Asia-Pacific Social Science Review 19(3) 2019, pp.

42–55

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Exploring the Strategic Role of Brand Equity

Towards Competitive Advantage in the
Smartphone Industry
Sharizal Hashim*, Elaine Liew Yi Ying, and Sheraz Ahmed
University of Malaysia, Sarawak
*[email protected]

Abstract: This study intends to explore the strategic role of brand equity towards competitive advantage from the
customer’s perspective in the context of the smartphone market in Kuching, a city located in Sarawak, Malaysia. Based
on the two competitive advantage strategies (cost advantage and differentiation), this study aims to investigate the extent
these two strategies affects brand equity prediction towards customer satisfaction. By employing convenience sampling,
self-administered questionnaires were distributed among smartphone users. A total of 417 respondents were involved in
the process. The data collected were further evaluated using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Pearson’s
correlation analysis, multiple regression analysis, and independent sampled t-test were used to perform statistical analysis.
The results revealed that elements of Brand Equity (brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality, and brand loyalty)
have a positive relationship with customer’s satisfaction. There is also a significant difference between the two competitive
advantage strategies, that is, cost advantage and differentiation. Results showed that when the elements of brand equity
increase, customer satisfaction level also increases and the level of increment among two samples of study is different.
This study contributes in a twofold manner. Brands can be effective tools for the organizations to gain their competitive
advantage, but specific advantage and segment need specific brand treatment.

Keywords: brand associations, brand awareness, brand equity, brand loyalty, perceived quality

The emergence of the Internet and handphones 2017 in Malaysia, and now this figure projected to
have boosted up the invention and continuation of reached to 20.96 million in 2018 which is estimated
smartphone production in the market, making it an to increase up to 21.76 million in 2019, forming a
interesting issue to be studied by marketers nowadays. big industry. Based on a report by Newzoo (2018),
The presence of these two technologies in the 21st the smartphone penetration rate of Malaysia has been
century have shown considerable primary impact ranked 11th in the Asia-Pacific region and 30th in the
towards the economy of a country as they are offering global ranking (i.e., 57.5%). The figures indicate
more powerful computing systems with enhanced that the Malaysian smartphone market is facing a
connectivity than an old, outmoded mobile phone challenging marketing environment with increasingly
(O’Leary & O’Leary, 2005). According to Statista demanding consumers, strengthened competition, and
(2017), there were 19.9 million smartphone users in rapidly growing market.

Copyright © 2019 by De La Salle University

Exploring the Strategic Role of Brand Equity Towards Competitive Advantage in the Smartphone Industry 43

Recently, Malaysia’s smartphone business of overall brand equity on competitive advantage

environment is getting more and more competitive, (cost vs. differentiation competitive advantage) in the
and the rivalry between smartphone brands is getting smartphone industry.
tight with the increasing number of brands entering
the market. Therefore, the brand operators are Literature Review
emphasizing on the brand establishment to survive
and retain their competitive advantage in the market. Brand Equity
Consequently, brand equity is viewed as an essential The term “brand equity” has been proposed
element in assisting smartphone managers to attain by various researchers from its early years of
higher customer satisfaction toward their brands along development. Different models were developed in
with gaining competitive advantage and making wiser different ways to measure brand equity for different
organizational decisions (Ahmad & Sherwani, 2015). purposes. According to Farquhar (1989), brand equity
Building strong brands has turned out to be an area of is the “value-added” to a product by a brand. The
extreme importance, and numerous studies had been concept and the meaning of brand equity have been
done to carefully identify and conceptualize the role debated repeatedly. Numerous researches had been
and effects of branding because it brings along several conducted to conceptualize and explore brand equity.
advantages (Ahmad & Sherwani, 2015). Aaker (1991) defined brand equity as “a set of brand
For the past two decades, the relationship between assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and
brand equity and customer satisfaction has been symbol that add to or subtract from the value provided
debated repeatedly, becoming a key area of research by a product or service to a firm and/or to that firm’s
in business marketing. Aaker’s (1991) conceptual customers” (p.27 ). Brand equity is considered among
framework of brand equity confirmed the fact the most important and popular concepts of marketing,
that brand equity and customer satisfaction are which is successful in gaining a lot of attention from
interdependent. His proposed model was further practitioners and academicians in the past few decades.
studied and accepted by many more researchers The main reason behind the popularity of this concept
(Ahmad & Sherwani, 2015; Kapferer, 2004; Keller, is its strategic role in achieving competitive advantage
1993; Yoo, Donthu, & Lee, 2000). Ahmad and (Atilgan, Aksoy, & Akinci, 2005).
Sherwani (2015) aimed to evaluate Aaker’s brand Keller (1993) demonstrated that the brands should
equity framework in the context of mobile phone be valued by their customers first to have a brand value
brands and confirmed that brand equity is positively of itself. He concluded that brand equity is positively
influenced by the dimensions of brand equity which connected with customers. Aaker (1991) and Keller
further results in increased customer satisfaction. This (1993) agreed that brand equity is conceptualized by
finding is consistent with that of Ryu, Han, and Jang the customers of a brand providing advantages to the
(2010) that brand equity is a key measure of customer firm. Then in 1996, Aaker finally concluded that other
satisfaction in many instances. than customers, brand equity has four main dimensions
Besides, evidence has proven that strong brand which are interrelated, that is, brand loyalty, brand
management impacts an organization by building awareness, perceived quality, and brand association
a reputation and gaining competitive advantage (Aaker, 1996a). Yoo et al. (2000) explored the working
(Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Walsh, Dinnie, & theory of Aaker’s brand equity model, and they agreed
Wiedmann, 2006; Matzler, Hinterhuber, Daxer, to what has been proposed by Aaker. Until then, almost
& Huber, 2005). Many studies emphasized the all researchers who worked on the conceptualization
relationship of brand equity with competitive of brand equity (Vazquez, Del Rio, & Iglesias, 2002;
advantage (Ahmad & Sherwani, 2015; Delgado- Washburn & Plank, 2002; Keller, 2003; Kapferer,
Ballester & Munuera-Alemán, 2005; Hunt & Morgan, 2004) agreed with Aaker’s model of brand equity and
1996), but there is still room to study the direct relation his model has also been widely used by researchers
of the effects of brand equity on two different strategies today. Combining these definitions, brand equity can
of competitive advantage, that is, cost advantage and be concluded as the value a product or service earned
differentiation. Therefore, this study is conducted from from an increment of the customers’ knowledge and
the customers’ perspective to examine the influence awareness about the brand.
44 S. Hashim, E. L. Yi Ying, & S. Ahmed

