Bachelor Thesis Rens Verweij

Investigating the role of brand equity
elements in consumers’ attitude toward an

innovation: a brand extension perspective.
Rens Verweij, 1839829
June 2009
Abstract
This empirical study investigated the relationship of brand equity factors on consumers’ attitude
toward the innovation. As variables for brand equity were chosen: Perceived quality, Brand image,
Brand awareness, attitude toward the brand and attitude toward the brand name. Therefore, the main
goal of this study was to deliver statistical evidence to support this relationship. The connection was
made between selling an innovative product and the extension of a brand. We expected that certain
brand equity factors consumers have toward the selling point, would be transferred to the products
they sold. This will especially apply to innovative products because then consumers aren’t able to
develop their attitude on prior experience with the product. Using a multiple regression, a significant
relationship was found for the relationship between Brand awareness and the attitude toward the
innovation. No statistical evidence was found to assume that Perceived quality, Brand Image, Attitude
toward the brand and Attitude toward the brand name, had influence on the attitude toward the
innovation.
Bachelor Thesis 2009
Table of content
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Literature review. .......................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Brand equity factors ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Innovation factors ........................................................................................................................ 10
3. Development of hypotheses. ........................................................................................................ 13
4. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 15
4.1 Sample.......................................................................................................................................... 15
4.2 Measures ...................................................................................................................................... 15
4.3 Data analysis ............................................................................................................................... 18
5. Results ........................................................................................................................................... 20
5.1 Reliability..................................................................................................................................... 20
5.2 Descriptive statistics .................................................................................................................... 21
5.3 Regression analysis ..................................................................................................................... 22
6. Discussion and conclusions. ........................................................................................................ 24
7. Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 26
2
1. Introduction
Society is changing. Everything becomes faster, less personal and more efficient. Nowadays,
consumers aren’t as loyal to their favorite brands as they were thirty years ago. This means that
building brand trust and brand loyalty becoming more difficult. Adding to previous that competition is
becoming more and fiercer, results in that it’s of most importance for every modern organization to
realize that satisfying their customers and sticking out of the rest, are key-factors to survive. Creating
brand equity is therefore key. A quote of Sterne (1999) 1 emphasizes this: “I may have intelligent
agents that can go out and assemble pages of reports on every camcorder on the market, but I don’t
have time to read them. I’ll buy Sony.”
The consumers’ technological demands are also increasing. We don’t want a phone which ‘only’ calls,
we want a phone that takes pictures, plays songs, functions like an agenda, etc. Organizations are
eager to fulfill these wishes and especially manufactures of electronic devices are spending more and
more money on research and development. Consequently, consumers are more often than ever
confronted with innovative products that they aren’t familiar with. The decision if they will use the
innovative product is therefore based on more aspects than their ‘routine’ decision of purchasing a
product to which they are already familiar with. This results in an increasing need on literature about
the improvement of the attitude towards the innovation.
Marketing activities are almost always trying to add value to the brand. This so called ‘brand equity’
has been a phenomenon of great interest. The previous quoted Sterne (1999) recognizes that the brand
familiarity is important for the purchase decision of consumers. An important model concerning the
perception of brand equity of consumers is developed by Kevin Lane Keller (1993). Adopting this
model, we shall explore how brand equity is built. For this study is chosen for a form of brand equity
that is focused at the perspective of the individual consumer. Keller calls this ‘customer based brand
equity’. He defines this as ‘the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the
marketing of the brand.’ In the model he emphasizes the importance of brand knowledge as a
component of brand equity. Brand knowledge is defined in terms of brand awareness and brand image.
Further study of brand equity will result in valuable variables to test the hypotheses.
When literature is explored, it shows that brand equity and adoption of innovation has both been topics
of extensive research. However, discovering a correlation relationship or even a causation relationship
between both variables is less or not at all researched. This study tries to not only add scientific
knowledge but also to create a more practical approach by researching if components of brand equity
consumers experience toward a retailer affects the decision-making-process of consumers.
The reason for expecting this relationship is the idea that brand equity has influence on consumers’
purchasing consideration. Swait et al. (1993)2 stated that the created brand equity of a product has a
significant influence on consumers’ decisions when purchasing a certain brand over others. It
therefore can be researched if brand equity not only has influence on the decision making of
consumers between several brands, but if it also affects consumers’ willingness of adopting
innovation. Is it so that when brands are well known and the organization is seen as trustable,
customers are easier convinced about purchasing an unknown, new product? For example, why is the
3
Senseo machine such a success? Because of its ease of use or does the brand equity of Phillips and
Douwe Egberts also participated in consumers’ purchase decision?
Research on the subject brand extensions is already been a topic of considerable interest of many
researchers. Allot of this research focused on the relationship between the already existing attitude
towards the core brand and the attitude toward the existing brand. (Aaker & Keller, 1990, 1992;
Chowdhury, 2001, 2006; Taylor & Bearden; 2003, Reddy et al, 1994)
This study tries linking brand extension to the improvement of the attitude towards the innovation.
Aaker & Keller (1990) acknowledge that the product associations consumers have about the parent
brand, can be transferred to the extended brand. In the current study we suspect that the associations
consumers made about the retailer can also be transferred to the products they sell. Especially for new
product which consumers aren’t familiar with.
This assumption is supported by research conducted by Sultan, Farley and Lehmann (1990)3. They
researched several theories on the adoption of innovations. They conclude that there are variables in
the marketing mix that can influence the willingness of consumers of adopting the innovation.
Frambach (1993)4 doubted the several already established diffusion theories on the fact that they did
not consider the effect of marketing activities on the degree of adoption of innovation. He stated that
marketing activities of the selling point has a direct effect on consumers’ willingness of adopting the
innovation.
A new and unknown product is the e-book reader, which is an abbreviation for electronic book reader.
This device can stock approximately two hundred e-books in memory. The e-books are easy to
download and are cheaper than the traditional paper books. The objective of this study is to explore the
relationship between online retailers´ brand equity and the willingness of consumers to adopt
innovative products. This will be studied by using e-books as the innovative product and studying the
brand equity of online book retailers.
From a managerial perspective, the results of this research can help managers of innovative products
to better their sales points. If it shows that brand equity of the retailers affects the willingness of
consumers to adopt an innovative product, they can only select the selling points at which their target
group experience brand equity. Also for the retailers the outcomes can be very useful. Additional
revenue can be created by adding the innovative product to their product portfolio. As an example, is
Bol.com in a favorite position for launching e-book readers because they have already built brand
equity towards their customers?
As mentioned before there is little research that has focused on the relationship between brand equity
and innovation. Therefore, it is also relevant from a scientific point of view to develop a theoretical
framework that shows this relationship.
The research question states:

“Does brand awareness, brand associations, brand image, brand name and perceived quality of the
selling point, affect the attitude toward an innovation like the e-book-reader?”
4
2. Literature review.
As dictated before, adoption of innovation received considerable much attention as an topic of

research. Rogers (1983) defines innovations as “an idea, practice or object that is perceived as new by
an individual or other unit of adoption.” Much of prior research focused on the characteristics of this
‘individuals or other units of adoption’, described as ‘innovators’ or ‘laggards’. (Rogers; 1983)5
Less consideration is paid to influences that affect consumers’ willingness toward the innovation. In
this literature study, we first pay attention to these influences that may come from marketing activities.
After this, we go deeper into literature that tries to explain consumers’ perception towards innovations.
2.1 Brand equity factors

