Muani L., 2015. The Effect of Marketing Communications on Customer Based Brand Equity.

International Journal of Online Marketing Research, 1(1), pp.13-25

International Journal of Online Marketing Research

www.ijomr.org

ARTICLE

The Effect of Marketing Communications on

Customer Based Brand Equity
Asst. Prof. Dr. Luay Al-Muani
Department of Marketing, Jadara University, Jordan
ARTICLE INFO
Doi: 10.5455/IJOMR.2015201695
Keywords:
Customer based brand equity,
CBBE,
Brand awareness,
Brand associations,
Brand loyalty,
Brand attachment,
Perceived quality,
Brand trust,
Mobile phones,
Jordan
Article History:
Received | 20 July 2015
Accepted | 4 August 2015
Published | September 2015
Corresponding Author
Asst. Prof. Dr. Luay Muani
Department of Marketing,
Jadara University, Jordan

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of customer based
brand equity dimensions that only generated through marketing
communications on customer based brand equity in the Jordanian market
for mobile phones. 471 self-administrative questionnaires were analyzed
through structural equation modeling to test hypotheses. The results of the
analyses showed that brand associations, brand awareness, brand loyalty,
and perceived quality have significant effects on customer based brand
equity. However, brand trust and brand attachments have no significant
effects. This research contributes by developing a valid and reliable model
of brand equitys dimensions as and output of marketing communications
and their effects on customer based brand equity, while also giving the
opportunities for marketers to know how the consumers perceive the
marketing communications. And also it opens doors for new researches to
study why trust and attachments as an output of marketing
communications do not actually affecting customer based brand equity.

INTRODUCTION
The role of brands has changed over the years; it is
no longer seen as just differentiation tool. It plays a
vital role for organizations success. Market value
nowadays calculated by intangible values of the
brand (Ahmad & Thyagaraj, 2014).
Many scholars illustrated the importance of the
concept to the firms. (Farquhar, 1989) argues that

brand equity gives competitive advantage to firms; it

helps companies to get over turbulences they face. In
addition, it puts barriers for competitors to enter the
market. Also, brand equity the brand equity of a
successful brand secure the way for new brand
extensions with lesser costs (Chun el al., 2014; Pitta
& Katsanis, 1995). In addition, high brand equity
gives companies the ability to charge premium prices
for the products and services; communication efforts

International Journal of Online Marketing Research |Volume 1| Issue 1 | September 2015

[13]

Muani L., 2015. The Effect of Marketing Communications on Customer Based Brand Equity. International Journal of Online Marketing Research, 1(1), pp.13-25

become more valuable (Bendixen, Bukasa, and

Abratt 2004).
The purpose of this study is to determine the effects
of brand equity dimensions as an output of marketing
communications on customer based brand equity for
different demographic groups in the Jordanian market
for mobile phones.

Research questions
Q1: Do trust, association, attachment, loyalty,
awareness, and perceived quality generated ONLY
through marketing communications (regardless of
any other factors) have an effect on the customer
based brand equity?

Brand Association
TMC

Brand Trust TMC

Brand
Attachment
TMC

Customer Based
Brand Equity

Brand Awareness
TMC

Brand Loyalty TMC

Perceived Quality
TMC

Figure 1 Research model

Notes: TMC abbreviation to (Through Marketing Communications)

Variable
Customer Based Brand Equity a,b

Description
The value consumers hold to a brand, and the perception of the overall
advantage of a product holding a brand name comparative to other
brands

Brand awareness TMC a

the capability of a consumer to recognize or recall that a brand is a

member of particular product category

Perceived quality TMC a

The customers perception that the brand offers better quality for the
products and/or services, in comparative to competing brands

Brand association TMC a

Brand Loyalty TMC
Attachment TMC b
Brand Trust TMC b

Everything related inside memory for the brand

The connection that customers hold to the brand. It is the essence of a
brands equity
Developing an emotional affection with brands
The belief of consumers to rely on the brand to perform its stated
function

*TMC is abbreviation to (Through Marketing Communications)

Sources: Based on Literature review: a Aaker (1991); b Lassar et al. (1995)
Table 1 Conceptual framework for the study
International Journal of Online Marketing Research |Volume 1| Issue 1 | September 2015

[14]

Muani L., 2015. The Effect of Marketing Communications on Customer Based Brand Equity. International Journal of Online Marketing Research, 1(1), pp.13-25

Hypotheses
H1. The dimensions (H1a) brand associations, (H1b)
brand trust, (H1c) brand attachment, (H1d) brand
awareness, (H1e) brand loyalty, (H1f) perceived
quality generated through marketing communications
positively affects customer based brand equity.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Brand equity has been described as the added value
of the brand to the products (Farquhar, 1989). Price
competition and rivalry between companies have put
a pressure to managers to find better ways to increase
brand equity towards brands (Myers 2003).
(Farquhar, 1989) argues that brand equity gives
competitive advantage to firms; it gives the base for
developing new products, also helps companies to get
over turbulences they face. In addition, put barriers
for competitors to enter the market.
Brand equity has been illustrated in both marketing
and finance literatures (Ahmad & Butt (2012); Wood,
2000). The driver to study brand equity from the
point of finance is to estimate the financial market
value of the company by pulling out the value of
brand equity from the value of a firm's other assets,
especially in the case for mergers and acquisition
(Keller, 1993). While from looking to brand equity
from marketing point, the goal is to increase
marketing productivity by understanding consumers
behavior and what knowledge they have towards the
brand.
(Ahmad and Butt, 2012) argue that Financial Based
Brand Equity is the outcome of consumers
perceptions on brands. As a result, identifying the
roots that produce positive brand related perception is
more important than measuring its financial