Brand equity is very important for every brand plays important roles in marketing, such as consumers
to generate higher revenues and profits. More tend to feel familiar, contemplate the “when” in their
specifically, the smartphone brands are increasingly buying decision, and consequently start trusting brands
getting attention, and competition among smartphone (Keller, 1993). Brand awareness has been assessed
brands is now stiffer than ever. Bojei and Hoo (2012) empirically as an element of brand equity through
explained the importance of brand equity in the context a series of research studies (Yoo et al., 2000; Pappu
of smartphone markets in Malaysia and found that the & Quester, 2006; Tong & Hawley, 2009). In short,
dimensions of brand equity (i.e., brand association, customers will only consider and purchase products
brand awareness, brand loyalty, and perceived quality) or services from brands that they recognize.
positively influence the smartphone usage and its According to Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, and Donthu
repurchase intention. Other studies relate brand equity (1995), the higher brand awareness among customers,
with smartphone brands. A-Qader, Omar, and Rubel the higher will be the purchase intentions. Cobb-
(2017) did a study on the relationship of brand equity Walgren et al. (1995) also found in their study that
and brand experience among the smartphone users in brand awareness is helpful only in directing customers
Malaysia and found that the brand equity of smartphone towards purchase intentions, but they are useless
users is greatly influenced by the dimensions of in influencing repurchase intentions in the future.
effective brand experience. Furthermore, Huang and However, in a study on smartphone brands, Bojei
Shih (2017) explained the role of a perceived attribute and Hoo (2012) found that brand awareness plays a
of innovation as a new dimension of brand equity significant role in increasing smartphone usage and
in the context of smartphone markets in Taiwan. further encouraging customers towards the repurchase
According to Abid and Khattak (2017) brand equity of intention. Smartphones containing advanced features
smartphone brands increases when, (1) the consumer’s are of great help to consumers in day to day life and
expectations are met, (2) brand is in congruence with businesses; therefore, companies should increase
the consumer’s personality, and (3) brand is doing no brand awareness regarding updated features among
immoral activities. It is evident from these studies consumers to increase overall brand equity (Huang &
that brand equity enhances the customer satisfaction Shih, 2017). Once the brand awareness is successfully
of smartphone brands, which this study aims to prove. developed, it is not compulsory for smartphone
brands to advertise based on advanced technologies
Dimensions of Brand Equity to gain customer preferences because a customer
As shown previously, there are various definitions blindly associates new technology to the brand values
of brand equity by different authors, which results in (Petruzzellis, 2010). It is emphasized by Keller (1993,
diverse brand equity dimensions. Most of the studies 1998), Aaker (1997), and Berry (2000) that elements
defined brand equity based on four elements: brand of brand knowledge, (i.e., brand image and brand
awareness, brand association, perceived quality, and awareness) are very important in building successful
brand loyalty, as stated in Aaker’s renowned conceptual brands.
model of brand equity.
Brand Association
Brand Awareness Brand association serves as a platform for building
Whether a brand is recognized, recalled by the customer loyalty through repeat purchases (Aaker,
consumers, or it is known to the consumers, is referred 1991). Aaker (1996a) conceptualized brand association
to as brand awareness. At one extreme, some brands as a follow-up phenomenon of brand awareness,
are unknown to a majority of the people. On the other indicating that customers must first be aware and
hand, some brands are known to almost everyone in recognize the brand before a set of associations can be
the world (Ahmad & Sherwani, 2015) showing a high developed (Washburn & Plank, 2002). Aaker (1991)
level of brand recognition. To develop and maintain considered brand association as one of the magnitudes
a high level of brand awareness is among one of the of brand equity. Belen del Río, Vazquez, and Iglesias
primary focus of the brand managers because of the (2001) further added that brand association provides a
advantages that are brought to the firms through brand differential advantage to the brand. According to Keller
awareness (Jamil & Wong, 2012). Brand awareness (1993), the combination of attitudes, attributes, and
Exploring the Strategic Role of Brand Equity Towards Competitive Advantage in the Smartphone Industry 45