As stated in the introduction, brand equity also received considerable attention in the marketing
literature. Brand equity has been viewed from a variety of perspectives. Allot of different definitions
are being used in this studies and it is therefore difficult to specify one clear definition of brand equity.
Rangaswamy (1990)6 sees brand equity as an asset resulting from the effects of past marketing
activities associated with a brand. Whereas Sikri (1992)7 states that brand equity is the added value
that is attributable to the brand name itself which is not captures by the brand’s performance on
fuctional attributes. In his study, Keller (1993)8 summarizes this definitions and states a more general
definition of brand equity: “Brand equity is defined in terms of the marketing effects uniquely
attributable to the brand. When certain outcomes result from the marketing of a product or service
because of its brand name that would not occur if the same product or service did not have that name.”
Exploring all these definition and more branding literature concludes that marketing academics
distinguish two insights of brand equity. One insight focuses on the benefits of brand equity for the
brand owner whereas the other insight focuses more on the needs of customers.
Yoo & Donthu (2001)9 describe brand equity as: “Consumers’ different response between a focal
brand and an unbranded product when both have the same level of marketing stimuli and product
attributes. The difference in consumer response may be attributed to the brand name and demonstrates
the effects of the long-term marketing invested into the brand.” They emphasize that a product’s brand
equity result in allot of benefits for the brand owner. These benefits are for example future profits and
long-term cash flow, a consumer's willingness to pay premium prices, merger and acquisition decision
making stock prices, sustainable competitive advantage, and marketing success. Almost every
marketing activity works, successfully or unsuccessfully, to build, manage, and exploit brand equity
(Yoo, Donthu & Lee, 2000)10.
Aaker (1991)11 is one of the most prominent and most quoted authors in the field of brand equity that
focuses on benefits for the brand owner. He describes brand equity as “the set of brand assets and
liabilities linked to the brand (its name and symbols) that add value to, or subtract value from, a
product or service.” He developed a model which shows four elements of brand equity. These
elements include brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality and brand associations. This model
makes it possible to map the benefits a brand has by adding value to their brand. It also gains insight in
the relationship between the several components of brand equity and helps to predict the future
performance of the brand. But why should organizations be more brand orientated? Vogel,
Evanschitzky & Ramaseshan (2008)12 researched the influence of brand equity of future sales. They
5
suspected that creating brand equity resulted in a positive attitude towards consumers’ loyalty. There
suspicion was right, because the results of their study showed a significant relationship between brand
equity and brand loyalty. They also found that this positive brand loyalty lead to more future sales.
As of now, this paper only focuses on customer-based equity. If there is spoken of brand equity, the
consumer-based brand equity is meant. By researching all brand equity literature we conclude that the
customer- based brand equity is more relevant for our study to the relationship between brand equity
and the willingness of consumers to adopt an innovative product.
Keller developed a model to get more insight in customer-based brand equity. Using this model, we
shall explore this kind of brand equity. Kevin Lane Keller (1993) calls this ‘customer based brand
equity’. He defines this as ‘the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the
marketing of the brand.’ He continues by stating: ‘Customer-based brand equity involves consumers’
reactions to an element of the marketing mix for the brand in comparison with their reactions to the
same marketing mix element attributed to a fictitiously named or unnamed version of the product or
service.’
A brand can see the benefits for them with creating brand equity and then try to create it, but if they
actually manage to do so is open for discussion. Rust, Zeithaml & Lemon (2004)13 agree with Kellers’
findings and stress the importance of listening to the customers. With a short phrase they summarize
their message: ‘Brands exist to serve customers, not het other way around.’ Consumer’s judge their
brand equity based on three factors. They speak of brand equity, when they experience the brand as
unique, strong and desirable (Verhoef; 2003).14
Customer-Based brand equity.

Keller explains brand equity, stating the following: “A brand is said to have positive/ negative
customer-based equity if consumers react more or less favorably to the product, price, promotion or
distribution of the brand than they do to the same marketing mix element when it is attributed to a
fictitiously named or unnamed version of the product or service.” The definition of Kellers’ customer-
based brand equity includes three elements: the differential effect, brand knowledge and the consumer
response to marketing. The differential effect is the effect that is measured between the consumers’
response to marketing of a known brand, compared with their response to the marketing activities of a
brand that is unknown to the consumers and consumer response to marketing is described as the
perception, preferences and behavior that arise from the marketing activities. Keller defines brand
knowledge in terms of brand awareness and brand image. Using Kellers’ construct, we go deeper into
the variables and form the hypotheses for this study. A visual model of Kellers’ model is enclosed in
Appendix A.
Brand awareness
Hoyer and Brown (1990)15 defines brand awareness as “a rudimentary level of brand knowledge
involving, at the least, recognition of the brand name. Awareness represents the lowest end of a
continuum of brand knowledge that ranges from simple recognition of the brand name to a highly
developed cognitive structure based on detailed information.”
Again, brand awareness is stressed to have a relationship with brand knowledge. This type of brand
knowledge is an important choice heuristic for consumers. Helped by this heuristic, consumers are
able to consider more easy and quicker if they should purchase the product. Especially when
6
purchasing low involvement products. Consumers will purchase products which they are familiar with.
If they have heard about the brand or had a prior experience, they are quicker inclined to start a
‘relationship’ with the brand. That is why it is important for brands to become known by their focus
group. (MacDonald & Sharp; 2000). 16 This study also showed that when consumers are aware of one
brand, they tend to sample fewer brands across a serie of product trials. Marketing managers often see
creating brand awareness as the main purpose of their marketing activities. This is, because of brand
awareness the product is adapted in the consideration set of the consumer. A consideration set is the
group of products the consumer considers in making a purchase decision.17 When the consumer is then
confronted with the brand, they will judge the product more positive and possibly purchase the
product. (Hoyer and Brown; 1990)
But what is it that consumers are actually aware of? Kotler (1991)18 defines a brand as:”a name, term,
sign, symbol or design, or combination of them which is intended to identify the goods and services of
one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors.” As mentioned
before, Keller (1993) states that brand awareness is one of the two components of brand knowledge.
As the word knowledge shows, brand awareness has a relationship with the knowledge in the human
memory. Consumer will have to remember the brand, which means all the brand components as Kotler
previously described. So, brand awareness relates to the chance that a brand will come in to mind and
the speed at which this does. That is why Keller separates brand awareness in brand recall and brand
recognition.
Attitude toward the brand name.

As Hoyer and Brown also stated, the brand name is of great importance when creating brand equity.
Zhang & Schmitt (2001)19 even stress the importance of the brand name by saying that the brand name
can establish or destroy the already built up brand equity. The visual aspects of branding, logo and
name, are the first things potential customers use to create an image towards the brand. It gives
substantially advantages, when this image is positive. An important component that appears to be
critical in creating brand image is the brand name. As said before, consumers nowadays have access to
lot of information about products, prices and stores through the internet. Consumers’ increased
awareness results that they are likely to become more price-sensitive. Thus, the role of brand
reputation and brand names are likely to become more important. (Grewal, Krishnan, Baker & Borin;
1998) 20
Research (Huang, Schrank & Dubinsky; 2006)21 has observed that brand name is one of the most
important extrinsic cues that consumers use to evaluate products. Consumers tend to employ extrinsic
cues when they do not have much knowledge about the product category. A study conducted by
Dawar and Parker (1994)22 found that brand name is the most important signal (cue) across cultures
when consumers face uncertainty about products. The research also showed that the brand name is
used by consumers to reduce search cost and cognitive effort when making product evaluations and
can reduce their perception of risk about product quality.
Also Ward & Lee (2000) 23 emphasize the importance of the brand name, especially on the internet.
They infer that nowadays, brand names are substitutes for consumers’ direct information gathering.
The internet is so full of information that people can’t possible decide which information these should
use. That’s why it is important for organizations/ web sites to select a brand name which sticks out, is
7
memorable and authentic. Cho & Ha (2004)24 noted that firms with extremely memorable brand names
often regard those names as their most valuable asset because these labels provide immediate
recognition, and often, acceptance of new products that may be introduced under the brand name is
higher. Lynch & Srull (1982) 25 agree and state that a brand is more likely to extend their
characteristics when there are more and recognizable cues present. The brand name is one of the more
important cues.
Perceived quality
Dawar & Parker (1994) also stated that the brand name is shown to be a critical cue for customer
perceptions of product quality. Also, Hoyer and Brown (1990) found that brand awareness affect
consumers’ perceived quality. ‘I have heard from the product, so it must be good.’ is a conception that
is most common among consumers. Zeithaml (1988) 26 defines perceived quality as the global
assessment of the customers’ verdict about the quality or uniqueness of a product. Summarizing she
states that perceived quality is a higher level of conceptual abstraction, rather than a concrete attribute.
In their research of brand extensions Aaker en Keller (1990) concludes that the extension benefits
when consumers have a positive attitude toward the quality of the core brand. However, this was only
realized when there was an logical ‘fit’ between the core brand and the extension. Only when the
respondents saw similar associations between the original and extension, perceived quality was
transferred. Thus, for this study we assume that perceived quality of the selling point can only be
transferred to the product if consumers have a favorable attitude and when they see some logical
connection between the product and the selling point.
Brand Image
Marketing academics has accepted brand image as an important concept in brand management.
Nevertheless, there is not much consensus in the definition of brand image. Keller (1993) state that
brand image is the perception of the brand that is formed by different brand associations in the
memory of consumers. This is in agreement with Kellers’ perception of brand image being a
component of brand knowledge. According to Aaker (1991) brand associations are the category of a
brand's assets that include anything ‘linked’ in memory to a brand. Brand components are saved in the
memory as so called nodes. The ‘nodes’ in consumers their memory are linked through an associative
network. These nodes are associated with each other. (Alba & Hutchinson; 1987)27 Brand associations
are the nodes in consumers’ memory that are linked to the brand node in memory and contain the
meaning of the brand for consumers. There are different dimensions that play an important role in
determining the differential response that makes up brand equity, the uniqueness, the favorability and
the strength of the brand association. There are also different types of brand association. Associations
can vary in attributes, benefits and attitudes.
The attributes of the brand consist of those characteristics that form the product as itself. It can also be
the intangible characteristics that consumers give to the brand, what consumers thinks the product is or
has and what is involved when it is purchased or consumed. These attributes are distinguished between
product-related attributes and non-product-related attributes. The product-related attributes are those
entities that are required to fulfill the function that is sought by costumers. They conclude the physical
demands of the consumers to a product. Alternatively, non-product-related attributes are the non-
physical features of the product that relates to its purchase. To achieve more insight in the relation
between brand equity and adoption of innovation, we go deeper into the non-product-attributes. Keller
8
distinguishes four types of the kind of brand association, that is: price information, packaging or
product appearance information, user imagery and usage image. User imagery consists of the
reflection of consumer to the people that use the product, so what type of person uses the product? For
example, people who drive a BMW car are often seen as snobs. Or football players that wear very
bright and colorful shoes, must possess allot of technique and ball skills. Usage imagery is on the other
hand more practical based and let the consumers ask where and in what types of situation the product
is used. Again as example, people buy a Volvo because it is known for its safety or consumers will
purchase an Bang & Olufsen stereo because the music just sounds better than any other brand. User
and usage imagery attributes are formed based on customers own experience or they are based on
product experience from second hand, so word of mouth or advertising (Aaker & Shansby; 1982).28
The association don’t particularly have to narrow to a specific product, also a product class can be
associated to user and image imagery (drinking beer is associated to friends). To show the relationship
between usage and user imagery with the attitude toward the innovation, we first need to explain the
following.
Our study is comparable with the study to brand extensions. The online book retailer is actually
‘extending’ their brand name to the innovative product. This study therefore tries to link brand
extension to the willingness of adopting an innovative product. In this case the book retailer is seen as
the original brand and the innovative product is seen as the brand extension of the online book retailer.
That is why it is useful to explore recent studies that compare the evaluations of consumers to brand
extensions. Aaker and Keller performed such a study in 1990. The manufacturers of the innovative
product are eager to associate their product to the brand image of the online book retailer. In this way,
these firms are reducing the chance at failure because they take advantage of the brand equity the
retailers already built. Keller and Aaker saw three assumptions made, that are based on the firms view
of creating a successful brand extension. First, it is the overall opinion that customers hold positive
beliefs/attitudes towards the original brand. Secondly, they assume that these associations facilitate the
formation of the positive beliefs/attitudes toward the brand extension. And finally, firms assume that
negative associations are neither transferred to nor created by the brand extension.
Knowing this, we can show the relevance to our research. Aaker and Keller stress the role of brand
associations with brand extensions. Especially the role of the non-product-related attributes of brand
awareness. The tangible and intangible attributes of the original brand are often used to be associate
with the brand extension. Their study showed that most of these associations with the brand can
actually are transferred to the brand extension. In terms of our study this means that the brand
associations consumers have of the online book retailer can be associated with the brand image of the
e-book-reader. The strength of these associations is mediated through the appropriateness and the
presence of cues to activate the association. (Feldmann & Lynch; 1988)29
Knowing this, explaining the hypothesis that brand image can influence the attitude toward the
innovation is possible. Store image is said to have an important role in the consumer decision-making
process (Nevin & Houston; 1980)30 Store image is thus one of the factors on which consumers form
their attitude. Recalling the previous concludes that when the attitude is transferred from the core- to
the extended brand, brand image plays a role.
9
Attitude toward the brand