outcomes. Also Keller (1993) added that financial

valuation has little relevance if no value for the brand
has been created in consumers minds or when
managers dont harvest brands value by developing
profitable brand strategies.
Therefore, the study focused on the Customer Based
Brand Equity as the main variable of the research by
illustrating the different definitions and dimensions
of CBBE.
Customer Based Brand Equity
Over the last three decades, consumer based brand
equity (CBBE) still an important research topic for
academics and a practicing ground for brand
managers around the world (Ahmad & Butt 2012;
Ahmad & Thyagaraj ,2014). The roots of the concept
Customer based brand equity derived from the
psychology (Christodoulides and Chernatony, 2010).
Categorization of customer based brand equity fills
into two categories: Customer perceptions -such as
awareness, brand associations, or perceived qualityand the other category focus in -consumer behavior loyalty and word of mouth- (Ahmad & Butt, 2012).
However, the main driver of the behavioral actions of
the consumers is driven by their perceptions of the
brand. Hence, loyalty and purchase intentions
describe the existence of equity (Buil , Chernatony,
and Martnez, 2008).
Various studies described different aspects of
customer based brand equity. There is no agreed
definition of brand equity in both financial and
marketing literature (Burmann et al. (2009);
Christodoulides & Chernatony, 2010). Table 2.3
illustrated the existing definitions of brand equity.

Author(s)
Farquhar (1989)

Definition of Brand Equity

the added value with which a given brand endows a product
A set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and
Aaker (1991)
symbol, that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or
service to a firm and/or to that firms customers
The differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the
Keller (1993)
marketing of the brand
The enhancement in perceived utility and desirability a brand name
Lassar et al. (1995)
confers on a product
Present and future valorization derived from internal and external
Burmann et al. (2009)
brand-induced performance
Table 2 Definitions of Brand Equity
There is no agreed definition among researchers on a
unified definition on brand equity. However, they all
sail in the sphere of adding (subtracting) value to

consumers or/and firms. Keller (1993) differentiates

the definition in pointing to consumer responses to

International Journal of Online Marketing Research |Volume 1| Issue 1 | September 2015

[15]

Muani L., 2015. The Effect of Marketing Communications on Customer Based Brand Equity. International Journal of Online Marketing Research, 1(1), pp.13-25

marketing mix based on their knowledge about the

brand (awareness and brand image).

Dimensions of Customer Based Brand Equity

Aaker (1991) is one of the pioneers whom
conceptualize the concept. His model is the bedrock
of the developing the measurement of most studies
for successor researchers.

Customer Based
Brand Equity

Brand
Association

Brand
Awareness

Brand Loyalty

Perceived
Quality

Other Proprietary
Brand Assets

Figure 2 Aaker (1991) Customer Based Brand Equity model

Aaker (1991) combined both of perceptions and
behavioral dimensions. He argued that customer
based brand equity is a component of: 1) awareness
2) associations 3) perceived quality 4) loyalty 5)
other proprietary brand assets such as trademarks and

patents. However, following researchers dropped the

fifth dimension, because it is not related to the
consumers perceptions (Buil et al., 2008). Therefore,
the fifth dimension of Aakers model has been
dropped for this research.

Customer Based
Brand Equity

Attachment

Trustworthiness

Social Image

Value

Performance

Figure 3 Lassar et al. (1995) Customer Based Brand Equity model

Lassar et al. (1995) developed a customer based
brand equity model with five dimensions 1)
trustworthiness 2) attachment 3) performance 4)

social image 5) value. Two dimensions (Brand Trust

and Brand Attachment) were added to the dissertation
model taken from Lassar et al. (1995).

Brand Awareness
When taking each dimension of CBBE; Awareness is
a key determinant identified in almost all brand
equity models (Y.L & Lee, 2011). Brand awareness
is the capability for consumers to recognize or recall
that a brand name is one of a specific product
category (Aaker, 1991; Keller 1993). It varies from
unrecognizing the brand, to thinking that it is the only
brand in that class (Aaker, 1991). Consumers are
easier to notice strong brands and the frequency of
advertising of strong brands may lead to favorable
associations in consumers mind (Hoeffler and
Keller, 2003).

in the consumers mind (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993).

These associations and image may not reflect a true
reality of a brand, but if they are favorable they can
gives advantages to the brand over other competing
brands. (Aaker, 1991).