benefits can shape brand association. Low and Lamb and give firms a strong opportunity for brand extension.
(2000) suggested that brand associations have primary Perceived quality also helps in maintaining brand
dimensions that include brand attitude, brand image, image and therefore correlates with customer-based
and perceived quality. brand equity (Yoo & Donthu, 2001). Customers are
According to Cobb-Walgren et al. (1995), higher likely to purchase from the brands that are perceived
brand association leads to higher purchase intention. to offer superior quality (Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995).
Furthermore, in a study on smartphones, Bojei and Bojei and Hoo (2012) supported this argument and
Hoo (2012) found that besides purchase intention, found that the higher perceived quality of smartphone
brand association also helps in enhancing repurchase brands the higher is the purchase intention of the
intentions among the consumers of smartphones. Bojei customers. Besides, a global smartphone brand that is
and Hoo (2012) further added that brand association being marketed in numerous countries and big cities
with reference to smartphones could be seen by the is perceived to have a good quality, which further
experiential and functional attributes that a specific results in conducive and flattering consumer attitudes
brand offers. For example, consumers used to associate regarding the global brands (Pappu, Quester, &
positive things with brands like innovativeness, Cooksey, 2007; Roy & Chau, 2011). Thus, in short,
distinctiveness, high technology, sophistication, and perceived quality assures the prevalence of the chosen
excellence. Thus, in the context of a smartphone, the brand over others.
distinctive features and functions offered by specific
brand could signify brand associations. Aaker (1996b) Brand Loyalty
asserted that brand associations are determined by Brand loyalty is a significant phenomenon to be
the brand identity that has been created through the studied in the context of marketing strategy. Assael
integration of intangible and tangible features. In short, (1998) and Deighton, Henderson, and Neslin (1994)
users’ perception toward the experiential and functional conceptualized brand loyalty as the repurchase
characteristics makes up the brand association. behavior of consumers that are delighted with their
previous buying experience for the same brand.
Perceived Quality Oliver (1999) defined brand loyalty as “a deeply held
Aaker (1991) defined perceived quality as commitment to buy or patronize a preferred product
“consumer’s perception of the overall quality or or service consistently in the future, thereby causing
superiority of a product or a service with respect to repetitive same-brand or same-brand-set purchasing,
its intended purpose, relative to alternatives” (p. 52). despite situational influences and marketing efforts
Zeithaml (1988) revealed that perceived quality is the having the potential to cause switching behavior” (p.
overall product quality and excellence that is judged 41). Travis (2000) continued to claim that brand loyalty
by a consumer. Perceived quality is different from is the ultimate objective and connotation of brand
brand association because it plays a noteworthy part equity, adding that brand loyalty is brand equity. Brand
in differentiating a brand from others (Ha, Janda, & loyalty results from loyalty-based buying decisions that
Muthaly, 2010). High perceived quality implies that might become an everlasting habit (Solomon, 2013).
consumers can identify and distinguish the superiority Besides, brand loyalty could support the organization
of a brand when they come by to have long term as a chance to respond and handle the competition.
involvement with the brand. Perceived quality is being Loyal customers of a brand are always satisfied and
confirmed as one of the main elements of the brand inclined to remain with their favorite brand, making
equity model (Farquhar, 1989; Keller, 1993; Aaker, them less sensitive to price increase due to the product’s
1996b) as it provides value that differentiates the brand ability to satisfy their needs (Rundle-Thiele & Bennett,
from its competitors. Basically, perceived quality can 2001). Cobb-Walgren et al. (1995) are of the view that
contribute towards the value of a brand in many ways; purchase intention among consumers is high when
it can provide a good reason for purchasing the brand’s brand loyalty is high. Consistent with the findings of
product and empowers the brand to differentiate itself Cobb-Walgren et al. (1995), Bojei and Hoo (2012) also
from the competitors (Aaker, 1991). found brand loyalty to be linked positively with the
Furthermore, Aaker (1991) explained that perceived repurchase intentions for smartphones in Malaysian
quality also allows the firms to charge premium prices markets. In the category of electronic accessories like
46 S. Hashim, E. L. Yi Ying, & S. Ahmed

smartphones, it is not essential for brands that have satisfaction and competitive advantage (Miles, Miles,
brand loyalty to gain customer preferences through & Cannon, 2012), studies which directly relate and
the push of new technologies; rather, loyal customer compare competitive advantage with effects of brand
associate new technologies with the brands themselves equity have been neglected in the past. For the success
(Petruzzellis, 2010). of smartphone brands, customer satisfaction is very
crucial as customers who find a particular smartphone
Customer Satisfaction brand up to the desired level of expectations tend to
To gain customer satisfaction is the primary goal recommend that brand to others (Martensen, 2007).
of companies in both service and product industry. Various scholars have emphasized that smartphone
Customer loyalty and customer retention, which companies should consider the preferences of the
are considered very important and helps in high customers and their desired features of smartphones so
turnovers and increased profits, are connected with that they can be satisfied and make repeat purchases
customer satisfaction (McQuitty, Fin & Wiley 2000). (Martensen, 2007; Petruzzellis, 2010; Bojei & Hoo,
Oliver (1981) stated that satisfaction is “the summary 2012; Huang & Shih, 2017).
psychological state resulting when the emotion
surrounding disconfirmed expectations is coupled with Competitive Advantage
prior feelings about the consumer experience” (p. 24). Porter (1985) introduced the term “competitive
Customer satisfaction is viewed as a vital approach advantage” as the sustainable superior performance in
for a company to achieve long term business success the firm’s products or services relative to competitors in
and gain a competitive advantage (Pappu & Quester, the same industry or towards industry average. Barney
2006). This is also vital in terms of a firm’s economic (1995) viewed competitive advantage as the strength
performance. Furthermore, customer satisfaction that a firm gains through its successful implementation
affects consumer purchase intentions (Cronin & Taylor, of the marketing mix that is valued by customers. On
1992), making repeat purchase behavior possible and the other hand, Murray (2014) defined competitive
help produce strong brands with a strong competitive advantage as “a characteristic, feature or an opportunity
advantage (LaBarbera & Mazursky, 1983). Past that an organization possesses which makes it more
literature shows that customer satisfaction has strong attractive than its competitors” (p. 189). Almost
links with different dimensions of brands (Grace & everything can be well-thought-out as a competitive
O’Cass, 2001). Various dimensions of brand equity edge, from either a higher profit margin or greater return
effects satisfaction directly, such as employee service, to other valuable possessions available in the company
servicescape (Berry, 2000), core service, and emotions (Jurevicius, 2013). Strategic managers and researchers
that instigate while encountering services (Babin & have long been concerned about understanding the
Babin, 2001). foundations of competitive advantage for firms
The relation between overall brand equity and (Rumelt, 1984; Barney, 1995). The concept of
customer satisfaction has become a major concern in competitive advantage results from the rivalry among
marketing research for the past two decades. Today, companies in the same industry and great importance
customer satisfaction is seen as a primary strategy by is given to this concept because the competition is
marketers to gain customer loyalty, improve customers’ being viewed as the focus of a company’s success or
willingness to pay more, and enhance customer failure (Murray, 2014). “Competition determines the
lifetime value (Hogan, Lemon, & Rust, 2002; Keller appropriateness of a firm’s activities that can contribute
& Lehmann, 2006). It is recognized that delighted to its performance, such as innovations, a cohesive
customers become less price-sensitive and more loyal culture or good implementation” (Porter, 1985, p. 1).
to the firm for a longer period when compared with Competitive advantage can be further described
dissatisfied customers (Dimitriades, 2006). Although through cost and differentiation advantages. Be it a
there has been an abundance of surveys conducted to cost advantage or differentiation, it is concerned with
investigate the connection between brand equity and the value chain of the company (Porter & Millar,
customer satisfaction (Ahmad & Sherwani, 2015; Bilal 1985). Porter and Millar (1985) further explained that
& Malik, 2014; Nam, Ekinci, & Whyatt, 2011; Torres certain cost drivers are associated with every single
& Tribo, 2011) and relationship between customer value activity, which controls the cost and leads to
Exploring the Strategic Role of Brand Equity Towards Competitive Advantage in the Smartphone Industry 47

