the ‘product reliability’
sub-dimension or whether a claim against the insurance policy will be paid or repudiated. But
the client will submit the claim to the broker and follow up with the broker, which is evident from
the quotes below:
They pay out when you’ve got a claim (P15:211); and
I think they’re pretty good at settling claims (P6:227).
The insurer also affects ‘service effectiveness and efficiency’ if the insurer is slow or ineffective
when responding to the broker, as indicate below:
very quick in responding to claims (P2:189); and
I actually haven’t been happy with the way our claims have been settled. So we’ve actually moved away from $ (P6:255).
‘Price’ is a combination of the insurer’s cost plus the broker’s fee, but is probably mostly under
the insurer’s control. However, the broker presents the quote to the client for the items that are
included in the policy. The only sub-dimension under the Performance building block where the
insurer has a direct connection or impact on the client is when the insurer’s assessor visits the
client. A respondent reported as follows:
I mean things can always be done quicker. It does mean that obviously, because they’re a broker they obviously need to get hold of the company then the assessor is someone else entirely as well [people].
This indicates that the assessor can directly affect the client’s perception of the ‘service
effectiveness, efficiency and empathy’ sub-dimension.
16
The findings suggest that the insurer’s Imagery sub-dimensions do not matter to the client. The
insurance is bought through a broker (which refers to the ‘purchase situation’ sub-dimension)
and the client has almost no direct interaction with the insurer. As mentioned, the broker has full
control reagrding which insurance brand is purchased, so even though some of the participants
could mention some of the insurers’ ‘personality and values’ and ‘history’ sub-dimensions, it is
not relevant to the client. The study found that, as far as the insurance brand to client link is
concerned, the insurance brand does not have to build brand awareness or attach image
associations to their brand in the client’s mind. The insurance brand should be registered and
associations should be attached in the broker’s mind.
Furthermore, even though the participants could judge the ‘quality’, ‘credibility’ and ‘superiority’
of the insurance brand, it did not have a direct link with the client. The participants judged the
‘quality’ and ‘credibility’ of the broker, as they deal exclusively with the broker, but the insurers
have an impact on these judgments.
The sub-dimensions of insurer brand equity that were confirmed can have an impact on how
well the broker’s brand is perceived by the client. But, these are all a layer removed from the
client. The client’s interaction, level of satisfaction, relationship and ultimate loyalty, is with the
broker.
17
Figure 5 below indicates all sub-dimensions of broker brand equity that was confirmed (in bold
text) by the study.
Figure 5: Confirmed sub-dimensions of broker brand equity
Participants referred to their relationship with the broker and not to their relationship with the
insurance house, even though they are aware of the insurance house:
Just saves me some time not dealing directly and giving him all the work to do; what I’m paying them for (P3:56, 421);
$ they’re like an important link between you and the insurers (P4:763); and
$ taking the burden away of me worrying about the insurance because it’s not my business. It’s not my main business to be worried about insurance. I should be insured, that’s it and the broker shall take care about all the other stuff and give me the feeling and the confidence that I’m rightly insured. $ they’ve always been very professional (P5:493, 503).
18
Yet another also talked about the broker’s professionalism and ‘efficiency’:
$ they’ve always been very professional $ and prompt (P6:503, 511).
Participants were loyal towards their brokers:
Every year we just go with the same guy [loyalty] (P17: 399) and
We’ve got a certain amount of loyalty and that’s part of our values as well. We don’t just chop and change relationships for the sake of it $ (P16:641).
The brand-building blocks and sub-dimensions that were confirmed for the insurance brands
and brokers respectively are almost identical. The sub-dimensions and building blocks that were
not confirmed are those that are indicated as faded grey text in figures 4 and 5 above.
No additional dimensions about insurer brand equity were reported, but additional dimensions of
broker brand equity emerged from the study. Therefore, the broker brand equity model (Figure
5) was amended further. The result of combining the confirmed brand-building blocks and sub-
dimension of broker brand equity with the additional sub-dimensions and building blocks
uncovered by the study is shown below as Figure 6. As alluded to before, this is an amended
Brand Resonance framework for the selected B2B services and is called the Client-Base Brand
Equity (CL-BBE) framework for selected business-to-business services.
19
Client-Based Brand Equity framework for selected business-to-business services
Figure 6: Client-Based Brand Equity framework
for selected business-to-business services
The brand-building blocks and sub-dimensions in bold text are those that were confirmed and
retained from the Brand Resonance model (Figure 2), while those in a lighter tone are additional
building blocks and sub-dimensions that have been identified by the study. The sub-dimension
‘Distribution’ is merely a name change from that used in the Brand Resonance model. The CL-
BBE framework introduces two new brand-building blocks and a number of sub-dimensions.