Brand Associations
According to Aaker (1991) brand association is
anything in consumers mind linked to the brand.
And it has level of strength as well. That strength
increases by actual experience with a brand or
exposure to communications. The cumulative set of
associations will develop a brand image and meaning

Perceived Quality
Perceived quality is one of the crucial dimensions of
brand equity (Aaker, 1996; Atilgan et al., 2009;
Lassar et al., 1995). It is important because it reduce
the perceived risk for consumers (Atilgan et al.,
2009). Also it gives consumers a reason to buy, and it
is associated with the purchase decision (Aaker,
1991). Shabbir and Rehman (2013) state that
qualitys part for consumers buying decision making
process is vital when it comes to buy any branded
products or services. Brands with high perceived
quality can make marketing programs more powerful.
The likelihood of effective advertising and promotion
will be higher for brands with high perceived quality
(Aaker, 1991). (Keller, 1993) argues that perceived

International Journal of Online Marketing Research |Volume 1| Issue 1 | September 2015

[16]

Muani L., 2015. The Effect of Marketing Communications on Customer Based Brand Equity. International Journal of Online Marketing Research, 1(1), pp.13-25

quality is the most important factor for consumers

attitudes towards the brands. Those attitudes
embodied in perceive value and consumers
satisfaction.
Brand Loyalty
Customer loyalty plays a key role in an
organizations long term success (Li & Green, 2010;
Nam, Ekinci, & Whyatt, 2011). Brand loyalty exists
as a dimension in many brand choice models (Shum,
2004). Furthermore, retaining current customers cost
five times less than acquiring new ones (Kotler &
Keller, 2006). Most research points to consumer
loyalty from two perspectives: behavioral loyalty and
attitudinal loyalty (Nam et al., 2011). Behavioral
loyalty refers to frequency of repeat purchase, while
attitudinal loyalty is psychological pledge from
consumers in the act of purchasing, such as the
intentions to purchase or be part of word of mouth
marketing by voluntary recommend the brand to
others without actually repurchase the brand.
Brand Trust
Brand trust is the The willingness of the average
consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to
perform its stated function Chaudhuri and Holbrook
(2001). Also shared the same essence from Burmann
et al. (2009) defines brand trust is the willingness of
a buyer to rely on the ability of a brand to fulfill the
Empirical Studies on Brand Equity Dimensions
Author(s)

communicated functions and attributes. (Burmann

el al., 2009). In other words, the consumers have
confidence that brands will not to exploit their
vulnerability. Therefore, consumers have high
expectancy that the experience with the brand will
have favorable results for them.
Taking into consideration that brand equity is adding
value for firms and consumers, consumers place a
high value in brands they trust. Additionally,
Ballester & Aleman (2005) argue that brand equity
is a relational market based asset, implies that trust is
significant for brand equity. Thus, Low brand trust
reduces the likelihood of purchasing products or
services. On the other hand, high trust may convert a
satised customer into a loyal one.
Brand Attachment
One of the important drivers of brand equity is
believed to be the emotional and practical
associations with the brands (Park, Macinns and
Prester, 2006; Rafi et al., 2011). In the current era of
marketing, Marketers are keen to enhance their
branding strategies by developing strong brand
relationships, by implanting attachment with
consumers (Schmitt, 2012). Park et al. (2010)
expresses the brand attachment is the strength of
emotional bonding between the self and the brand,
consumers establish cognitive associations that
connect the brand with the self.

Dimensions of CBBE

Atilgan et al. (2005)

Country

Loyalty, awareness, perceived Turkey

quality, associations.
Li et al. (2010)
Perceived risk, Information China
costs
saving,
awareness,
image, credibility, Perceived
quality.
Hossien (2011)
Attitude,
associations, Iran
Personality, Loyalty, Image.
Lee & Leh (2011)
Loyalty, awareness, perceived Malaysia
quality, associations.
Mishra & Datta (2011)
Name,
Communication, India
Association,
Personality,
Awareness, Image, Perceived
Quality, and Loyalty
Silva et al. (2012)
functionality,
image, Malaysia
perceived quality and brand
loyalty
Musekiwa et al. (2013) association,
awareness, Zimbabwe
loyalty, and quality
Shabbir & Rehman association,
awareness, Pakistan
(2013)
loyalty, and quality
Table 3. Researches on Customer based brand equity dimensions

International Journal of Online Marketing Research |Volume 1| Issue 1 | September 2015

Product
Category
Beverage
Hotel

Chocolate
Mobile phones

Internet
service
providers
Retailers
Mobile phones

[17]

Muani L., 2015. The Effect of Marketing Communications on Customer Based Brand Equity. International Journal of Online Marketing Research, 1(1), pp.13-25