As referred to before, Keller sees brand image as perceptual beliefs about a brand’s attribute, benefits
and attitude associations. This is often seen as the overall opinion (attitude) towards the brand. But
brand image is different from brand attitude, which is the overall evaluation of the brand given by the
consumer. Frequently confused with the brand image, brand attitude is conceptualized as just one of
the various associations used in the formation of the brand image (Faircloth, Capella & Alford;
2001)31 The importance of brand attitude lies in their influence on consumer behavior. Baldinger
(1996)32 showed that market share increased as consumer attitude towards the brand became more
positive. Attitudes are best conceptualized by Fishbein & Ajzen (1980)33. They developed the theory
of reasoned action. The theory shows best how brand attitude is formed. They state that brand attitude
is the multiplicative function of the beliefs a consumer has about the product and the evaluative
judgment of those beliefs. So this means that the specific attributes or benefits the brand has are
evaluate by the importance the consumer gives to this attribute or benefit.
This not only includes the tangible product attributes but also the more subjective, intangible
attributes. This means that marketing managers can influence the brand attitude of consumers towards
their brand. A successful marketing program let consumers believe that the brand has the brand
attributes they think are most important for them. This is how an positive overall brand attitude is
formed. Consumers can be influenced by their limited cognitive processing abilities (Bettman; 1979)34
Bettman emphasize that it is more likely that consumers use some sort of heuristic by their purchase
decision, rather than an detailed comparison of all alternative choices. “This heuristic can be viewed as
taking information about alternatives as inputs and arriving at an attitude as an output.”(Bettman)
Aaker & Keller (1990) and Park, Milberg & Lawson (1990)35 both stress the importance of brand
attitude in the process of brand extensions. As mentioned previously, consumers not only form their
attitude based on tangible attributes but also at intangible attributes. Park, Milberg & Lawson state that
both types of attitudes can be transferred from the original brand to the extended brand.
Boyd & Mason (1999) paid attention to the link between Extra Brand Attributes (EBA) and the
adoption of innovation. Their findings concluded that attitudes have a great influence on consumers’
intention of using the innovation. In their study, they argue for an emphasis on the evaluation of
consumers toward the innovation. They state that attitude toward the innovation plays an important
role in adoption.
2.2 Innovation factors

The (commercial) success of an innovative product depends on the acceptance of the consumers. If
consumers are not willing to purchase the product, it will never achieve the expectations of the
manufacturer. Because of this importance, user acceptation of innovation has received fairly extensive
attention from not only marketing academics, but also academics of other disciplines researched the
subject. Examples of those researchers include Rogers’ Diffusion of innovations mode. The
importance of this phenomenon was also acknowledged by Fred Davis (1989)36 .He developed the
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).This model appears to be the most promising model, according
to Chau, Sheng & Tam (1999)37. Their statement is based on the fact that TAM has advantages in
parsimony, it has a strong theoretical basis and allot of empirical evidence is known to show the
10
validity of the model. Also Legris et al. (2003)38 confirms the legitimacy of the TAM model. Legris
studied the several models concerning the acceptation of innovation. The results showed that the
model of Davis covered the most ground.
The TAM model is based on the theory of reasoned action of Fishbein & Arzjen(1980). As we stated
before, this theory is used to gain insight into the attitude of consumers/persons. According to the
theory, the formed attitudes have great influence on consumers’ intentions and these intentions will
lead to a form of behavior. Davis describes the goal of the TAM model as followed: “The goal of the
TAM model is to provide an explanation of the determinants of computer acceptance that is general,
capable of explaining user behavior across a broad range of end-user computing technologies and user
populations, while at the same time being both parsimonious and theoretically justified.”39
He stressed two important variables of consumers’ willingness of accepting innovation: perceived ease
of use and perceived usefulness. Davis defined perceived usefulness as “the degree to which a person
believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her performance.” He defined perceived
ease of use as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of
effort.” Davis researched showed that when people perceived more usefulness and more ease of use of
the innovation than the old ‘method’ they were using, their acceptation of this innovation increased.
These two elements are determinates the behavioral intention to use an innovative product. In thought
of this study, marketing managers of e-book-readers manufacturers need to grow perceived usefulness
and perceived ease of use among consumers, to persuade them of using the e-book reader.
The TAM model also suggests a relation between perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. The
idea behind this finding is that when all other attributes stay equal, a products’ perceived ease of use
will increase the perceived usefulness. The easier a technology is to use, the more useful it can be.
Davis realized that the behavioral intentions were also mediated by the attitude towards the
innovation. In a following research (Davis et al.; 1989) 40he showed that perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use were first mediated by attitudes prior to the influence of behavioral intentions on
their decision to actually using the product.
So, the behavioral intentions were influenced by attitudes and beliefs towards the innovation.
Venkatesh (2000)41 explained this as follows:” Attitude towards using a technology was omitted by
Davis in the final model because of partial mediation of the impact of beliefs on intention by attitude,
a weak direct link between perceived usefulness and attitude, and a strong direct link between
perceived usefulness and intention. This was explained as originating from people intending to use a
technology because it was useful even though they did not have a positive affect (attitude) toward
using. The omission of attitude helps better understand the influence of perceived ease of use and
perceived usefulness on the key dependent variable of interest. As the cursive word ‘weak’ already
shows, in this follow-up study the researchers doubted the role of attitudes and beliefs on the actual
adoption.
Despite the presumption of Venkatesh (2000), Kim, Chun & Song (2009)42 criticized the lack of
sufficient theoretical justification about the proposed cognitive process in user’s acceptance of an
innovative product. They questioned the modest role attitudes has in the original TAM model and
conducted a research to explore the role of this attitude. This study showed that the attitude towards
11
using the system is the most important determinant of behavioral intention to use the innovative
product. These results are in congruence with the theory of reasoned action of Fishbein and Azjen.
(1980) This theory suggests that attitude and the importance scale of this attitude is the most
influential element on behavioral intention to use the innovation. But this study isn’t in congruence
with the original TAM model that argues the big role of attitude in acceptation of innovation.
In 2003, Venkatesh et al.43 conducted a research to form an overall unified model for all known
acceptation of innovation models. They named it UTAUT. This stands for Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology. The most important finding for this study is the
acknowledgement of the significant relationship of behavioral intentions and the actual use of the
innovation. Opposite to the findings of prior research Venkatesh conducted in 2000, his 2003 study
results established the discovery of a direct effect of behavioral intention and actual usage.
12
3. Development of hypotheses.
The literature study revealed some variables that, based on previous research, are assumed to have
influence on consumers attitude toward the innovation. This results in a theoretical framework. It
consists of five independent variables and one dependent variable. The following hypothesis are made:
Perceived quality
Examination of previous conducted research on consumers’ evaluation of brand extension tells us that
a consumers’ opinion toward the brand extension largely depends on the perceived quality judgment
of the original brand. For this study we assume that the attitude consumers have toward the innovation
sold by the online book retailer, can be influenced by the perceived quality consumers have of this
online book retailer. This presumption is based on literature that acknowledges perceived quality as an
important component in consumer’s attitude forming. (Chowdhurry; 2006)44
H1: A more positive perceived quality of the online book retailer will affect the attitude toward the e-
book reader more positive.
Attitude toward the brand