cost advantage. Similarly, the efficient working of each smartphone brands and a single minimal feature can be
value activity makes the company able to differentiate a source of competitive advantage in this technology-
itself from rivals not only in selling products or services driven industry, so firm’s innovation capabilities are
but also in other activities like logistics and after-sales essential to create competitive advantage (Lew &
services. According to Porter and Millar (1995), if the Sinkovics, 2013). It is noted in previous studies that
collective costs of all the activities being performed in competitive advantage through product innovation
a company are less than the costs encountered by the affects the reputation of the company and its influence
competitors, then the company is considered to have on consumers in a positive way (Henard & Dacin,
a cost advantage. However, a differentiation strategy 2010). Therefore, it is concluded that the smartphone
is achieved by outperforming in the related industry market is increasingly competitive, and smartphone
and having uniqueness in some aspects that are valued brands must keep striving for product innovation for
by the customers (Porter & Millar, 1995). Considering the sake of gaining a competitive advantage.
these two important competitive advantages, this study
incorporated samples from each of the two advantages Hypothesis
to find the differences.
According to Delgado-Ballester and Munuera- This research is conducted primarily using Aaker’s
Alema´n (2005), brand equity has the features conceptual brand equity model that consists of four
which help in creating a competitive advantage that basic elements—brand awareness, perceived quality,
is sustainable to the firms and increase value in the brand association, and brand loyalty. The model of
minds of customers. Hunt and Morgan (1996) were brand equity is being used as an independent model
also among those who emphasized the relationship of to test the level of customer satisfaction among
brand equity with a competitive advantage and stated two samples of the population, one focusing on the
that trust and loyalty together form brand equity, which cost advantage sample and the other focusing on
further creates a competitive advantage. Combining differentiation sample. These four elements of brand
all the definitions above, competitive advantage can equity are used as the independent variables in this
be defined as a strategy providing the company with study, and any changes among the four elements
unique capabilities that makes the company proficient will affect the dependent variable, which is customer
for outperforming its competitors while sustaining their satisfaction. The conceptual model is shown in
customers and reputation. Considering the smartphone Figure 1.
market globally, there is immense competition among

H1
Brand Awareness Customer Satisfaction
H2
H5 (Cost Advantage Sample)
Brand Association H6 H9
H3
H7
Perceived Quality Customer Satisfaction
H4
(Differentiattion Advantage Sample)
Brand Loyalty H8

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

H1 and H5: Brand awareness has a positive relationship with customer satisfaction.
H2 and H6: Brand association has a positive relationship with customer satisfaction.
H3 and H7: Perceived quality has a positive relationship with customer satisfaction.
H4 and H8: Brand loyalty has a positive relationship with customer satisfaction.
H9: There is a significant difference between customer satisfaction level in cost advantage
and differentiation sample.
48 S. Hashim, E. L. Yi Ying, & S. Ahmed

Methods were being paid with a monthly salary of RM 2000

and below.
The focus of this study is the smartphone market On the other hand, a total of 200 questionnaires for
in Kuching, Sarawak. According to Department of the differentiation sample were successfully collected.
Statistics Malaysia (2010), the population of Kuching Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of respondents’
is 705,546. Based on convenience sampling, the demographic profile of the differentiation sample.
required data was collected primarily through a Among 200 respondents, 40% of them were male and
quantitative method by distributing 417 questionnaires. the rest were females. Majority of the respondents
The questionnaire contained measurement items that (37.5%) were in the age group of 31 to 40 years,
require respondents to indicate their agreement level followed by respondents aged 21 to 30 years (32.5%),
towards brand equity elements that includes brand and the least with just 6.5% were 51 years old and
awareness, brand association, perceived quality and above. The study revealed that among 200 respondents,
brand loyalty, and customer satisfaction. To facilitate there were 39 Malays, 60 Chinese, 30 Indians, and 71
this study, five-point Likert scale, (ranging from respondents that belong to ethnic groups other than
1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) has been three major ethnic groups in Malaysia mentioned
used. A sample of 10 respondents was selected earlier. Among all the respondents of differentiation
to perform the pre-test to figure out respondents’ sample in Kuching, 33% of them were degree holders
understanding of the questions used in the instrument. where 76 (38%) of them have a monthly income of
After the preliminary test, a pilot, or a feasibility test RM 2000 and below.
was conducted with 30 respondents to further confirm The data obtained were analyzed using SPSS
the validity of the administrated questionnaire prior 23. Reliability test has been conducted to show the
to a larger study. Based on the results and opinions consistency and stability of the instrument used in
from the 10 and 30 respondents from preliminary this study. The Cronbach’s alphas for the factors were
and pilot test, respectively, the instrument became found to be 0.85, 0.85, 0.905, 0.894, and 0.858 for
understandable, and the language used is simple and brand awareness, brand association, perceived quality,
readable. Therefore, there is no amendment needed brand loyalty, and customer satisfaction, respectively.
for the instrument. These values are all reliable as they are above the
recommended threshold value of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1988).
Results The results of reliability analysis using the Cronbach’s
alpha approach is provided in Table 2.
A total of 217 questionnaires for the cost-
advantage sample were successfully collected. Table Multiple Regression Analysis in Cost
1 shows the descriptive statistics of respondents’ Advantage Sample
demographic profile of cost advantage sample. There Multiple regression analysis was conducted to
are five dimensions in the respondent profile— test the eight hypotheses to examine the relationships
respondent’s gender, age group, ethnic group, among brand equity elements (brand awareness, brand
educational level, and income level. Among the association, perceived quality, and brand loyalty) and
217 respondents, 42.4% of them were male. Age of customer satisfaction in the two different samples. A
more than half of the respondents (77%) was in the total of 217 responses from the cost advantage sample
range of 21 to 30 years, followed by respondents who view cost as a priority in their consideration of
aged 20 years and below (13.8%), and the least with choosing smartphone brands were being collected and
just 0.9% which were 51 years old and above. The analyzed. Referring to Table 3, the R2 value (0.512)
study revealed that among the 217 respondents, there indicates that there is 51.2% explained variation in
were 42 Malays, 148 Chinese, 2 Indians, and 25 customer satisfaction due to brand awareness, brand
respondents that belonged to ethnic groups other than association, perceived quality, and brand loyalty.
three major ethnic groups in Malaysia mentioned The percentage of Adjusted R2 shows the percentage
above. Besides, among all the respondents of the of change after adjustment of standard errors in the
cost-advantage sample in Kuching, 74.7% of them data. The value of adjusted R2 (0.503) shows that
were degree holders where 186 (85.7%) of them after adjustment of standard error, there is still 50.3%
Exploring the Strategic Role of Brand Equity Towards Competitive Advantage in the Smartphone Industry 49