Brand Salience
The Salience brand-building block of the Brand Resonance model was confirmed and retained
in its entirety in the CL-BBE framework, including both sub-dimensions, namely ‘category
identification’ and ‘needs satisfied’. However, as an amendment to the Brand Resonance model
and Kuhn et al.’s (2008: 40-58) findings, the brand equity of the broker brand (study reported on
on/ CL-BBE framework) is more important to the client than the individual brand (Brand
20
Resonance model) or the brand of the insurer/ organisation brand (Kuhn et al., 2008: 40-58).
Salience in Figure 6, therefore, refers to the prominence of the broker brand. Salience has to do
with the brand achieving prominence in the client’s mind. This is achieved by establishing brand
awareness; both brand recognition and brand recall of the broker’s brand. It associates the
needs that the brand satisfies and the category within which the brand operates to the brand
node in the client’s mind. This is achieved through the use of various brand elements.
Brand Service Performance
The Performance brand-building block of the Brand Resonance model (Figure 2) was renamed
Service Performance in the CL-BBE framework (Figure 6) because the short-term B2B
insurance offering approaches a pure service. It deals with the actual service that is rendered.
Most of the sub-dimensions of the Brand Resonance model’s Performance brand-building block
were confirmed in the study reported on, as was the case with the study by Kuhn et al. (2008:
40-58). The sub-dimensions that were retained in the CL-BBE framework are: ‘primary
characteristics and secondary features’, ‘product reliability’, ‘service effectiveness, efficiency
and empathy’ and ‘price’. In the Brand Resonance model the sub-dimension ‘service
effectiveness and efficiency’ and ‘product reliability’ includes the processes dimension. For the
CL-BBE framework, ‘processes’ was spun off as a separate sub-dimension to give proper
relevance to the importance of the processes that support the service related sub-dimensions.
The Brand Resonance model’s ‘usage situation’ sub-dimension was incorporated into this
building block and renamed ‘distribution’. ‘Servicescape’ was added as an additional sub-
dimension. Here the sub-dimensions will be related to the study reported on in a B2B services
context:
- Primary characteristics: refer to the specific items that are covered under the
business short-term insurance policy. For example, hotel furniture, vehicles and so
on;
- Secondary features: are the additional, non-standard/ customised items that are
covered under the business short-term insurance policy. For example, public liability;
- Product reliability: deals with whether the business insurance policy will be honoured
when there is a claim against the policy;
21
- Service effectiveness: according to the Brand Resonance model, service
effectiveness means degree of satisfaction and service efficiency means the
promptness with which the service is rendered. For example, the time that lapses
from submitting a claim to the time that the claim is settled;
- Service empathy: has to do with how the service is delivered; whether the service
provider cares about the client;
- Processes: is part of the extended marketing mix and includes all processes that
support the service that is rendered. This includes the documentation involved with
the claim submission process and so on, as referred to by participants:
$ there was stuff sitting on there that was like nearly two years old. So it was just oh the paper work went missing and we had to submit the same stuff about three or four times$ (P4:547, 543) [processes]; and
It’s just two forms, quotes. You need to get quotes and then I just send it off to one of the consultants (P7:479).
- Price: the policy premium and related aspects;
- Distribution: is called purchase situation in the Brand Resonance model, but is more
commonly known as place, as part of the marketing mix. It refers to the channel of
distribution, be it the broker’s office, online or a call centre; and
- Servicescape: the ambience and other aspects of the physical environment in which
the service is delivered. The CBBE model does not include servicescape (facilities’
visual appeal, employees’ appearance and other material appeals), as described by
O’Cass and Grace (2004: 262).
People
Based on the findings of the study reported on, a People brand-building block was added to the
CL-BBE framework in Figure 6, together with the following sub-dimensions:
- Attitude: the service providers’ internalised way of thinking and feeling, which informs
their behaviour towards the client. For example, a conscious decision and
commitment to deliver professional service, while remaining approachable. The
participant below mentioned the broker’s professionalism:
22
$ they’ve also been very – $professional (P7:419).
- Demeanour: is the outward behaviour of the service providers towards the client. For
example, the broker referred to below did not display a friendly demeanour:
the way that they like cross question you. It’s just not on,$ (P18:440, 444).
- Personality: the characteristics and qualities of the service providers’ character. For
example, having an engaging personality. Aaker (1997) identified brand personality
scale measures, but Kuhn and Alpert (2004) and Kuhn et al. (2008:47) found that the
B2B brands that were studied did not possess any personality traits. This
necessitated testing for this dimension. Personality traits of insurer brands were
mentioned by the following participants:
It’s conservative, $ (P2:177); and
$ modern, more innovative company (P2:185).
