See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263719664

Can after sale service generate brand equity?

Article in Marketing Intelligence & Planning May 2012
DOI: 10.1108/02634501211226285

CITATIONS

READS

233

2 authors, including:
Mohsin Muhammad Butt
Curtin University Sarawak
28 PUBLICATIONS 201 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Mohsin Muhammad Butt

Retrieved on: 28 September 2016

Marketing Intelligence & Planning

Emerald Article: Can after sale service generate brand equity?
Sajjad Ahmad, Muhammad Mohsin Butt

Article information:
To cite this document: Sajjad Ahmad, Muhammad Mohsin Butt, (2012),"Can after sale service generate brand equity?", Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 30 Iss: 3 pp. 307 - 323
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634501211226285
Downloaded on: 07-05-2012
References: This document contains references to 87 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM
For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help
for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.htm

Can after sale service generate

brand equity?

After sale service

Sajjad Ahmad
Faculty of Management Sciences, International Islamic University Islamabad,
Islamabad, Pakistan, and

Muhammad Mohsin Butt

International Islamic University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan

307
Received 30 April 2011
Revised 8 September 2011
27 September 2011
Accepted 27 September
2011

Abstract
Purpose This research attempts to empirically expand the Aakers consumer based brand equity
model in hybrid business firms by incorporating after sales service as a new dimension. Exploring and
understanding the drivers of consumer based brand equity in a hybrid business context will help in
building industry specific competitive barriers and generating brand wealth.
Design/methodology/approach The data were collected from Pakistani adults using a
structured questionnaire based on established scales. Convenience sampling was used to gather
data from 205 respondents across the major cities of Pakistan. To test the proposed research model the
data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis.
Findings The results support the proposed five-factor model of consumer based brand equity for
the automotive industry. The results support the notion that after sales service is related but is a
separate dimension of consumer based brand equity in the automotive sector.
Research limitations/implications This proposed CBBE model was tested in the automotive
sector of Pakistan. However, the automotive industry is special in the sense that it builds brands at
dual level. This study only investigates consumer based brand equity at marque level. Future studies
can expand on this work by investigating consumer based brand equity both at marque and model
levels.
Practical implications The establishment of after sale services as a separate but independent
dimension of consumer based brand equity for the hybrid business organizations provides a fresh
reminder regarding the possibilities of new sources for building brand equity. Managers can focus on
delivering excellent after sale services to build and enhance the equity of their brands in hybrid
business organizations.
Originality/value This study expands Aakers brand equity model by empirically establishing
after sales service as a fifth dimension for the firms operating on hybrid business model.
Keywords Brand equity, After sales service, Hybrid business models, Automotive industry, Pakistan
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Over the last three decades, consumer based brand equity (CBBE) remains an
important research frontier for academicians and a fertile practicing ground for brand
managers worldwide (Reynolds and Phillips, 2005). Thus it is not surprising at all that
the concept and its measurement has a broad range of adherents both from
academicians and professionals. The presence of numerous renowned international
consulting firms (e.g. Interbrand, WPP, Young and Rubicam and Research
International) with their own proprietary methods for measuring brand equity is a
substantial evidence of continuous relevance and importance of the concept for the

Marketing Intelligence & Planning

Vol. 30 No. 3, 2012
pp. 307-323
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-4503
DOI 10.1108/02634501211226285

MIP
30,3

308

business world (Christodoulides et al., 2006; Haigh, 1999). Similarly, the academic
interest is reflected in the range and extant amount of literature devoted to the
conceptualization, measurement and management of brand equity (For a detailed and
latest review please see Christodoulides et al., 2006).
Although a consensus on its definition and measurement was hardly ever possible,
past research in this area is broadly divided into financial and customer based brand
equity perspectives. The first perspective generally referred as firm based brand equity
(FBBE) and is concerned with the monetary gains resulting from a brands equity
(Christodoulides et al., 2006; Farquhar et al., 1991; Haigh, 1999; Simon and Sullivan,
1993). Nonetheless, FBBE is believed to be the outcome of consumers brand related
perceptions (Aaker, 1991; Christodoulides et al., 2006; Christodoulides et al., 2006;
Keller, 1993; Pappu et al., 2005; Vazquez et al., 2002; Yoo and Donthu, 2001). Thus,
identifying the sources that generate favorable brand related perception is of prime
importance than measuring its financial outcomes.
Consumer based brand equity (CBBE) is the unique added value in a product/service,
attributed to the consumers favourable knowledge and association with a brand
(Farquhar, 1989; Farquhar et al., 1991; Keller, 1993). A significant portion of the previous
research in the area of CBBE revolves around the conceptual work of Aaker (1991, 1996a,
b, c) and Keller (1993). Although in his original work, Aaker, (1991, 1996a, b, c) proposed
five dimensions of CBBE, namely brand awareness, brand association, perceived quality,
brand loyalty and other proprietary brand assets (such as patents, trademarks and
channel relationships), subsequent researchers ignored the fifth dimension on the
grounds that it falls outside the consumer perceptional domain (Buil et al., 2008).
However, a close scrutiny of proprietary brand assets/liabilities dimension indicates
that the channel relationship is one such element that can be possibly viewed,
interpreted and measured from a consumer perspective also. This is particularly
important and extremely relevant for the firms operating as a hybrid business model.
Hybrid solutions, referred to a combination of product and service designed to deliver
innovative offerings (Shankar et al., 2009; Ulaga and Reinartz, 2011). In hybrid
business models channel relationship become pivotal for organizational success as a
results of a firms strategic shift from manufacturing dominant to service dominant
business approach (Antioco et al., 2008; Neu and Brown, 2008; Sawhney et al., 2004;
Ulaga and Reinartz, 2011; Vargo and Lusch, 2004; Wise and Baumgartner, 1999).
Channel relationship is critical for the success of hybrid organizations in general
and their brands in particular, where the distribution channel is not a mere source of
product/service distribution but a bridge that connects the firm and its consumers in a
long-term relationship (Ehinlanwo and Zairi, 1996a). Similarly, past research also
suggest that a channel exclusively associated with a brand (such as authorized dealers
and service providers in automotive and electronic sector) plays a critical role in
keeping it operational, and is perceived as a manifestation of the brand itself. Finally,
the customers willingness to pay a price premium for securing warranties and reliable
after sales service from a brand, clearly suggest that after sale service is the important
and significant source of building CBBE (Eagle et al., 2003).
Numerous economically important industrial sectors operate on hybrid business
model such as electronics, original equipments manufacturers and automotive. The
automotive industry is one of the classical examples of hybrid business model that
heavily depends on operating through self-owned or a network of authorized 3S centre