Atilgan et al. (2005) applied Aakers model to test

brand equity in the Turkish culture for the beverage
market. They found that only loyalty has a significant
effect on BE while the other dimensions has no
significant effects.
Li et al. (2010) studied the customer based brand
equity dimensions in the Chinese hotel industry
context. Their model of CBBE consisted of
dimensions perceived quality, perceived risk,
information cost saving, and brand credibility. They
distributed questionnaire for the respondents whom
stayed at brand hotels from the 300 questionnaires
205 of them were usable for the analysis. Li et al.
(2010) found that Perceived risk has a negative effect
on brand equity, while brand awareness is the main
influencer of brand equity, and then came perceived
quality. Thus, suggested that hotels should focus
their marketing communications priority to increase
consumers recognition to the hotel and their ability
to recall information about it.
Another study on the dimensions customer based
brand equity was conducted by Hossien (2011). The
researchers model consisted of: brand attitude, brand
associations, brand personality, brand loyalty, and
brand image. The conducted study was on the
chocolate market in Iran. 417 completed
questionnaires were analyzed and the results show
that brand loyalty is the major influencer on brand
equity whereas brand attitude does not have any
influence on brand equity. Additional findings of the
study showed that brand loyalty played a foremost
mediating role for building brand equity especially in
the case of brand associations.
Lee & Leh (2011) studied the customer based brand
equity for the Malaysian brands in general regardless
of the product category. Their work was based on
Aakers model which consisted of brand loyalty,
brand associations, brand awareness, and perceived
quality. Their analysis showed that perceived quality
is major influence on brand equity with 47% of the
variance. On the other hand the rest of the
dimensions surprisingly show little explanation on
brand equity ranges from 3-5% only. One reason to
describe those results is the product category was
vague, because consumers differs their criteria when
judging different product categories. And the not
knowing the on which category they are talking about
maybe cause some confusion.
In a degree of similarity in the nature of this studys
purpose, Mishra & Datta (2011) studied the
antecedents and the consequences of customer based
brand equity of in the Indian mobile market, limited

their study on just the Nokia brand. The sample size

was 818 consisted of people of the age 18 or older
that hold mobile phones. The model consisted of:
Brand Name, Brand Communication, Brand
Association, Brand Personality, Brand Awareness,
Brand Image, Perceived Brand Quality, and Brand
Loyalty. And the consequences are Brand Preference,
Purchase Intention. The results of the analysis
showed that brand communication doesn`t affect
brand equity directly. However, it affects it indirectly
due its effects on the dimensions of brand equity,
making its total effect on brand equity with path
coefficient
=
0.72.
Additionally,
brand
communications highly affect perceived quality =
0.79, brand loyalty = 0.74, and brand awareness =
0.69. Brand association is the highest influencer on
brand equity = 0.74 while also brand loyalty has
high effect with = 0.65.
Silva et al. (2012) developed a customer based brand
equity model for the internet service providers in the
Malaysian market. The model consisted of brand
functionality, brand image, perceived quality, and
brand loyalty. 400 questionnaires were analyzed and
the results show that perceived quality is the most
influencer factor that affects brand equity while brand
loyalty is the second most important factor.
Musekiwa et al. (2013) studied the customer based
brand equity in Zimbabwean retail market focusing
the study on OK supermarket. The model was
consisted of Retail: association, awareness, loyalty,
and quality as dimensions of brand equity. Only 100
questionnaires were analyzed. And the results
surprisingly show that awareness and association are
highly correlated which came as a bit of strange.
Other results show that store awareness is the most
important factor when it comes to brand equity for
retailers. Store loyalty came second.
Shabbir & Rehman (2013) studied the customer
based brand equity dimensions on the mobile market
in Pakistan the dimensions were: association,
awareness, loyalty, and quality. 210 questionnaires
were analyzed and showed that the brand loyalty and
perceived quality is the most two important
dimensions in brand equity. Also the results show
that all the dimensions are associated with each other,
which means; despite that loyalty is the most
important factor but is associated with the other
dimensions thus neglecting one of those will surely
affect the loyalty levels and decrease the total brand
equity.

International Journal of Online Marketing Research |Volume 1| Issue 1 | September 2015

[18]

Muani L., 2015. The Effect of Marketing Communications on Customer Based Brand Equity. International Journal of Online Marketing Research, 1(1), pp.13-25

METHODOLOGY
The research model for the research is presented in
figure 1. The dimensions of CBBE in the model were
inspired from the work of Aaker (1991) and Lasser et
al. (1995). Quantitative research approach using selfadministrative questionnaire was used in the research
to test the hypotheses.
The research use convenience sampling technique to
approach the intended sample, the survey conducted
in three main cities in Jordan whom have the highest
population. Amman, Zarqa, and Irbid. Mixed venues
utilized to reach for respondents. Two schools and
two universities were chosen to reach for the younger
age groups. And the questionnaire was also available
on 35 different retailers for mobiles. Furthermore, the
researcher randomly reaching participants on coffee
shops and the food courts section in malls.
700 questionnaires were distributed, 542 (77.4%)
were returned, and 39 of them had missing data more
than 10%, resulting to have 503 (71.8%) effective
questionnaires ready for further analysis.
A data screening for Non-engaged response to any
questionnaire that got a result of the standard
deviation of zero was deleted. This process result in
deleting 32 cases that has non-engaged responses,
resulting to have 471 questionnaires for final
analysis.
The validity of the instrument was insured using
multiple methods (content Face- validity &
construct validity), exploratory factor analysis, and
Items
Association 3
Association 2
Association 4
Association 1
Equity 4
Equity 2
Equity 3
Equity 1
Quality 2
Quality 1
Quality 3
Quality 4
Trust 3
Trust 2
Trust 4
Trust 1