Throughout the analysis of the interview data, the importance of the human element
became evident. Baumgarth and Binckebanck (2011: 487-498) mention the
salesperson’s personality as opposed to the brand’s personality.
- Values: the service providers’ principles or standards of behaviour. This refers to a
way of doing business; of what is acceptable and what is not. An example of this is
when a participant mentioned that “they’re honest” (P17:271).
- Personableness: having a pleasant personal appearance and manner. The
participants below identified with this dimension:
I like my broker and the staff there, they are very friendly, very efficient and very caring $ (P2:405); and my broker needs to be efficient, friendly, trustworthy, responsible $ (P2:459, 461).
- Product knowledge: brokers having an understanding of the insurance policy that
includes what should be covered, exclusions, special precautions/ requirements and
so on were important to participants:
They know their subject. The guy in charge has been in the game a long time, know his subject so and I think that’s what you need. I can pick and ask him any question I like and he will give me an answer straight away; and
$ if they don’t know your business and the product that you sell then it creates problems because then you sit with things like – like conference rooms that’s basically standing
23
empty for months because they don’t want to you know there’s no effort, real effort from their side to actually resolve the issue (P4:767).
- Client knowledge: being familiar with the client as an individual and their business
needs were considered valuable:
$ if they don’t know your business and the product that you sell then it creates problems because then you sit with things (P4:767).
Client brand Judgments
The client forms opinions, which are based on the previous three brand-building blocks and all
associations attached to the brand. The Judgments sub-dimensions include:
- Service quality: the client assesses the service, which is delivered against their
expectations and forms an opinion of the degree of quality;
- Credibility and trust: the degree to which the client believes in and trusts the broker;
and
- Satisfaction: the level of satisfaction is based on how well the service was performed.
For the CL-BBE framework, service effectiveness and satisfaction are treated as two
sub-dimensions. Service effectiveness refers to whether the service, which is
rendered has produced the desired result. For example, if a client sends an email to
the insurance broker requesting that his or her policy should be amended and the
amendment is successfully and correctly made, then the service was effective. The
judgment that the client makes based on the effectiveness of the service or the
pleasure that the client derives from this is accounted for under the sub-dimension
‘satisfaction’, which is part of the ‘Judgments’ brand-building block.
Client-brand Relationships
A second additional brand-building block was added to the CL-BBE framework (Figure 6),
namely Relationships. This is supported by Kuhn et al. (2008: 40-58) who found that sales force
relationships was an important dimension that should be included in an amended brand equity
framework. The CL-BBE framework extends this finding to include relationships with all
representatives of the organisation who are involved with rendering the service. The two sub-
dimensions of the ‘Relationships’ building block are:
24
- Interpersonal: the personal relationship between the client and the broker’s
representatives based on business interaction was referred to by a participant:
I can phone Sean at 12 at night and he will do whatever he needs to do to assist with my problem. He’s just 24/7 on my phone.
- Partnerships: between a broker and client working together towards achieving a
common goal.
I think that that I could say there’s a partnership involved. They have an interest in our – I feel that they have an interest in our business ... we’ve built up a relationship $ (P19:547); and $ they know us like the palm of their hand (P18:540).
Meaningful and beneficial interpersonal relationships will enable the formation of longer-term
partnerships.
The pinnacle of the Brand Resonance model is the Resonance brand-building block (Figure 2).
Of the four sub-dimensions of the Resonance building block, only Loyalty towards the broker
was confirmed by the study. The study supports Aaker’s (1991: 15-18) view that brand loyalty
can be considered both as a dimension of brand equity and an outcome of brand equity, hence
the decision to omit the Resonance building block from the CL-BBE framework. The outcome or
result of the CL-BBE framework is brand loyalty. Taylor et al. (2004: 218) also found brand
equity and trust to be antecedents of ‘loyalty’.
The study continued the process of assessing and adapting a major brand equity model for the
B2B services context, but it is by no means conclusive.
Conclusion
Brand marketing researchers and practitioners generally agree that creating brand equity is
critical to long-term business success. There is no consensus about the applicability of the
Brand Resonance model, one of the most prominent brand equity models (figures 1 and 2), to
services and to business-to-business contexts. This model was tested in a selected B2B
services setting that included an intermediary. The findings of the study reported on suggest
that an adapted Client-Base Brand Equity framework, as illustrated in Figure 6, is more
25
appropriate for selected B2B services. The study reported on investigated real brands with real
B2B services clients and provided insights into how B2B services brand equity should be
conceptualised and measured.