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of Respondents (Cost and Differentiation Advantage Sample)

Detail Cost Advantage Sample Differentiation Sample

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Male 92 42.4 80 40
Sex
Female 125 57.6 120 60
20 and below 30 13.8 17 8.5
21-30 167 77 65 32.5
Age group 31-40 4 1.8 75 37.5
41-50 14 6.5 30 15
51 and above 2 0.9 13 6.5
Malay 42 19.4 39 19.5
Chinese 148 68.2 60 30
Ethnic group
Indian 2 0.9 30 15
Others 25 11.5 71 35.5
No formal education 0 0 8 4
PMR/SRP/PT3 4 1.8 34 17
SPM 15 6.9 41 20.5
STPM/A Level 14 6.5 22 11
Educational level Diploma 17 7.8 20 10
Degree 162 74.7 66 33
Master 1 0.5 4 2
PhD 0 0 1 0.5
Others 4 1.8 4 2
2000 ‎ and below 186 85.7 76 38
2001-3000 10 4.6 16 8
Income level
3001-4000 6 2.8 34 17
(RM)
4001-5000 7 3.2 43 21.5
5001 and above 8 3.7 31 15.5

Table 2
Reliability Analysis

Dimension No. of items Cronbach’s Alpha (α)

Brand Awareness 7 0.850
Brand Association 5 0.850
Perceived Quality 7 0.905
Brand Loyalty 6 0.894
Customer Satisfaction 5 0.858
50 S. Hashim, E. L. Yi Ying, & S. Ahmed

variation in customer satisfaction explained by the Multiple Regression Analysis in

predictors, that is, brand awareness, brand association, Differentiation Sample
perceived quality, and brand loyalty. It is revealed that A total of 200 responses from the respondents
there are medium positive relationships between the who considered differentiation or different features
elements of brand equity and customer satisfaction in choosing smartphone brands were being collected
level in cost advantage sample. and analyzed for this regression analysis. Referring
Pertaining to the strengths, direction, and to Table 3, the R2 value (0.788) indicates that there
coefficients value of multiple regression analysis in is 78.8% variation in customer satisfaction explained
cost advantage sample, the results showed that there due to brand awareness, brand association, perceived
are positive relationships of brand awareness, brand quality, and brand loyalty in differentiation sample. The
association, perceived quality, and brand loyalty value of adjusted R2 (0.784) shows that after adjustment
with customer satisfaction with β-value of 0.145, of standard error, there is still 78.4% variation in
0.081, 0.254, and 0.363, respectively. Among the customer satisfaction that could be explained by the
four independent variables, brand loyalty indicates predictors of brand equity, that is, brand awareness,
the strongest relationship with customer satisfaction brand association, perceived quality, and brand loyalty.
whereas brand association shows the weakest. It shows that differentiation sample has strong positive
These positive relationship supports the formulated relationships between elements of brand equity and
hypotheses. It implies that when there is an increase in customer satisfaction level.
brand awareness, brand association, perceived quality, In regards to the strengths, direction, and coefficient
and brand loyalty, customer satisfaction also increases. values of multiple regression analysis in differentiation
From the significance value column in Table 3, it could advantage sample, the results showed that there are
be statistically proved that the relationships between positive relationships of all independent variables
all the independent variables (brand awareness, brand (brand awareness, brand association, perceived
association, perceived quality, and brand loyalty) and quality, and brand loyalty) with the dependent variable
dependent variable (customer satisfaction) are all (customer satisfaction) having β-value of 0.665, 0.793,
significant with P < 0.05. Therefore, hypotheses H1, 0.753, and 0.778, respectively. From the sig. value
H2, H3, and H4 are accepted. column in Table 3, it is statistically proven that the

Table 3
Hypothesis Testing Summary (Differentiation vs Cost Advantage)

  Customer Satisfaction
Details Cost Advantage Differentiation Advantage
Brand Awareness 0.436** t = 2.171; 0.031 sig. (H1) 0.755** t = 2.986; 0.003 sig. (H5)
Brand Association 0.438** t = 1.114; 0.027 sig. (H2) 0.830** t = 4.420; 0.000 sig. (H6)
Perceived Quality 0.639** t = 4.011; 0.000 Sig. (H3) 0.810** t = 4.111; 0.000 sig. (H7)
Brand Loyalty 0.647** t = 5.128; 0.000 sig. (H4) 0.772** t = 5.552; 0.000 sig. (H8)
N 217 200
Mean Satisfaction 3.6968 4.009
Std. Deviation 0.57571 0.69724
R² 0.512 0.788