Factor
1
.861
.842
.830
.787

confirmatory factor analysis. Then, Structural

equation modeling used to test the hypotheses.
A pilot study was held to test questionnaire 60
respondents to analyze the reliability with
Cronbachs alpha (), and make the necessary
changes -if any- needed. The results of Cronbachs
alpha for the pilot study showed the value of (0.95),
and all values were above the accepted level of (0.70)
(Sekaran, 2003) which is a reasonable values
indicating the tool consistency that enhanced its use
for the study.
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
According to (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006), in the
goal of factor analysis is to extract items that are
highly correlated into variables while those items are
independent from other variables.
Four tests were used in EFA; Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
(KMO), Bartlett's Test, Pattern Matrix, and factor
correlation matrix. The results of KMO and Bartlett's
tests are 0.907 and .000 respectively, and they are
acceptable which indicate that the data are suitable
for factor analysis.
Convergent Validity
Convergent validity is to which amount of correlation
between the items that supposed to measure the
intended factors are correlated (Hair et al., 2010). The
minimum value of loading for each item in the
pattern matrix should exceed .30, and do not cross
load on another factors. A pattern matrix of all the
items
was
analyzed
in
table
4
Items
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 1
Loyalty 2
Loyalty 3
Loyalty 1
Loyalty 4
Awareness 1
Awareness 4
Awareness 2
Awareness 3

.834
.829
.816
.807
.874
.835
.821
.776
.896
.803
.794
.698

Factor
5
.892
.824
.802
.680

.820
.812
.778
.715
.847
.804
.801
.731

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.
Table 4. Pattern Matrix

International Journal of Online Marketing Research |Volume 1| Issue 1 | September 2015

[19]

Muani L., 2015. The Effect of Marketing Communications on Customer Based Brand Equity. International Journal of Online Marketing Research, 1(1), pp.13-25

All items are loading above the minimum acceptable

value of .3 and doesnt cross load on more than one

factor. Which indicate the scale does establish the

convergent validity in EFA.

Reliability Test
Variable
1. Brand Association TMC
2. Brand Trust TMC
3. Brand attachment TMC
4. Brand Awareness TMC
5. Brand Loyalty TMC
6. Perceived Quality TMC
7. Brand Equity TMC
8. Total Questionnaire scale
Table 5. Cronbachs Alpha analysis
Table 5 shows that the alpha value for each variable
exceed the recommended value of 0.7 for Cronbachs
alpha test, the values range from 0.812 0.864 for
the variables and the total scale scored 0.919 which
indicates that the questionnaire results are reliable.

Factor
Association Equity
Association
1.000
Equity
.345
1.000
Quality
.448
.377
Trust
.555
.298
Attachment
.604
.311
Loyalty
.449
.383
Awareness
.079
.184
Table 6. Factor Correlation Matrix

Cronbachs alpha value

0.857
0.851
0.854
0.812
0.821
0.864
0.851
0.919

Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity is to test whether or not the
factors which are supposed to be not correlated, are
actually not correlated (Hair et al., 2010). In the
factor correlation matrix, the value of the correlation
between the variables should not exceed 0.7.

Quality Trust

Attachment

Loyalty Awareness

1.000
.469
.451
.555
.062

1.000
.476
.042

1.000
.126

1.000
.576
.415
-.046

1.000

In table 6 all the correlation between the variables in the acceptable level below 0.7 which indicates that the scale
establish the discriminant validity.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
[[

Test

Value

Acceptable values

X2/DF

1.851

RMSEA

0.043

< 0.05

SRMR

0.034

< 0.05

CFI

0.958

0.95

Table 7 Model fit tests

In table 7 shows that the model is satisfying the entire model fit tests with values of X2/DF, RMSEA, SRMR, and
CFI indicating that the model has a good fit.

International Journal of Online Marketing Research |Volume 1| Issue 1 | September 2015

[20]

Muani L., 2015. The Effect of Marketing Communications on Customer Based Brand Equity. International Journal of Online Marketing Research, 1(1), pp.13-25

Loyalty
Association
Equity
Quality
Trust
Attachment
Awareness

CR
0.822
0.857
0.853
0.865
0.851
0.855
0.815

AVE
0.537
0.600
0.592
0.615
0.589
0.595
0.526

MSV
0.506
0.540
0.237
0.506
0.542
0.542
0.056

ASV
0.292
0.295
0.164
0.268
0.293
0.314
0.018

Loyalty

Association

Equity

Quality

Trust

Attachment

Awareness

0.732
0.568
0.487
0.711
0.558
0.585
0.175

0.774
0.421
0.520
0.671
0.735
0.104

0.769
0.464
0.379
0.396
0.236

0.785
0.553
0.549
0.086

0.768
0.736
-0.050

0.771
0.061

0.725

Table 8. Convergent & Discriminant validity and Reliability

Note: CR: Composite reliability/ AVE: Average Variance Extracted /MSV: Maximum Shared Variance/ ASV: Average Shared
Variance
Table 8 shows the values of CR, AVE, MSV, and
ASV and the correlation between the variables. For
discriminant validity; the values of MSV and ASV
should be lower than the value of AVE (Hair et al.,
2010). For convergent validity the value of AVE
should be higher than 0.5. And for reliability the
value of CR should exceed the value of 0.7. All
values were acceptable to insure the validity and
reliability of the model.