Research (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Park, Milberg & Lawson ,1990) stress the importance of brand
attitude in the process of brand extensions. Park, Milberg & Lawson state that tangible as well
intangible attributes of attitudes can be transferred from the original brand to the extended brand.
The role that attitudes play in the adoption of innovation of consumers has been topic of discussion
between several researchers. A considerable part of this researcher acknowledged the important role of
attitudes in the acceptation of the innovation. (Davis, 1989; Kim,Chung & Song, 2009; Venkatesh et
al; 2003)
H2: A more positive attitude toward the brand of the online book retailer will affect the attitude toward
the e-book reader more positive.
Brand awareness
According to the literature it is reasonable to assume that when consumers are more aware of the
retailers brand, they will judge the products more positive.( MacDonald & Sharp, 2000; Hoyer &
Brown;1990) Consumers purchase intention or willingness of adopting a innovative product will
13
therefore be affect by the brand awareness they have toward the brand. If the assumption that brand
equity factors can be transferred as by brand extensions, this should also occur when an online book
retailer introduces a product that consumers aren’t familiar with. That’s why the following hypothesis
is formulated:
H3: A more positive brand awareness of the online book retailer will affect the attitude toward the e-
book reader more positive.
Brand image
Store image is said to have an important role in the consumer decision-making process. (Nevin &
Houston; 1980) Store image is thus one of the factors on which consumers form their attitude. As
stated previously, we assume that attitudes can be transferred from selling point to the products they
sell. In terms of our study, we predict that the brand associations consumers have of the online book
retailer can be associated with the brand image of the e-book-reader.
H4: A more positive brand image of the online book retailer will affect the attitude toward the e-book
reader more positive.
Attitude toward the brand name

Research (Ward & Lee, 2000; Cho & Ha, 2004; Lynch & Srull, 1982) showed that the brand name is
one of the most important cues that consumers remember. Consumers see the brand name as the
overall evaluation and when the brand is extended, the attitude toward the original brand name is
transferred to the extended product. We suspect this will also apply to the relationship between the
selling point and the innovative product.
H5: A more positive attitude toward the brand name of the online book retailer will affect the attitude
toward the e-book reader more positive.
14
4. Methodology
4.1 Sample
The focus of this study is to explore if the chosen variables of the online book retailer will affect the
attitude toward the e-book reader. That is why there is chosen for data collection through the internet.
This type of non-probability sampling, called purposive sampling, made sure that all the respondents
were familiar with the internet and already had online experience. In perspective of the research,
respondents without any online experience would be useless. Purposive sampling made sure those
respondents were excluded.
The questionnaire was spread via several websites and through online social communities like Hyves.
In total 117 respondents filled in the questionnaire. Through list wise deletion all respondents which
didn’t fill in the total questionnaire were deleted. 110 respondents completed the whole form (N=110).
The objective sample size was an N higher than 100. Achieving an higher N than 100 had several
reasons. First of all, when the sample size is bigger than 100, the basic assumptions for regression can
be made without more extensive research.(Malhotra; 2007) 45 Also Hair et al. (1998)46 express that a
good factor analysis can only be performed on an sample with more than a hundred data points.
Within the time limit and budget of this study, an N of 110 is enough.
In the questionnaire, some questions were asked to gain more information about the respondents.
There were no specific questions asked to control the representation with the population, because this
study didn’t demanded realistic representation with the population.
The sample existed of 60 men and 50 women. Of this 110 men and women, the biggest part are
educated on an HBO and WO level. They represent 83% of the sample.
Only three of the respondents were already in possession of an e-book reader. 92% of the respondents
were familiar with Bol.com because they purchased Bol.com products themselves of someone in their
household did.
To complete the global image of the respondents, they were also tested on their innovativeness. Using
their answers, five stages of innovativeness were conducted. This showed that most of the respondents
were neutral (47%) followed by a big group that stated they were innovative (45%). These results are
important for the study because it shows that the biggest part of the respondents is open for innovation.
The outliers are also in need of some consideration. Outliers are the data points that exceed ± 2.5 times
the standard deviation of the sample mean (Hair et al; 1998). The outliers can affect statistical
treatments and that’s why they are shielded from the rest of the data. After analysis, three outliers were
discovered and therefore removed. This left us with a sample size of 107 (N=107).
4.2 Measures
The cross-sectional questionnaire used for data collection, existed of questions that measure and
explain all the constructs that are chosen in the conceptual framework. Using measures of perceived
quality, attitude toward brand, brand awareness, brand image and attitude toward the brand name, the
questions were sought to determine the influence of these variables on the attitude of consumers
toward the innovation. Control variables were also taken in to account of. Questions were asked to
discover the respondents’ gender, education degree, level of innovativeness, ownership of the e-book
15
reader and whether they already purchased a product by Bol.com yes or no. For further research, there
was also asked if the respondents saw the e-book reader as a product that fit the product portfolio of
Bol.com. To discover this, a measurement scale for brand extensions was used. Keller &
Aaker(1992)47 developed such a measurement scale for brand extensions that consists of two questions
with an seven-point lickert scale ranging from doesn’t fit my expectation (1) to fits totally my
expectation (7).
Because the e-book reader is a new and innovative product, it was assumed not every respondent knew
what an e-book reader was. Therefore respondent were briefly informed about e-book readers before
the survey began. This was described briefly because respondents could be influenced by the
explanation. One authority has pointed out the importance of a clear and an objective view of the
respondents (Sellitz, Wrightsman & Cook; 1976)48. By summarizing all the benefits of the e-book
reader, respondents were likely to answer more positively on the given questions. Sellitz, Wrightsman
& Cook (1976) warn that when the property being studies isn’t not clearly defined, the Halo-effect is
difficult to avoid. The Halo-effect is the systematic bias when the respondent tries to answer uniform
to their previous answers. To minimize the chance on systematic bias, all the questions were asked on
a separate page. So with every answered question, the respondent was forced to read the new question
and didn’t have the possibility to view previous given answers. (Cooper & Schindler; 2008)49
The measurement scales for the several constructs in the framework are derived from existing scales or
studies in the literature. All items and their sources that are used are displayed in table 1. All items are
translated in Dutch, because the respondents were all Dutch. All scales were combined to form a
single survey instrument consisting of 48 questions. All the scales will be described separated more
extensive below.
Perceived quality – Quality is most often measured by deriving respondents’ answers after
confronting them with a product (Hoyer & Brown; 1990, Macdonald & Sharp; 2000, Keller & Aaker;
1992). In case of this research, the possibility of observing such a test group was limited. The aim of
this study was to conduct the perceived quality of a service-provider. Because it was impossible to
confront every respondent with a service-provider, it was important that the respondents were already
familiar with the service provider. That was the most important reason why this study chose Bol.com
as the subject for the online book retailer, because Bol.com is the market leader in this field. In our
survey, 92% of the respondents already used Bol.com at least once and all of the respondents had
heard of it.
Keller & Aaker (1992) developed a measurement scale for perceived quality that consisted three items.
They used a seven-point semantic differential scale to measure a persons’ attitude toward the quality
of some specific brand. A high score on the scale indicated that a respondent considered a brand to be
of high quality, whereas low scores suggested the respondents evaluated the brand poorly and unlikely
to be tried. The focus of Keller & Aaker (1992) laid on the influence of quality on brand extensions.
The scale was used for exploring the perceived quality of the core brand and of the extended brand.
The reason why this study uses the measurement scale Keller & Aaker developed is because the three-
items are very clear phrased and can be answered by people that already used it and by people that
only heard of the brand.
16
Brand image – This study focuses on the brand image of an online book retailer. This brings a
limitation in choosing a measurement scale out of the existing literature because most of the scales that
are developed previously were focused at a tangible store. It was therefore necessary to modify an
existing scale to measure the brand image of Bol.com. The original scale that Grewal, Baker & Borin
(1998) developed for measuring brand image, was initially developed for a bicycle store. Considering
this study, all questions about salespeople were irrelevant and therefore deleted. This left a five-item
measurement scale on a seven-Lickert scale ranging from (1) totally disagree to (7) totally agree.
Construct / source Items

Perceived quality. Bol.com is een merk waar ik de volgende waarden aan toeken:
Keller & Aaker. (1992) • Lage kwaliteit - Hoge kwaliteit
• Niet geneigd om te proberen - Geneigd om te proberen
• Verkopen slechte producten - Verkopen goede producten
Brand Image. Bol.com:

Grewal, Baker & Borin. (1998)50 • Is een prettige website om bij te kopen.
• Heeft een goed imago.
• Heeft een goede service.
• Verkoopt alleen producten van hoge kwaliteit.
• Biedt een prettige koop ervaring.
Brand awareness • Ik weet wat Bol.com verkoopt.