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Exploring the Strategic Role of Brand Equity Towards Competitive Advantage in the Smartphone Industry 51

relationships between all the independent variables and is different among cost advantage and differentiation
dependent variable are all significant with P < 0.05. sample in Kuching smartphone market.
Therefore, hypotheses H5, H6, H7, and H8 are accepted.
Discussion
Independent Sampled T-test
Independent sampled t-test has been conducted This study is conducted to investigate the
in this research to test the extent and the strength of relationship between four elements of brand equity
the relationship between two samples of the study, (brand awareness, brand association, perceived quality,
which are cost advantage sample and differentiation and brand loyalty) and competitive advantage through
sample. The t-test enables researchers to examine the customers’ perspective, that is, customer satisfaction
difference between two distinct populations using towards smartphone brands in Kuching. Also, it is
the data gathered from two different samples. Table conducted to explore the differences between the level
4 showed the statistical results of the two samples. of customer satisfaction among Kuching smartphone
There are 217 respondents for cost advantage sample users in cost advantage and differentiation samples.
and 200 respondents for differentiation sample. Also, This study reveals that the four elements of brand
there is a difference between cost advantage sample equity have a positive relationship with the customer
and differentiation sample with a mean value of 3.6968 satisfaction level. Previous studies showed that the
and 4.0090, respectively. brand equity model (Aaker, 1991) had been described
The results reveal that there is a significant as the determinant of customer satisfaction in most of
difference between the customer satisfaction level the cases (Ryu et al., 2010). Based on recent studies,
among both samples, that is, sample who valued cost it can be concluded that customer satisfaction signifies
and sample who valued differences/uniqueness at F a major element in generating value and advantage
= 0.884, p = 0.026. Based on the F-value of 0.884 for companies in a competitive environment (Bilal &
and the significance level at 0.026 (p < 0.05), it is Malik, 2014; Ahmad & Sherwani, 2015).
concluded that the effect of brand equity elements Out of four elements of brand equity, results showed
towards customer satisfaction level is different among that in cost advantage sample, brand loyalty has the
cost advantage and differentiation sample. strongest relationship with customer satisfaction
Overall, smartphone users in differentiation level, which is consistent with the research conducted
sample are more satisfied (mean value = 4.0090) with by Ahmad and Sherwani (2015). This indicates the
their smartphone brand choices when compared to criticality of brand loyalty development among all
smartphone users among cost advantage sample who the elements of brand equity to leverage the customer
valued cost as their consideration for smartphone satisfaction level among smartphone users who valued
brands (mean value = 3.6968). Therefore, this study cost as their primary consideration of selecting a
supports H9, and we conclude that the effect of brand smartphone brand.
equity model in influencing customer satisfaction level

Table 4
Independent Sample Test

Levene’s Test for Equality of

Analysis t-test for Equality of Means
Variances
F Sig. Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference

Equal variances assumed 0.025 0.42967

DV 0.884 0.038
Equal variances not assumed 0.026 0.43114

DV = satisfaction (Cost vs differentiation Advantage)

52 S. Hashim, E. L. Yi Ying, & S. Ahmed

In differentiation sample results, brand association data obtained is only able to disclose the effect of the
has the most dominant effect on customer satisfaction predictor variable towards a criterion variable within
level. This means that customers who valued a specific timeframe. Additionally, the limitation of
uniqueness and differences in considering their using convenience sampling techniques has denoted
smartphone brands would most probably be satisfied that the outcomes of this research will be more specific
when they are well associated with the brand. Bridges, and cannot be generalized. Secondly, marketing
Keller, and Sood (2000) asserted that a strong brand managers should also take the inter-correlations among
association strengthens brand equity and consequently all the four elements of Aaker’s brand equity model
leads to increased satisfaction. Overall, smartphone into consideration. Customer satisfaction level can be
users in the differentiation sample are more satisfied increased if the brand’s image and its superiority are
with their smartphone brand choices when compared recognized by the customers.
to smartphone users among the cost advantage As a conclusion, the cost leadership strategy
sample who valued cost as their consideration for that primarily adopts the price penetration tactics
buying smartphone brands. This reveals that there should focus on how to keep their price competitive.
is a significant difference between those who value Organizations can realign their marketing efforts that
cost and those who value uniqueness/differences in focus more on product design and efficient distribution
selecting their smartphone brands. system to keep the price low as part of their competitive
Three implications can be derived from the findings advantage strategy. For the organizations that pursue
of this study. First, smartphone brands who practice differentiation strategy, it must be ensured that their
cost leadership strategy (i.e., they primarily aimed to target customers are well associated with their brand
market their smartphone at a penetration price while because brand associations can lead to customer
keeping their production cost low) should focus their satisfaction. Therefore, brands can be effective tools for
efforts on building brand loyalty. Brand loyalty is the the organizations to gain their competitive advantage,
repurchase behavior of customers that may lead the firm but specific advantage and segment need specific brand
to gain market share with more satisfied customers, treatment.
which reduces marketing cost because customers are
already loyal to the product and will repurchase without Acknowledgment
thinking much about the advertising efforts by other
brands. Consequently, it results in strengthening the This work was supported by UNIMAS’s Special
brand towards competitive threats. Grant Scheme (F01/SpGS/1419/16/20).
Secondly, for those companies who pursue
differentiation strategy, they should first ensure that Declaration of ownership:
their target customers are well associated with their
brand. The results of the current study show that brand This report is our original work.
association has the most dominant effect on customer
satisfaction level. Connecting their customers with Conflict of interest:
good feelings and great perceptions can assist the
brands to obtain higher customer satisfaction level. None.
This study concludes that brand association is the
predicting variable of customer satisfaction towards Ethical clearance:
customers that value uniqueness when purchasing
smartphones. The study was approved by the institution.