HYPOTHESES TESTING
After conducting several tests and alterations to reach
the final measurement model, the next step is to test
the research hypotheses using structural equation
modeling.
H1. Dimensions of brand equity (H1a) brand
associations, (H1b) brand trust, (H1c) brand
attachment, (H1d) brand awareness, (H1e) brand
loyalty, (H1f) perceived quality generated through
marketing communications positively affects
customer based brand equity.

Brand
Association

.15*

Brand Trust

(IS)
Brand
Attachment

Brand
Awareness

R2 = .381

(IS)

Customer based brand

equity

.19**
.23**

Brand Loyalty

.2**

Perceived
Quality

Figure 4. Standardized coefficients

Note: *p-value < 0.05; ** p-value < 0.01; (IS) insignificant

International Journal of Online Marketing Research |Volume 1| Issue 1 | September 2015

[21]

Muani L., 2015. The Effect of Marketing Communications on Customer Based Brand Equity. International Journal of Online Marketing Research, 1(1), pp.13-25

Hypothesis

Unstandardized

Standardized

Beta

C.R.

Acceptance

H1a

Association

Equity

0.129

0.152

2.288

0.022

H1b

Trust

Equity

0.069

0.08

1.161

0.246

H1c

Attachment

Equity

-0.025

-0.027

-0.363

0.716

H1d

Awareness

Equity

***

Loyalty

Equity

0.203
0.193

3.28

H1e

0.182
0.176

4.997

***

H1f

Quality

Equity

0.194

0.227

0.194

***

Table 9 Hypotheses testing

Two sub hypotheses were rejected H1b, H1c ; which
are the effect of trust and attachment generated from
marketing communications on brand equity, because
the critical value between paths of those variables are
insignificant under P<0.05. The rest of the sub
hypotheses were accepted.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study is to determine and
compare the effect of brand (Association, Trust,
Attachment, Awareness, Loyalty, and Quality) as an
output of marketing communications on customer
based brand equity in the Jordanian market for
mobile phones.
The effect of brand equitys dimensions on brand
equity
It is important to note that the wording of used in the
items that measure the dimensions are only capturing
the effect of marketing communications, not any
other factor including in effect, The results of
Hypotheses showed that not all the dimensions of
brand equity generated through marketing
communications do affect brand equity. Brand
attachments and brand trust does not significantly
affect brand equity. The most effect came from
perceived quality with Beta value of 0.227.
Awareness, loyalty and associations had Beta values
of 0.203, 0.193, and 0.152 respectively. Therefore,
the main factor that affects CBBE is perceived
quality in other words the perceived quality
consumers hold to mobile phones brands is the most
important factor that affects the brands equity.
Awareness came in 2nd place, while loyalty and
associations came in 3rd and 4th places respectively.
Theoretical contribution
Customer based brand equity research largely
focused on the developing dimensions that measures
the brand equity from consumers point of view as in
general marketing terms. However, this study looked
at the dimensions of brand equity as a result of

marketing communications only. Also, same studies

can produce different results among different cultures
and even differ in the same culture when conducted
on different product categories (Parameswaran &
Yapraks, 1987). This leads to the assumption that
this studys results may be inconsistent with the other
studies results from general marketing due to the
reason mentioned earlier. Also, due to the context of
the market may lead to different result than the
mobile phones market.
The result of this study showed that brand trust and
brand attachment that are generated only through
marketing communications for mobile phones have
no significant effect on brand equity. While in
comparisons to general marketing research, brand
trust has been found significant dimension on brand
equity in the milk sector for the study conducted by
(Tahnh, 2012). While also found a significant
predictor in the health food market in the research
conducted by (Tung et al., 2010). Additionally trust is
significant predictor for brand equity in the durables
goods (Rajasekar & Nalina, 2008). However the
results of this study for trust are consistent with the
results from the internet banking research. As
Loureiro (2013) found that internet banking trust has
no significant direct effect on internet banking brand
equity.
Another major finding from this study; that brand
attachments
generated
from
marketing
communications for mobile phones dont have a
significant effect on brand equity. It is inconsistent
with the results that Chen & Hung (2011) got in the
bicycle market as they found that brand equity and
brand attachment has a positive relationship, while
same results came from the study conducted by Rafi
et al. (2011). Also, Rajasekar & Nalina (2008) found
that attachment is antecedent of brand equity.
Also the research finds that awareness, loyalty,
associations, and perceived quality as outcomes of

International Journal of Online Marketing Research |Volume 1| Issue 1 | September 2015

[22]