Yoo, Donthu & Lee. (2000)51 • Ik weet wat Bol.com anders maakt dan concurrerende partijen.
• Sommige karakteristieken van Bol.com komen gauw in mij op.
• Ik kan het logo van Bol.com gemakkelijk voor mij halen.
• Als Bol.com een e-book reader aanbiedt ben ik eerder geneigd het product te
kopen dan wanneer een voor mij onbekende boek-retailer dit doet.
Attitude toward the company. Wat is uw mening over Bol.com met betrekking tot de volgende dimensies:
Sen & Bhattacharya. (2001)52 • Technologische innovatie Slecht - Goed
• Product kwaliteit Slecht - Goed
• Klanten service Slecht - Goed
• Product aanbod Slecht - Goed
Attitude toward brand name. • Is de naam Bol.com van grote invloed op het succes van het bedrijf?
Zhang & Schmitt. (2001)53 Een beetje - Een heleboel.
• Zou u geneigd zijn de naam Bol.com te kiezen tussen een rij met concurrenten?
Een beetje - Een heleboel..
• Is het waarschijnlijk dat de naam Bol.com als positief wordt ervaren in markt?
Een beetje - Een heleboel.
Innovativeness. • Ik probeer graag nieuwe dingen.

Donthu & Garcia. (1999)54 • Ik experimenteer graag met andere manier van dingen doen.
• Vasthouden aan mijn oude patroon, vind ik prettig.
• Nieuwe producten zijn vaak nutteloze gadgets.
Attitude toward the innovation. • Een e-book reader is een goed idee.
Boyd & Mason. (1999)55 • Het lijkt me leuk om een e-book reader te bezitten.
• Een e-book reader is de beste manier om de kwaliteit van het lezen te
verbeteren.
• Veel mensen zullen een e-book reader gaan kopen.
• Een e-book reader is een product wat altijd zal blijven bestaan.
• Een e-book reader zal mijn behoefte naar iets dergelijks vervullen.
• Een e-book reader is een grote verbetering t.o.v. de gewone boeken.
• Een e-book reader geeft mij veel plezier.
• Een e-book reader is weer zo een typische onzinnige gadget.
• Een e-book reader zal voor veel mensen een ideale oplossing zijn.
• Veel mensen zullen er van overtuigd zijn dat de kosten voor de e-book reader,
de kosten waard zijn.
Table 1: Items and their sources used in the study
17
Brand awareness – Brand awareness is the ability of consumers to recall and recognize a company’s
brand /product. The measures are more complex than a simple dichotomous question like: are you
aware of this brand yes or no. Measuring the participants’ degree of brand awareness is in this study
based on the measurement scale developed by Yoo, Donthu & Lee (2000). The original scale
consisted of four items measured by a seven-point Licker scale.
Out of curiosity and supposition of the effect, we added a fifth item. The item contained: “Als Bol.com
een e-book reader aanbiedt ben ik eerder geneigd het product te kopen dan wanneer een voor mij
onbekend boek dit doet.” By adding this item, the construct was assumed having a better reliability.
This is tested by the Cronbach-Alpha value, which will be looked after further on in this study.
Attitude toward the company / brand – Attitude toward a brand is one of the most extensive
examined constructs in consumer behavior. (Faircloth, Capella & Alford; 2001) Logically this means
there are is overwhelming amount of measurement scales available to choose from.
For this study, the scale that was developed by Sen & Bhattacharya (2001) was used. The scale
consists of a four-item scale which is measured trough an seven-point Lickert scale. This scale had the
best fit with regard to this study because this scale also surveyed consumers’ opinion on their attitude
toward the technological innovativeness of the brand of topic.
Attitude toward the brand name – To measure consumers’ attitude toward the brand name, the scale
developed by Zhang & Smitt (2001) was chosen. It consists of a three item construct which are
measured by a seven-point Lickert scale. Zhang & Smitt succeeded in developing a model that focused
primarily on the respondents’ attitude, whereas other similar scale also covered other topics. To reduce
the chance that respondents loosed their focus on the survey, the scales that used minimal number of
items were preferable.
Attitude toward the innovation (dependent variable) – Just as brand attitude, is the attitude toward
the innovation also been a subject of great interest. (Venkatesh, 2000, 2003; Kim, Chun & Song, 2009;
Davis et al., 1989; Chau, Sheng & Tam, 1999; Legris, 2003) Boyd & Mason (1999) also conducted
research on this topic. They developed a eleven-item scale what is assessed by an seven-point Lickert
scale. This scale was chosen because of its substantial scale coefficient (.91). We also looked for an
scale that was developed based on an electronic device.
4.3 Data analysis
Before it is possible to draw conclusions, it is necessary to analyze the collected data. All descriptive
statistics of the variables are summarized. These statistics contain the mean and standard deviation.
Before any other analyze were performed, the outliers were researched. This was done by calculating
all standardized residuals. When this resulted in a standardized residual that were bigger than 2.5 or –
2.5, the respondents’ answers were removed. (Hair et al.; 1998)
The data was also used to determine the validation and the reliability of the used measurement scales.
The reliability was measured by calculating the Cronbach Alphas of all scales. This statistic is used to
evaluate the degree to which items are homogeneous and reflect the same underlying constructs.
Scales were deleted when their value laid below 0,6 (Hair et al.; 1998)
18
To evaluate the scale validation, a factor analysis was conducted. This analysis looks for patterns
among the variables to discover if an underlying combination of the original variables can summarize
the original set.
Before a factor analysis can be performed, some assumptions need to be checked. To perform a factor
analysis, there must be a minimal of 100 data points. Also, the Bartlett test need to be significant and
the ‘Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin’ measure of sampling adequacy’ needs to be bigger than 0,6. Also are the
communalities are checked if the meet up with the minimum score of 0,3. If items aren’t able to reach
these requirements, they were deleted. Also factor scores were only taken in to account of when they
reached the minimum of 0,3. (Hair et al.; 1998)
As the extraction method, the Maximum Likelihood method was chosen. This because of the suspicion
that the Lickert data this study produced, had relatively allot of error variance and also because all
variables had a Normal distribution.
As the literature predicted, the factor analysis showed that the items of every surveyed variable fell
into a factor. (See Appendix B)
We can speak of an Normal distribution of our variables, because Hair et al.(1998) and Malhotra
(2007) state that when the sample has a bigger N than 100 it is allowed to assume the variables have
an Normal distribution. This also applies for all assumptions needed to perform a regression analysis.
When using a regression analysis, four presumptions are made concerning the residuals. They are:
distributed normally, linear, have constant variance and are independent. (Cooper & Schindler; 2008)
We need to perform a regression analysis to test the hypothesis so conclusion can be drawn. Because it
is allowed to assume the presumptions of regression, we can use the OLS (Ordinary Least Squares)
method. Our theoretical framework suggests several independent variables to have influence on the
dependent variable, so multiple regression was used. Because the dependent variable has an ordinal
scale the MANOVA, discriminant analysis and logistic regression couldn’t be used for this study.
It was also insufficient to only look at the correlation matrix because regression analysis has the big
advantage that the dependent variable could be specified. In the correlation matrix, this isn’t possible.
(Cooper & Schindler; 2008)
Performing the regression analysis, allows us to conduct the relation between the several independent
variables and the dependent variable. By means of the significance level (P-value) of every variable,
we evaluate if the H0 is grounded or not. For testing we use a probability level of 5% (α =0.05).
The regression analysis not only tests the hypothesis, it also shows the percentages that the model
explains. The percentage that all variables explain is calculated via the R Square and the Adjusted R
Square. The adjusted R Square takes the number of used variables into account. Also, the influence of
each variable separate on the regression model is measured per variable. This is showed by the
standardized betas. Using this statistic, we investigate the influence per variable on our model.
When successful using regression for hypothesis testing, an important statistic is the VIF (Variance
Inflation Factor) scores. The VIF score determine the degree of multicolinarity. When there is no
correlation between the independent constructs, the VIF score is below 8,0 (Cooper & Schindler;
2008)
The expected regression model looks as follows:
19
Y = β0 + β1*X1 + β2*X2 + β3*X3 + β4*X4 + β5*X5 + Ԑ
Whereas:
X1: Perceived quality X4: Attitude toward the brand
X2: Brand image X5: Attitude toward the brand name
X3: Brand awareness Y: attitude toward the innovation
5. Results
In the introduction, we described the purpose of this study. The purpose of this study was to look into
the relationship between brand equity factors and the attitude toward the innovation. The independent
variables concluded of literature study were perceived quality, brand image, brand awareness, attitude
toward the brand and the attitude toward the brand name. The variables were expected to affect
consumers’ attitude toward the innovation. In this chapter, all statistic analysis needed to make
conclusion are being reviewed. First of all, we begin with determine the reliability of all used
measurement scales. As mentioned before, the Cronbach Alpha scores are used. (See table 2)
5.1 Reliability
The scale used for measuring the dependent variable, attitude toward the innovation (Boyd & Mason;
1999), has a reliability of .895. In the original study it received a score of .91. As indicated with the
star (*), an item has been removed. The Cronbach Analysis showed that the reliability improved when
the item was removed. This was also done with the variable Brand Image. All scores are displayed in
appendix C.
Measurement scale Response Number of items Cronbach Alpha
Attitude toward the innovation 106 10* ,895
Perceived quality 106 3 ,717
Brand image 106 4* ,894
Brand awareness 106 5 ,667
Attitude toward the brand 106 4 ,808
Attitude toward the brand name 106 3 ,710
* = item deleted from scale.