The context of the study reported on included an intermediary (B2B short-term business
insurance broker), which showed that brand equity should be built between the insurance brand
and the broker (insurer brand equity) and between the broker and client (broker brand equity),
but not between the insurer and client. The insurer brand has an impact on how the broker
brand is perceived by the client.
The Client-Based Brand Equity framework incorporates a People dimension as a core aspect of
B2B services brand equity, with sub-dimensions of attitude and demeanour, personality and
values, personableness, product knowledge and client knowledge. Relationships, both
interpersonal and as partnerships, are at the pinnacle of the framework. The study reported on
confirmed the rational route to brand building - of building Salience, Service Performance,
Judgements and Relationships. The emotional route that included Feelings was not confirmed.
For practitioners it is important to have an adapted framework to effectively implement branding
strategies. The Client-Based Brand Equity framework presented in Figure 6 can, therefore, be
used to guide brand building strategies for B2B services. For brand researchers the model
provides constructs and sub-dimensions that were not previously included in B2B services
brand equity frameworks, which can direct future research.
An adapted brand equity model could assist marketing practitioners, brand decision makers and
researchers to improve the effectiveness of brand building and strategic brand management
strategies for B2B services.
26
List of references
Aaker, J. 1997. Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of marketing research, XXXIV(August), 347-356.
Ambler, T. 1995. Brand equity as a relational concept. The journal of brand management, 2(6),
386-397.
Baumgarth, C. & Binckebanck, L. 2011. Sales force impact on B-to-B brand equity: conceptual framework and empirical test. Journal of product and brand management, 20(6), 487-498.
Berry, L.L. 2000. Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 28(1), 128-137.
Henning, E., van Rensburg, W. & Smit, B. 2004. Finding your way in qualitative research.
Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Juntunen, M., Juntunen, J. & Juga, J. 2011. Corporate brand equity and loyalty in B2B markets: A study among logistics service purchasers. Journal of Brand Management 18 (4/5), 300 – 311.
Kapferer, J.N. 1992. Strategic brand management : new approaches to creating and evaluating brand equity. London: Kogan Page.
Keller, K.L. 1993. Conceptualising, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of marketing, 57 (January), 1-22.
Keller, K.L. 2001. Building customer-based brand equity: a blueprint for creating strong brands. Marketing Science Institute. Working Paper: report no. 1-107.
Keller, K.L. 2008. Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. 3rd edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Keller, K.L. 2013. Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. 4th edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Kotler, P. & Keller, K.L. 2006. Marketing management. 12th edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Kuhn, K.L., and Alpert, F. (2004). Applying Keller's Brand Equity Model in a B2B Context: Limitations and an Empirical Test. In Jim Wiley and Peter Thirkell (eds). Proceedings of the 2004 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University.
Kuhn, K.L., Alpert, F. & Pope, N.K.L. 2008. An application of Keller's brand equity model in a B2B context. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 11(1), 40–58.
Leedy, P.D. & Ormrod, J.E., 2010. Practical research: Planning and design. 9th edition. New
Jersey: Pearson Education.
Leek, S. & Christodoulides, G.A., 2011. A literature review and future agenda for B2B branding: challenges of branding in a B2B context. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(6), 830-835.
27
McDonald, M.H.B., de Chernatony, L. & Harris, F. 2001. Corporate marketing and service brands – moving beyond the fast-moving consumer goods model. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 335-352.
Mudambi, S.M., Doyle, P. & Wong, V. 1997. An exploration of branding in industrial markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 26, 433-446.
O’Cass, A. & Grace, D. 2004. Exploring consumer experiences with a service brand. Journal of product and brand management, 13(4), 257-268.
Oxford dictionary. 2010. [Online] Available: http://oxforddictionaries.com [Accessed: 14 September 2011].
Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. & Cooksey, R.W. 2005. Consumer-based brand equity: improving the measurement – empirical evidence. Journal of product and brand management. 14(3), 143-154.
Seidman, I. 2006. Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and social sciences. 3rd edition. New York: Teachers College Press.
Taylor, S.A., Celuch, K. & Goodwin, S. 2004. The importance of brand equity to customer loyalty. Journal of product & brand management 13(4), 217-227.
Vargo, S. L. & Lusch, R.F. 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of marketing 68 (January), 1-17.
Webster, F.W. & Keller, K.L. 2004. A roadmap for branding in industrial markets. Journal of Brand Management, 11(5), 388-402.
Zikmund, W.G & Babin, B.J. 2010. Exploring marketing research. 10th edition. n.p.: South-
Western, Cengage Learning.