Muani L., 2015. The Effect of Marketing Communications on Customer Based Brand Equity. International Journal of Online Marketing Research, 1(1), pp.13-25

marketing communications have a significant effect

on brand equity. This result is consistent with most
empirical studies in general marketing from various
cultures and product categories. Li et al (2010) found
that awareness and quality are strong influencers on
BE in the Chinese hotel market. Hossien (2011)
found that brand associations and loyalty are
affecting BE in the chocolate Iranian market. Also
(Mishra & Datta, 2011; Shabbir & Rehman, 2013)
found that all awareness, loyalty, associations and
quality dimensions are affecting BE for mobile
phones. Similar results found that quality and loyalty
are antecedents of BE in the Malaysian internet
service providers market (Silva et al., 2012). On the
other hand, the results are inconsistent with Atilgan et
al. (2005) study in the beverage market in turkey, as
they found associations, awareness, and quality are
not affecting BE.
Managerial implications
This study offers key implications for marketers in
the mobile phones market. For a starter, it gives a
valid a reliable ability for marketers to systematically
measure the effectiveness of dimensions though
marketing communication on brand equity from
consumers point of view.
Also, the results indicate that perceive quality that is
generated from marketing communications is the
most influencer factor that affecting brand equity. So
marketers should focus on communicating the
superior qualities that their phones have in order to
generate higher brand equity levels. Moreover, brand
awareness and loyalty are vital factors in generating
brand equity. Thus, marketers should keep remind the
consumers with the features and importance of their
mobile phones to keep and increase the brand
position in the consumers minds and let them be
advocates to the brands by sharing and
recommending the brand to their social circles. Brand
association has the least significant effect on brand
equity between the 4 factors. Yet, it is still important
for marketers to increase the level for brand image
and memories for consumers through marketing
communications.
Marketing communications dont achieve significant
outcome in letting consumers generate level of trust
and attachment with the brand to be effective in
creating brand equity. In other words even if
consumers hold high brand equity levels to the brand
this is not a result from trusting the brands
communication nor the attachment that came from it.
It is really important for marketers to address this
deficiency, especially since the study is based on the
brand equity for consumers favorite mobile phone

brand as it is a sign of high brand equity. One

solution could be transparency between the brands
and its customers, acknowledging the issues with
their mobile phones. As a recent example may be
logical why consumers dont trust brands
communications even if they grip high value to the
brand, Apple iPhone 6 has outstanding selling
performance but with major bending issues from
thousands of consumers reporting their experience on
social media stating that their mobile phone bends in
their pockets. Those reports create a huge buzz in the
media. However, Apples official response was
denying those issues.
Conclusion
This study expands the understanding of the
relationship between two important aspects;
marketing communications and brand equity to fill
the gap in the literature. The results indicate that
perceived quality, awareness, loyalty and associations
that are generated only through marketing
communications are significantly affecting CBBE.
However, brand trust and attachment don`t have
significant effects on CBBE. Thus, marketers need to
find solutions to capture consumers trust in
marketing communication, and increase the level of
fond with the brands when exposed to marketing
communications.
Limitations
It is mandatory to point to the limitation that the
study faced. This study has limitations as follows:
A limitation related to the sampling. The
researcher used convenience sample
technique to reach the sample. This
technique has its own limitation when it
comes to generalizability of the results
Lack of theories regarding the dimensions of
brand equity generated only through
marketing communications, leads the
researcher to make use of general theories
and apply it by changing the wording for the
items. That may lead to lose some of the
effectiveness of the scale. Therefore, the
researcher conducted a series of validity and
reliability procedures to minimize this issue
This study conducted on one market (mobile
phones) in Jordan. The results of this study
maybe differ for other markets. Also,
different culture may lead to different results
even for the same market.
Directions for future researches
A follow up studies should be conducted to
investigate why and how brand trust and
attachments generated from marketing

International Journal of Online Marketing Research |Volume 1| Issue 1 | September 2015

[23]

Muani L., 2015. The Effect of Marketing Communications on Customer Based Brand Equity. International Journal of Online Marketing Research, 1(1), pp.13-25

communications does not affect brand

equity. Therefore, using qualitative research
methods to precisely address the problem
Future researches shall be conducted on
different markets and different cultures to
measure
and
compare
marketing
communications
effectiveness
among
markets and cultures. and If there is
possibility to use random sampling this will
lead to more concrete results that are
representative to the population

REFERENCES
Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity:
Capitalizing on the value of a brand name.
New York, N.Y. : Toronto: New York, N.Y.:
Free Press.
Ahmad, A., & Thyagaraj, K. S. (2014). Brand
Personality and Brand Equity Research: Past
Developments and Future Directions. IUP
Journal Of Brand Management, 11(3), 19-56.
Ahmad, S., & Butt, M. M. (2012). Can after sale
service generate brand equity? Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, 307 - 323.
Atilgan, E.; Aksoy, S.; Akinci, S.; Kaynak, E. (2009),
Customer-Based Brand equity for Global
Brands: A Multinational Approach, Journal of
Euromarketing, 18: 115-132.
Ballester, E., & Alemn, J. L. (2005). Does brand
trust matter to brand equity?. Journal of
product & brand management, 14(3), 187196.
Bendixen, M., Bukasa, K. A., & Abratt, R. (2004).
Brand equity in the business-to-business
market. Industrial
Marketing
Management, 33(5), 371-380.
Buil, I., Chernatony, L., & Martnez, E. (2008). A
cross-national validation of the consumerbased brand equity scale. Journal of Product
& Brand Management, 384-392.
Burmann, C., Marc, J.-B., & Nicola, R. (2009).
Towards an identity-based brand equity
model. Journal of Business Research, 390
397.
Chen, Y. T. L. S. C., & Hung, C. S. (2011). The
impacts of brand equity, brand attachment,
product involvement and repurchase intention
on bicycle users. African Journal of Business
Management, 5(14), 5910-5919.
Christodoulides, G., & Chernatony, L. (2010).
Consumer-based
brand
equity
conceptualization and measurement : a
literature review. International journal of
research in marketing, 43-66.
Chun-Chen, H., Szu-Wei, Y., Cheng-Yi, L., & TePei, C. (2014). THE RELATIONSHIP