Table 2: Measurement scales and their reliability
In appendix C you can also see that there is a remarkable score in the variable Brand Awareness. You
see a score of .667 but when one item was removed it would grow to .702. As mentioned before, a
fifth item was added in addition to the original measurement scale. (Yoo, Donthu & Lee; 2000) This
item wasn’t removed because the scale with the added item explained allot more in the regression
model, than the scale without the added item. This will be explained more further one in this chapter.
20
The overall conclusion of the reliability scores is

Cronbach Alpha Interpretation
positive. George & Mallory (2003)56 defined the < 0.5 Unacceptable
limits as you can see in table 3.Only Brand 0.5 - 0.6 Poor
Awareness is questionable, but this is explained 0.6 - 0.7 Questionable
further one in the study. The other variables were 0.7 - 0.8 Acceptable
acceptable or even 0.8 - 0.9 Good
> 0.9 Excellent
good reliable. Analysis also showed that the Table 3: Cronbach Alpha scores
scales show a high internal consistency.
5.2 Descriptive statistics
Describing some characteristics of the sample outcomes are being done by the mean and the standard
deviation (see table 4). The survey outcomes are suitable for comparison because all items were
measured by an seven-point Licker scale. All the variables also had the same response total of 106.
The items were merged into variables by summation and then dividing this sum by the number of
items.
Standard
Variable Response Mean Deviation
Attitude toward the innovation 106 3.63 1.26
Perceived quality 106 5.64 .90
Brand image 106 5.94 .85
Brand awareness 106 4.79 .99
Attitude toward the brand 106 5.57 .80
Attitude toward the brand name 106 5.23 .99

Table 4: descriptive statistics
Remarkable in table 4 is the low mean value of Attitude toward the innovation (3.63), being 1 is
Totally disagree and 7 being Totally agree. This mean indicates that the respondents in generally
speaking disagreed with the proposed statements. Their attitude toward the e-book reader is therefore
evidently more negative than positive. Although, it must be said that extreme values can affect the
mean scores. This is presumption is supported by the considerably high value of the Standard
Deviation (1.26).
Furthermore, the figures presented in table 4 show significantly high mean scores, considering the low
values represent a negative attitude and high values represent positive attitudes. Especially, the Brand
Image of Bol.com is positive among the group of respondents. By a mean score of almost 6,
respondents point out that they see Bol.com as a brand with a good reputation. The relatively high
value that Perceived quality score, also acknowledges the image the respondents have of the quality
Bol.com delivers. It is also interesting to see that Brand awareness’ mean is fairly low (4.8). Although,
92% of the respondents say they already have used Bol.com, they don’t declare to have a big Brand
Awareness of Bol.com. As expected the mean values of Attitude toward the brand and The attitude
toward the brand name, don’t differ much.
21
5.3 Regression analysis
With the help of a multiple regression analysis, the hypothesis of this study are tested. In this analysis
the influence of the independent variables are tested on the dependent variables. In this study, the
independent variables are Perceived quality, Brand image, Brand awareness, attitude toward the brand
and attitude toward the brand name. The dependent variable is the attitude toward the innovation. In
our case, the independent variables all relate to Bol.com, whereas the dependent variable is the attitude
toward the e-book reader.
The regression model looks as follows:

Y = 6.181 + .260 * X1 + .15 * X2 + .921 * X3 + .186 * X4 - .048 * X5 + Ԑ
X1: Perceived quality X4: Attitude toward the brand

X2: Brand image X5: Attitude toward the brand name
X3: Brand awareness Y: Attitude toward the innovation
Before the model is applied for analysis, it must be checked on multi-colinearity. Multiple regression
don’t allowed independent variables to correlate with each other. As mentioned before, the VIF factor
is used. In this model, there is no evidence to assume the independent variables are mutual correlated.
All VIF values are under three. (See appendix D) The model could therefore be used.
Table 5 shows all important results the OLS regression delivered. This data shows that the model
explains 15.3% (R square) of the dependent variable. A more profound image was showed by the
adjusted R square, because this statistics holds the number of variables into account. This stastistic
shows that the model explains 11% of the variation in the model.
The ANOVA table in the regression output showed a P-value of .005. This indicates the model is
significant. Previously we already cite that we didn’t remove the item in the Brand Awareness
construct despite of the improvement of the reliability score (Cronbach Alpha). This item showed to
have a great impact on the suggested regression model. The P-value of the whole model increased to
.246 is the item was left out of analysis. This would have mean the model wasn’t significant anymore
R square Adjusted R square Regression Sig.

.153 .110 .005*
Variable Standardized β's Sig.(P-value)
Perceived quality .056 .705
Brand image .004 .978
Brand awareness .363 .001*
Attitude toward the brand .047 .642
Attitude toward the brand name -.011 .910