Conclusion References
This research aims to measure brand equity of Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing
smartphone brands only in Kuching, Malaysia. This is on the value of a brand name. New York, USA: The
to ensure that there is a scope to study the perceptions of Free Press.
the consumers and their behaviors. The cross-sectional
Exploring the Strategic Role of Brand Equity Towards Competitive Advantage in the Smartphone Industry 53

Aaker, D. A. (1996a). Measuring brand equity across Foresight, 1(10), 287–303. Retrieved from http://
products and markets. California Management Review, ijmmf.com /wp-content/uploads/2016/07/VOL.1-
38(3) 102–120. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws. NO.10.-287-303.pdf
com/ academia.edu.documents/33893776/Aaker_1996_ Bojei, J., & Hoo, W. C. (2012). Brand equity and current
Measuring_Brand_Equity_Across_Products_and_ use as the new horizon for repurchase intention of
Markets. smartphone. International Journal of Business and
Aaker, D. A. (1996b). Building Strong Brands. New York, Society, 13(1), 33–48. Retrieved from http://www.ijbs.
USA: The Free Press. unimas. my/repository/pdf/Vol13No1(paper3).pdf
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Bridges, S., Keller, K. L., & Sood, S. (2000). Communication
Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3) 347–356. doi: strategies for brand extensions: Enhancing perceived
10.2307/3151897 fit by establishing explanatory links. Journal
Abid, R., & Khattak, A. (2017). Brand avoidance motivators of Advertising, 29(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1
stimulate to brand equity in the mediating role of 080/00913367.2000.10673620
brand hate: A case of smartphone industry of Pakistan. Cobb-Walgren, C. J., Ruble, C. A., & Donthu, N. (1995).
Journal of Accounting and Marketing, 6(3), 250. doi: Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase intent.
10.4172/2168-9601.1000250. Journal of Advertising, 24(3), 25-40. https://doi.
Ahmad, F., & Sherwani, N. U. (2015). An empirical study on org/10.1080/009133 67.1995.10673481
the effect of brand equity of mobile phones on customer Cronin Jr, J.J. & Taylor, S.A. (1992). Measuring
satisfaction. International Journal of Marketing Studies, service quality: a reexamination and extension. The
7(2), 59–69. doi:10.5539/ijms.v7n2p59 Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55–68. http://dx.doi.
Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The antecedents org/10.1108/014091706 10717817
and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Deighton, J., Henderson, C. M., & Neslin, S. A. (1994).
Marketing Science, 12(2), 125–143. https://doi. The effects of advertising on brand switching and repeat
org/10.1287/mks c.12.2.125 purchasing. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(1),
A-Qader, I. K., Omar, A. B., & Rubel, M. R. B. (2017). 28–43. doi: 10.2307/3151944
The influence of affective brand experience dimension Delgado-Ballester, E., & Luis Munuera-Alemán, J. L.
on brand equity of the smartphone millennial users in (2005). Does brand trust matter to brand equity? Journal
Malaysia. Management, 5(1), 25–37. doi: 10.17265/2328- of Product & Brand Management, 14(3), 187–196.
2185/2017.01.003 https://doi.org /10.1108/10610420510601058
Assael, H. (1998). Customer behavior and marketing action. Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2010). Population
Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Publication. distribution and basic demographic characteristics.
Atilgan, E., Aksoy, Ş., & Akinci, S. (2005). Determinants Retrieved from https://www.sarawak.gov.my/web/home/
of the brand equity: A verification approach in the article_view/240/175/
beverage industry in Turkey. Marketing Intelligence Dimitriades, Z. S. (2006). Customer satisfaction, loyalty and
& Planning, 23(3), 237–248. https://doi.org commitment in service organizations: Some evidence
/10.1108/02634500510597283 from Greece. Management Research News, 29(12),
Babin, B. J., & Babin, L. (2001). Seeking something 782-800. https://doi.org/10.1108 /01409170610717817
different? A model of schema typicality, consumer Farquhar, P. (1989). Managing brand equity. Marketing
affect, purchase intentions and perceived shopping value. Research, 1(3), 24-–33.
Journal of Business Research, 54(2), 89–96. https:// doi. Grace, D. & O’Cass, A. (2001). Attributions of service
org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00095-8 switching: a study of consumers’ and providers’
Barney, J. B. (1995). Looking inside for competitive perceptions of child-care service delivery. Journal
advantage. The Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), of Services Marketing, 15(4), 300-321. https://doi.
49–61. https:// doi.org/10.5465/ame.1995.9512032192 org/10.1108/EU M0000000005508
Belén del Río, A., Vazquez, R. & Iglesias, V. (2001). The Ha, H. Y., Janda, S. & Muthaly, S. (2010). Development of
effects of brand associations on consumer response. brand equity: evaluation of four alternative models. The
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(5), 410-425. https:// Service Industries Journal, 30(6), 911-928. doi: http://
doi.org /10.1108/07363760110398808 dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642060802320253
Berry, L. L. (2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Journal Henard, D. H. & Dacin, P. A. (2010). Reputation for product
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 128–137. innovation: Its impact on consumers. Journal of Product
https://doi.org/10 .1177/0092070300281012 Innovation Management, 27(3), 321-335. https://doi.org
Bilal, A., & Malik, F. (2014). Impact of brand equity /10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00719.x
and brand awareness on customer’s satisfaction. Hogan, J. E., Lemon, K. N. & Rust, R. T. (2002). Customer
International Journal of Modern Management & equity management: Charting new directions for the
54 S. Hashim, E. L. Yi Ying, & S. Ahmed