AMONG BRAND EQUITY, CUSTOMER

SATISFACTION,
AND
BRAND
RESONANCE
TO
REPURCHASE
INTENTION
OF
CULTURAL
AND
CREATIVE
INDUSTRIES
IN
TAIWAN. International
Journal
Of
Organizational Innovation, 6(3), 106-120.
Farquhar, P. (1989). Managing Brand Equity.
MARKETING RESEARCH, 24-33.
Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black,
W. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 7).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. (2003). The marketing
advantages of strong brands. Brand
Management, 10(6), 421-445.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring,
and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity.
Journal of Marketing, 1-22.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2009). Marketing
management. Upper Saddle River, N.J:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B., & Sharma, A. (1995).
Measuring customer-based brand equity. The
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 11-19.
Lee, G. C & Leh, F. C. Y. 2011. Dimensions of
Customer -Based Brand Equity: A Study on
Malaysian Brands. Journal of Marketing
Research and Case Study,1-10.
Li, B., Gu, H., & Yang, H. (2010). Study of the
Dimensions of Customer-Based Hotel Brand
Equity.
Journal
of
China
Tourism
Research, 6(1), 2-21.
Li, M. & Green, D. R. (2010). A mediating influence
on customer loyalty: The role of perceived
value. Journal of Management and Marketing
Research, 1-12.
Loureiro, S. M. (2013). THE EFFECT OF
PERCEIVED
BENEFITS,
TRUST,
QUALITY,
BRAND
AWARENESS/ASSOCIATIONS
AND
BRAND LOYALTY ON INTERNET
BANKING BRAND EQUITY. International
Journal
Of
Electronic
Commerce
Studies, 4(2), 139-158.
Mishra, P. & Datta, B. (2011). Perpetual asset
management of customer-based brand equitythe PAM evaluator. Current Research Journal
of Social Sciences, 3(1), 34-43.
Musekiwa, A., Chiguvi, D., & Hogo, H. (2013).
Customer Based Retail Brand Equity (RBE)
Dimensions Effect on Retail Brand Equity for
OK Supermarket in Bindura. International
Journal of Business and Management, 8(19),
45-54

International Journal of Online Marketing Research |Volume 1| Issue 1 | September 2015

[24]

Muani L., 2015. The Effect of Marketing Communications on Customer Based Brand Equity. International Journal of Online Marketing Research, 1(1), pp.13-25

Myers, C. A. (2003). Managing brand equity: a look

at the impact of attributes. Journal of Product
& Brand Management, 39 - 51.
Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyatt, G. (2011). Brand
equity, brand loyalty and consumer
satisfaction. Annals
of
Tourism
Research, 38(3), 1009-1030.
Parameswaran, R., & Yaprak, A. (1987). A CrossNational Comparison of Consumer Research
Measures. Journal of International Business
Studies, 18, 3549.
Park CW, Macinns DJ, Prester J (2006). Beyond
attitudes: Attachment and consumer behavior.
Seoul National Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 336
Pitta, D. A., & Katsanis, L. P. (1995). Understanding
brand
equity
for
successful
brand
extension. Journal
of
consumer
marketing, 12(4), 51-64.
Rafi, A., Ahsan, M., Saboor, F., Hafeez, S., &
Usman, M. (2011). Knowledge metrics of
brand equity: critical measure of brand
attachment and brand attitude strength. Asian
Journal of Business Management, 3(4), 294298.
Rajasekar, N., & Nalina, K. G. (2008). Measuring
Customer-Based Brand Equity in Durable

Goods Industry. Journal Of Marketing &

Communication, 4(1), 48-58.
Schmitt, B. (2012). The consumer psychology of
brands. Journal
of
Consumer
Psychology, 22(1), 7-17.
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business:
A skill-building approach (4th ed.). New
York: J. Wiley.
Shabbir, J., & Rehman, K. (2013). Impact of
Perceptual Dimensions and Behavioral
dimension on brand equity in Pakistan.
Information Management and Business
Review, 5(7), 347-359.
Shum, M. (2004). Does Advertising Overcome Brand
Loyalty? Evidence from the Breakfast-Cereals
Market. Journal of Economics & Management
Strategy, 13, 241-271.
Silva, S., Nikhashemi, S. R., Haque, A., Yasmin, F.,
& Khatibi, A. Critical Factors for Developing
Brand Equity: An Empirical Investigation In
Malaysia. IOSR Journal of Business and
Management, 1 (4), 13-20
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using
multivariate statistics. New York: Harper and
Row.
Wood, L. (2000). Brands and brand equity: definition
and management. Management Decision, 662
- 669.

International Journal of Online Marketing Research |Volume 1| Issue 1 | September 2015

[25]