* = Significant at a 0.05 level.
Table 5: Output regression analysis
22
and therefore not reliable to draw conclusion. That is why the decision was made to leave the item in.
To test the hypothesis, the p-values of the variables were checked. The results suggested a negative
influence of attitude toward the brand name on the dependent variable. The beta score of -.011
suggests a negative influence and also, the variable showed a significance level (.910) that was
substantially higher than the suggested alpha (0.05%). Despite the literature allowed to assume a
relationship between the attitude toward the brand name and the attitude toward the innovation, this
study wasn’t able to validate this assumption. So, no support was found for H5.
In the regression, Perceived quality showed to have influence on the model. The beta in this study was
.056, so the influence wasn’t very big. Unfortunately, the P-value (.705) again outgrew the alpha. No
support was found for H1.
Just like Perceived quality and Attitude toward the brand name any statistical evidence for two other
independent variables wasn’t found. Brand image and Attitude toward the brand did have a positive
influence on the suggested model, respectively beta scores of .004 and .047. But this positive influence
was not significant. Brand image showed a very high P-value of .978 and Attitude toward the brand
showed a P-value of .642.Again, no support was found for H2 and H4.
The model did provide statistical evidence for supporting H3. Brand awareness showed significance
(P-value: .001). By means of the Beta score .363, brand awareness also showed to have a positive
influence on the model. There is support found for H3.
The extra item we added to the Brand Awareness construct asked for more attention. We therefore
conducted a simple linear regression analysis, with the single item as independent variable and the
Attitude toward the innovation as dependent factor. The single item was: “When Bol.com sells a e-
book reader, I am more willing to purchase the innovation than when an unfamiliar online book
retailer does.” The results were remarkable. The Adjusted R-square increased to .340. This means this
single item explained 34% of the attitude toward the innovation. It also had a P-value of .000 so the
findings are significant.
23
6. Discussion and conclusions.
This study tried to investigate the relationship of brand equity factors on consumers’ attitude toward
the innovation. As variables for brand equity were chosen: Perceived quality, Brand image, Brand
awareness, attitude toward the brand and attitude toward the brand name. Therefore, the main goal of
this study was to deliver statistical evidence to support this relationship. The connection was made
between selling an innovative product and the extension of a brand. We expected that certain brand
equity factors consumers have toward the selling point, would be transferred to the products they sold.
Allot of prior research on innovation focused on consumers. Especially the phase in which consumer
purchase the innovation (Rogers; 1983) received considerable attention. But there is no substantial
interest in the factors that influence the attitude toward the innovation. Davis (1989) developed a
model, but this model focused more on technological innovation in industry. Our study tried to
develop more insight in the effect that marketing activities have on consumers’ purchase decision and
especially on new, innovative products.
The results of this research can help managers of innovative products to better their sales points. If it
shows that brand equity of the retailers affects the willingness of consumers to adopt an innovative
product, they can only select the selling points at which their target group experience brand equity.
Also for the retailers the outcomes can be very useful. Additional revenue can be created by adding the
innovative product to their product portfolio.
As object of this research we chose the e-book reader as a new and technological innovation. To have
a good fit between the selling point and the innovation, the biggest online book retailer of Holland
Bol.com was chosen as the object of selling point. Using the results of regression analysis, the
suggested hypothesis were accepted or rejected. No statistical evidence was found for several
variables.
Perceived quality was expected to have influence on the dependent variable. In this study, no
statistical evidence was found for this assumption. Therefore, based on this study’ findings it cannot
be concluded that the attitude toward the innovation is affected when consumers’ have a positive
perceived quality toward the online book retailer.
This also applies for Brand image, attitude toward the brand and the attitude toward the brand name.
All these variables were expected to affect consumers’ attitude toward the innovation. Nevertheless,
the regression analysis showed no support for these hypotheses. Brand image and Attitude did show to
have some positive influence on the regression model, whereas Attitude toward the brand name even
showed to have a negative influence. Unfortunately, in this study all variables had a significance value
above the suggested alpha. Based on this study results, we therefore can’t conclude that consumers’
attitude toward the innovation is affected when Brand image, Attitude toward the brand and the
Attitude toward the brand name toward he online book store are positive.
It must be taken into account that the hypotheses aren’t proved to be untrue. Because of the limited
sample size (N=106) other studies that have more opportunity to assemble a bigger sample can prove
the existence of a relationship between the variables. Further, the used measurement scales are chosen
24
conscientious but it is possible that other scales will establish a relationship between the independent-
and dependent variables.
The results of this study did support one of the assumptions. The attitude toward the innovation was
expected to be affected by positive brand awareness. It was assumed that when consumers’ are
familiar and are aware with/ of the online book store, they will evaluate the products they sell more
positively. This will especially apply to innovative products because then consumers aren’t able to
develop their attitude on prior experience with the product. There was found enough statistical
evidence to acknowledge this assumption. Based on the findings of the study it can be said that when
consumers are aware of the selling point they will evaluate the innovation sold by this selling more
positive.
Limitations and future research
Based on this study’s findings of acknowledging the effect of brand awareness on consumers’ attitude
toward the innovation, it can be concluded that there are variables existing that affect the process of
innovation. So further research should focus on the several factors that have influence on consumers
their purchase decisions.
This study also laid a link between brand extensions and selling points that sell innovative products.
With the acceptance of Brand awareness as an factor that influence the attitude toward the innovation,
this link is also became more interesting. Future research should focus more on this matter. Maybe this
not only applies for innovation but for every product that shops sell. This can lead to interesting
conclusion. It could be that the product portfolio of shops is one of their biggest marketing activities.
25
7. Appendices
Appendix A: Customer-based brand equity (Keller; 1993)
26
Appendix B: Rotated factor scores (Maximum Likelihood and orthogonal.)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Item
Een e-book reader is een goed idee. ,767
Het lijkt me leuk om een e-book reader te bezitten. ,665
Een e-book reader is de beste manier om de kwaliteit van het lezen te
,712
verbeteren.
Veel mensen zullen een e-book reader gaan kopen. ,741
Een e-book reader is een product wat altijd zal blijven bestaan. ,392
Een e-book reader zal mijn behoefte naar iets dergelijks vervullen. ,740
Een e-book reader is een grote verbetering t.o.v. de gewone boeken. ,742
Een e-book reader geeft mij veel plezier. ,600
Een e-book reader is weer zo een typische onzinnige gadget.* -,716
Een e-book reader zal voor veel mensen een ideale oplossing zijn. ,723
Veel mensen zullen er van overtuigd zijn dat de kosten voor de e-book
,608
reader, de kosten waard zijn.
Bol.com: kwaliteit van dienst: ,688
Bol.com: geneigd om de dienst te proberen: ,671
Bol.com: kwaliteit van producten: ,506
Bol.com is een prettige website om bij te kopen. ,836
Bol.com heeft een goed imago. ,663
Bol.com heeft een goede service. ,850
Bol.com verkoopt alleen producten van hoge kwaliteit.* ,371
Bol.com biedt een prettige koopervaring. ,908
Dat Bol.com e-book readers verkoopt is logisch.
E-book readers verkopen past niet bij mijn verwachting van Bol.com.
Ik weet wat Bol.com verkoopt. ,476
Ik weet wat Bol.com anders maakt dan concurrerende partijen. ,648
Sommige karakteristieken van Bol.com komen gauw in mij op. ,746
Ik kan het logo van Bol.com gemakkelijk voor mij halen. ,478
Als Bol.com een e-book reader aanbiedt ben ik eerder geneigd het
product te kopen dan wanneer een onbekende boek retailer dit doet. ,572
Bol.com: technologische innovatie ,306
Bol.com: product kwaliteit ,530
Bol.com: klanten service ,760
Bol.com: product aanbod ,874
Is de naam Bol.com van grote invloed op het succes van het bedrijf? ,606
Zou u geneigd zijn de naam Bol.com te kiezen tussen een rij met
,939
concurrenten?
Is het waarschijnlijk dat de naam Bol.com als positief wordt ervaren in
,468
de markt?
*= removed from analysis because of a low Cronbach Alpha
Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin 0.772 Bartlett Test 0.000
27
Appendix C: Original Cronbach Alpha scores and their scores when removed.
Cronbach Cronbach
Item
Alpha of Alpha if item
whole item deleted
Een e-book reader is een goed idee. ,810 ,767
Het lijkt me leuk om een e-book reader te bezitten. ,810 ,769
Een e-book reader is de beste manier om de kwaliteit van het lezen te verbeteren. ,810 ,774
Veel mensen zullen een e-book reader gaan kopen. ,810 ,778
Een e-book reader is een product wat altijd zal blijven bestaan. ,810 ,810
Een e-book reader zal mijn behoefte naar iets dergelijks vervullen. ,810 ,771
Een e-book reader is een grote verbetering t.o.v. de gewone boeken. ,810 ,772
Een e-book reader geeft mij veel plezier. ,810 ,780
Een e-book reader is weer zo een typische onzinnige gadget.* ,810 ,895
Een e-book reader zal voor veel mensen een ideale oplossing zijn. ,810 ,780
Veel mensen zullen er van overtuigd zijn dat de kosten voor de e-book reader,
de kosten waard zijn. ,810 ,790
Bol.com: kwaliteit van dienst: ,717 ,591
Bol.com: geneigd om de dienst te proberen: ,717 ,703
Bol.com: kwaliteit van producten: ,717 ,615
Bol.com is een prettige website om bij te kopen. ,840 ,788
Bol.com heeft een goed imago. ,840 ,812
Bol.com heeft een goede service. ,840 ,768
Bol.com verkoopt alleen producten van hoge kwaliteit.* ,840 ,894
Bol.com biedt een prettige koopervaring. ,840 ,768
Dat Bol.com e-book readers verkoopt is logisch.
E-book readers verkopen past niet bij mijn verwachting van Bol.com.
Ik weet wat Bol.com verkoopt. ,667 ,654
Ik weet wat Bol.com anders maakt dan concurrerende partijen. ,667 ,557
Sommige karakteristieken van Bol.com komen gauw in mij op. ,667 ,542
Ik kan het logo van Bol.com gemakkelijk voor mij halen. ,667 ,613
Als Bol.com een e-book reader aanbiedt ben ik eerder geneigd het product te kopen dan
wanneer een voor mij onbekende boek retailer dit doet. ,667 ,702
Bol.com: technologische innovatie ,808 ,799
Bol.com: product kwaliteit ,808 ,722
Bol.com: klanten service ,808 ,762
Bol.com: product aanbod ,808 ,754
Is de naam Bol.com van grote invloed op het succes van het bedrijf? ,710 ,647
Zou u geneigd zijn de naam Bol.com te kiezen tussen een rij met concurrenten? ,710 ,501
Is het waarschijnlijk dat de naam Bol.com als positief wordt ervaren in de markt? ,710 ,700
*= removed from analysis because of a low Cronbach Alpha
28
Appendix D: Variance Inflation Factor scores of all variables used.
Variable VIF score
Perceived quality 2.56
Brand image 2.31
Brand awareness 1.28
Attitude toward the brand 1.21
Attitude toward the brand name 1.20
29
8. References
1
J. Sterne. (1999) “World Wide Web Marketing.” 2nd ed. Wiley, New York.
2
Swait, Erdem, Louviere & Dubbelaar. (1993) “The equalization price: A measure of consumer-perceived brand equity”
International journal of research in marketing. No. 10. Pp. 23 – 45.
3
Sultan, Farley & Lehmann. (1990) “A meta analysis of applications of diffusion models.” Journal of marketing research.
Vol. 27. February. pp. 70-77.
4
Frambach. (1993) “Adoptie van innovaties, uitbreiding en empirische toetsing van het diffusiemodel” Jaarboek Center of
Marketing intelligence & research. 1993. No. 15.
5
Rogers. (1983) “Diffusion of innovation.” 3rd ed. Free Press Eew York.
6
Rangaswamy. (1990) “Brand equity and the extendibility of brand names.” University of Pennsylvania.
7
Sikri. (1992) “Brand equity effects on consumers’ response to prices in retail advertisements.” Iowa state University.
8
Keller. (1993) “Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity.” Journal of Marketing. No. 57 jan.
9
Yoo & Donthu. (2001) “Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale.” Journal of
business research. No. 52. pp. 1-14
10
Yoo, Lee & Donthu. (2001) “Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand
equity scale” Journal of Business Research. No. 52 . 1-14
11
Aaker & Keller. (1990) “Consumer evaluations of brand extensions.” Journal of marketing. Vol. 54. No. 1. pp. 27-41.
12
Vogel, Evanchitzky & Ramaseshan. (2008) “Customer equity drivers and future sales.” Journal of Marketing. No.72 pp.
98-108
13
Rust, Zeithaml & Lemon. (2004) “Customer-Centered Brand Management.” Harvard Business Review. September 2004.
pp. 1-9.
14
Verhoef. (2003) “Understanding the effect of customer relationship management efforts on customer retention and
customer share development.” Journal of Marketing. No. 67. pp. 30-45
15
Hoyer & Brown. (1990) Effects of Brand Awareness on Choice for a Common, Repeat Purchase Product. Journal of
Consumer Research. No.17 pp. 141–148.
16
MacDonald & Sharp. (2000) “Brand Awareness Effects on Consumer Decision making for a common, repeat purchase
product: a replication.” Journal of Business Research . No.48. pp. 5–15
17
Millet. (2002) ‘Consumer behavior.’ Pearson publishing.
18
Kotler. (1991) Marketing management: analysis, planning and control. 8th editon. Engelwood Cliffs. Prentice Hall.
19
Zhang & Schmitt. (2001) “Creating local brands in multilingual markets.” Journal of marketing research. Vol.
37. August. pp. 313-325.
20
Grewal, Krishnan, Baker & Borin. (1998) “The effect of store name, Brand Name and Price discounts on consumers’
evaluations and purchase intentions.” Journal of Retailling. Vol. 74/3. P. 331-352.
21
Huang, Schrank & Dubinsky. (2006) “Effect of brand name on consumers’risk perceptions of online shopping.” Journal of
Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4. No. 1. pp. 40–50
22
Dawar & Parker. (1994) “Marketing universals: consumers’ use of brand name, price, physical appearance and retailers.”
Journal of Marketing. Vol. 58. No. 2. pp. 81-95.
23
Ward & Lee. (2000) “Internet shopping, consumers search and product branding.” Journal of product & brand
management. Vol. 9 No. 1. pp. 6-20.
24
Cho & Ha. (2004) “Users’ Attitudes Toward Movie-Related Web sites And E-Satisfaction.” Journal Of Business &
Economics Research. Vol. 2. No. 3.
25
Lynch & Srull (1982) “Memory and attentional factors in consumers’ choice: concepts and research methods.” Journal of
Consumer Research. Vol. 9 June. pp. 18-36.
26
Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry.(1985) “A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research”
Journal of Marketing.” Vol. 49 No. 4 41-55
27
Alba & Hutchinson (1987) “Dimensions of consumer expertise” Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 13. pp. 411-53
28
Aaker & Shansby. (1982) “Positioning your product.” Business Horizons. No. 25. pp. 56-62
29
Feldmann & Lynch. (1988) “Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on beliefs, attitudes,
intentions and behaviour.” Journal of applied psychology. Vol. 73. August. pp. 421-435.
30
Nevin & Houston. (1980) “Images as a component of attractiveness to intra-urban shopping arreas.” Journal of
Retailling. Vol. 56. Spring. pp. 77-93.
31
Faircloth, Capella & Alford. 2001. “The effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand equity.” Journal of marketing
Theory and Practice. No. 9. pp. 61-75.
32
Baldinger. (1996) “Brand loyalty: the link between attitude and behavior.” Journal of advertising research. Vol.36. No.6.
pp. 22-35.
33
Ajzen & Fishbein. (1980) “ Understanding Attitudes and predicting Social Behavior” Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
34
Bettman. (1979) “An information processing theory of consumer choice.” Addison-Wesley, Reading.
35
Park, Milberg & Lawson. (1990) “Evaluations of brand extensions: The role of product level similarity and
brand concept consistency.” Journal of consumer research. Vol. 18. September. pp. 185-93
36
Davis. (1989) “Perceived usefullness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology.” MIS
Quarterly; Sep 1989; 13, 3;
37
Chau, Sheng & Tam. 1999. “Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine
technology.” Journal of Management Information Systems. Vol. 16. No.2 pp. 91-112.
38
Legris, Ingham & Collerette, (2003). “Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology
30
acceptance model.” Information & Management, Vol. 40. pp. 191–204.