future of marketing. Journal of Service Research, 5(1), McQuitty, S., Finn, A., & Wiley, J. B. (2000). Systematically
4-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705 02005001002 varying consumer satisfaction and its implications for
Huang, Y. T. & Shih, K. H. (2017). Customer-based product choice. Academy of Marketing Science Review,
brand equity of smartphone in the emerging market. 10(1), 231-254. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.
International Journal of Mobile Communications, 15(5), com/docview/200800408?accountid=40705
467-490. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMC.2017.086364 Miles, P., Miles, G., & Cannon, A., (2012). Linking
Hunt, S. D. & Morgan, R. M. (1996). The resource-advantage servicescape to customer satisfaction: exploring the
theory of competition: dynamics, path dependencies, and role of competitive strategy. International Journal of
evolutionary dimensions. The Journal of Marketing, Operations & Production Management, 32(7), 772–795.
60(4), 107-114. doi: 10.2307/1251905. https://doi.org/10.1108/0144 3571211250077
Jamil, B.& Wong, C. H. (2012). Brand Equity and Current Murray, P. (2014). The nature and sources of competitive
Use as the New Horizon for Repurchase Intention of advantage. Queensland, Austrailia: John Wiley & Sons
Smartphone. International Journal of Business and Ltd.
Society, 13, 33–48. Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyatt, G., (2011). Brand equity,
Jurevicius, O. (2013, September 26). Competitive advantage. brand loyalty, and customer satisfaction. Annals of
Available from Strategic Management Insight: Retrieved Tourism Research, 38(3), 1009–1030. https://doi.
from https://www.strategicmanagementin sight.com/ org/10.1016 /j.annals.2011.01.015
topics/competitive-advantage.htm l. Newzoo. (2018). Newzoo global mobile market report
Kapferer, K. L. (2004). The new strategic brand management. 2018 . Retrived from https://newzoo.co m/insights/
New Delhi, India: Kogan. trend-reports/newzoo-global-mo bile-market-report-
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, 2018-light-version/
and managing customer-based brand equity. The Nunnally, J. (1988). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New
Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22. http://dx.doi. York: McGraw-Hill.
org/10.2307/1252054. O’Leary, T., & O’Leary, L. (2005). Computing essentials.
Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic brand management. Upper Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall. Oliver, R. L. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of
Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management: building, satisfaction processes in retail settings. Journal of
measuring, and managing brand equity. (2nd ed.). New Retailing, 57(Fall), 25–48.
Jersey, USA: Prentice-Hall. Pappu, R., & Quester, P. (2006). Does customer satisfaction
Keller, K., & Lehmann, D. (2006). Brands and branding: lead to improved brand equity? An empirical examination
research findings and future priorities. Marketing of two categories of retail brands. Journal of Product &
Science, 25(6), 740–759. https://doi.org/10.1287/ Brand Management, 15(1), 4–14. Retrieved from http://
mksc.1050.01 53 dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420610650837
LaBarbera, P., & Mazursky, D. (1983). Alongitudinal Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2007). County
assessment of customer satisfaction, dissatisfaction: the image and consumer-based brand equity: Relationships
dynamic aspect of cognitive process. Journal of Marketing and implications for intentional marketing. Journal of
Research, 20(4), 393–404. doi: 10.2307/3151443 International Business Studies, 38(5), 726–745. https://
Lew, Y. K., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2013). Crossing borders doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.84 00293
and industry sectors: behavioral governance in strategic Petruzzellis, L. (2010). Mobile phone choice: technology
alliances and product innovation for competitive versus marketing. The brand effect in the Italian market.
advantage. Long Range Planning, 46(1), 13–38. https:// European Journal of marketing, 44(5), 610–634. https://
doi. org/10.1016/j.lrp.2012.09.006 doi.org/10.1108/03090561011032298
Low, G., & Lamb, C. (2000). The measurement and Porter, M. (1985). The competitive advantage: creating
dimensionality of brand associations. Journal of Product and sustaining superior performance. New York, USA:
and Brand Management, 9(6), 350–370. https://doi. Free Press.
org/10.1108/1061 0420010356966 Porter, M. E., & Millar, V. E. (1985). How information gives
Martensen, A. (2007). Tweens’ satisfaction and brand loyalty you competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review,
in the mobile phone market. Young Consumers, 8(2), 63(4), 149–160. Retrieved from http://www.go spi.fr/
108–116. https://doi.org/10.1108/17473610710757464 IMG/pdf/how_information_gives_you_competitive_
Matzler, K., Hinterhuber, H., Daxer, C., & Huber, M. (2005). advantage-porter-hbr-1985.pdf
The relationship between customer satisfaction and Roy, R., & Chau, R. (2011). Consumer-based brand equity
shareholder value. Total Qual Manage Bus Excell, 16(5), and status-seeking motivation for a global versus local
671–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/147833605000 77674 brand. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
Exploring the Strategic Role of Brand Equity Towards Competitive Advantage in the Smartphone Industry 55

23(3), 270–284. https://doi.org/10.1108/135558511 Travis, D. (2000). Emotional branding: How successful

11143213 brands gain the irrational edge. USA: Crown Publishing
Rumelt, R.P. (1984). Towards a strategic theory of the firm. Group.
In R. Lamb, (Ed.), Competitive strategic management Vazquez, R., Del Rio, A., & Iglesias, V. (2002). Consumer-
(pp. 556-570). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall based brand equity: Development and validation of
Rundle-Thiele, S., & Bennett, R. (2001). A brand for all a measurement instrument. Journal of Marketing
seasons? A discussion of brand loyalty approaches Management, 18(1-2), 27–48. Retrieved from: doi:
and their applicability for different markets. Journal http:// dx.doi.org/10.1362/0267257022775882
of Product and Brand Management, 10(1), 25–37. Walsh, G., Dinnie, K., & Wiedmann, K. P. (2006). How do
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/106104201 corporate reputation and customer satisfaction impact
10382803 customer defection? A study of private energy customers
Ryu, K., Han, H., & Jang, S. (2010). Relationships in Germany. Journal of Service Marketing, 20(6),
among hedonic and utilitarian values, satisfaction 412–420. https://doi.org/10.1108/088 76040610691301
and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant Washburn, J., & Plank, R. (2002). Measuring brand equity:
industry. International Journal of Contemporary an evaluation of consumer-based brand equity scale.
Hospitality Management, 22(3), 416–432. https://doi. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(1), 46-
org /10.1108/09596111011035981 62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2002. 11501909
Solomon, M. (2013). Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating
and Being (10th ed.). New Delhi, India: PHI Learning. a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale.
Statista. (2017). Number of smartphone users in Malaysia Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1–14. https://doi.
from 2015 to 2021. Retrieved from https://www.statista. org/10.10 16/S0148-2963(99)00098-3
com/statistics/494587/smartphone-users-in-malaysia/ Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination
Tong, X., & Hawley, J. M. (2009). Measuring customer- of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity.
based brand equity: Empirical evidence from the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2),
sports wear market in China. Journal of Product and 195–211. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092070
Brand Management, 18(4), 262–271. doi: http://dx.doi. 300282002
org/10.1108/10610420910972783 Zeithaml, V. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price,
Torres, A., & Tribo, J. A. (2011). Customer satisfaction and quality and value: a A means-end model and synthesis
brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 64(10), 1089– of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22. doi:
1096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.12.001 10.2307/12514 46