39
Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw. (1989) “User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models.”
Management science. Vol.35. No.8. pp. 982-1003.
40
Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw. (1989) “User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models.”
Management science. Vol.35. No.8. pp. 982-1003.
41
Venkatesh. (2000) “Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation and emotion into the
Technology Acceptance Model.” Information System Research. Vol. 11. No. 4. pp. 342-365.
42
Kim, Chun & Song. 2009. “Investigating the role of attitude in technology acceptance from an attitude strength
perspective.” International Journal of Information Management. Vol. 29. pp. 67-77.
43
Venkatesh, Morris, G. Davis & D. Davis. (2003) “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View”
MIS Quarterly. Vol. 27 No. 3 pp. 425-478
44
Chowdhurry. (2006) “An investigation of consumer evaluation of brand extensions.” International Journal of
consumer studies. Vol. 31. pp. 377-384.
45
Malhotra. (2007) “Marketing research- an applied orientation.” Pearson international edition. Fifth edition.
46
Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black. (1998) “Multivariate data analysis.” Upper Saddle River, EJ: Prentence-
Hall International, inc.
47
Keller & Aaker. (1992) “The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions.” Journal of Marketing Research. Vol.
29. February. pp. 35-50.
48
Sellitz, Wrightsman & Cook. (1976) “Research methods in Social Relationships” 3d ed. Eew York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston. pp. 164-169.
49
Cooper & Schindler. (2008) “Business Research Methods.” New York: Mcgraw Hill education. pp. 307.
50
Grewal, Baker & Borin. (1998) “The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and
purchase intentions.” Journal of retailing. Vol. 74. No. 3. pp. 331-352.
51
Yoo, Donthu & Lee. (2000) “An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity.” Journal of academy
of marketing science. Vol. 28. No. 2. pp.195-211.
52
Sen & Bhattacharya. (2001) “Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reaction to corporate social
responsibility.” Journal of marketing research.Vol. 38. May. pp. 225-243.
53
Zhang & Schmitt. (2001) “Creating local brands in multilingual markets.” Journal of Marketing research. Vol. 37. August.
pp. 313-325.
54
Donthu & Garcia. (1999) “The internet shopper.” Journal of advertising research. Vol. 39 may/june pp. 52 – 58.
55
Boyd & Mason. (1999) “The link between attractiveness of extrabrand attributes and the adoption of innovations.” Journal
of Academy of Marketing Science. Vol. 27, No. 3.
56
George & Mallery. (2003) “SPSS for windows: step by step” 4th ed. Allyn & Bacon: Boston.
31

Bachelor Thesis Rens Verweij

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Bachelor Thesis Rens Verweij

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Investigating the role of brand equity

elements in consumers’ attitude toward an

Rens Verweij, 1839829

The research question states:

As dictated before, adoption of innovation received considerable much attention as an topic of

2.1 Brand equity factors

Customer-Based brand equity.

Attitude toward the brand name.

Attitude toward the brand

2.2 Innovation factors

Attitude toward the brand

Attitude toward the brand name

Construct / source Items

Brand Image. Bol.com:

Brand awareness • Ik weet wat Bol.com verkoopt.

Innovativeness. • Ik probeer graag nieuwe dingen.

4.3 Data analysis

The expected regression model looks as follows:

Y = β0 + β1*X1 + β2*X2 + β3*X3 + β4*X4 + β5*X5 + Ԑ

Measurement scale Response Number of items Cronbach Alpha

Attitude toward the innovation 106 10* ,895

Perceived quality 106 3 ,717

Brand image 106 4* ,894

Brand awareness 106 5 ,667

Attitude toward the brand 106 4 ,808

Attitude toward the brand name 106 3 ,710

* = item deleted from scale.

The overall conclusion of the reliability scores is

5.2 Descriptive statistics

Perceived quality 106 5.64 .90

Brand image 106 5.94 .85

Brand awareness 106 4.79 .99

Attitude toward the brand 106 5.57 .80

Attitude toward the brand name 106 5.23 .99

5.3 Regression analysis

The regression model looks as follows:

X1: Perceived quality X4: Attitude toward the brand

R square Adjusted R square Regression Sig.

Perceived quality .056 .705

Brand image .004 .978

Brand awareness .363 .001*

Attitude toward the brand .047 .642

Attitude toward the brand name -.011 .910

6. Discussion and conclusions.

Limitations and future research

Appendix A: Customer-based brand equity (Keller; 1993)

Appendix B: Rotated factor scores (Maximum Likelihood and orthogonal.)

Appendix D: Variance Inflation Factor scores of all variables used.

Variable VIF score

Perceived quality 2.56

Brand image 2.31

Brand awareness 1.28

Attitude toward the brand 1.21

Attitude toward the brand name 1.20

acceptance model.” Information & Management, Vol. 40. pp. 191–204.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

Y = β0 + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + β4X4 + β5*X5 + Ԑ