franchises. The key responsibility of these authorized dealers is to facilitate sales and
ensure provision of excellent after sale services to its customers. Past research suggests
that customer brand related knowledge heavily depends on the effective provision of
after sale services by its authorized dealers (Ehinlanwo and Zairi, 1996a, b).
Furthermore, after sales service become critical at the later stage of vehicle ownership
by significantly influencing the purchasing decision for the next vehicle (Mittal et al.,
2004). Thus, it is logical to argue that in automotive industry or any other hybrid
business setting, where provision of after sales service is the critical responsibility of
its distribution channel, a significant portion of positive/negative CBBE, is probably
the result of consumer and the authorized service provider relationship.
Nonetheless, a greater focus on service orientation does not necessitate a
compromise on the product quality itself. In fact, for hybrid business models, both the
product perceived quality of a brand and the perception regarding the image and
service capabilities of its distribution channel plays a vital role in consumer purchasing
decision (Mittal et al., 2004). Thus, clearly suggesting that a brand product quality and
its service delivery performance are conceptually different constructs and play their
unique role in building CBBE.
However, researchers in the area of CBBE were generally product or service centric,
ignoring the possibility that their findings might not be completely relevant for hybrid
organizations (Christodoulides et al., 2006; Christodoulides et al., 2006; de Chernatony
et al., 2004; Washburn and Plank, 2002; Yoo and Donthu, 2001). Therefore, it will be
more logical to suggest that for hybrid firms a CBBE model should separately reflect
consumer perceptions of both product and services quality as its manifestation.
Therefore, considering the unique nature of hybrid business organizations, it will be
inappropriate to assert that a generic model of CBBE will provide, a reliable and valid
measuring mechanism. An objective and reliable measurement of CBBE provides a
decent criterion to judge the long-term effectiveness of organizational marketing
decisions (Atilgan et al., 2005; Simon and Sullivan, 1993). Thus, developing industry
specific models of CBBE is a necessary step forward.
As a matter of fact, few researchers have recently started exploring the possibilities
of industry specific CBBE models, compared to the traditional practice of validating a
global measure of consumer based brand equity across products and services. For
example, de Chernatony et al. (2004) identified brand loyalty, satisfaction and
reputation as three dimensions of CBBE in the financial sector. Similarly, in an online
context, emotional connection, online experience, responsive service nature, trust and
fulfillment were identified as the five manifest dimension of E-CBBE (Christodoulides
et al., 2006). These limited but important investigations paved the way to continuously
explore the possibilities of industry specific brand equity models.
This research, therefore, attempts to empirically expand the existing CBBE in
automobile industry context, by incorporating after sales service as a fifth dimension.
The automotive industry was selected as it represents one of the oldest and classical
examples of hybrid business models in modern economies. Furthermore, automotive
sector always remains as a major driving force behind industrial economies
(Chattopadhyay et al., 2010; Pauwels et al., 2004). Naturally, it always attracted
research to explore different theoretical aspects in this important context. For example,
previous researchers have investigated issues such as new product introduction,
satisfaction with dealership services and E solutions in the automotive industry

After sale service

309

MIP
30,3

310

(Chattopadhyay et al., 2010; Mittal et al., 2004; Pauwels et al., 2004; Slotegraaf and
Inman, 2004). This research contributes to the existing body of knowledge by
empirically investigating an expanded CBBE for firms operating on a hybrid business
model.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: first, discussion of the relevant
literature is presented; followed by a discussion of the methodology used, third, the
findings are presented and then discussed, followed by the conclusions that look at
academic and managerial implications, limitations, and areas for future research.
2. Literature review
2.1 Brand equity
The term brand equity first appeared three decades ago in marketing literature. Since
then, interest in the subject has increased manifolds both in academia and industry
(Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995). A number of definitions and approaches to measure brand
equity are available in existing literature. These definitions are broadly grouped into
financial and marketing perspectives. The first one involves understanding brand
equity from the financial point-of-view, which measures it as a monetary value,
associated with a brand, but separable from the rest of a firms properties (Brasco,
1988; Mahajan et al., 1990; Pappu et al., 2005; Simon and Sullivan, 1993; Shocker and
Weitz, 198). The second category defines brand equity as the consumer knowledge and
value of a brand, largely resulting from systematic marketing efforts of a
manufacturer/service provider (Aaker, 1991; Kamakura and Russell, 1993; Keller,
1993; Kim and Lehmann, 1990; Pappu et al., 2005; Rangaswamy et al., 1993).
A substantial research in the area of CBBE for example the work of Aaker (1991)
and Keller (1993) is grounded in theories borrowed from cognitive psychology and
information economics. Aaker (1991), in his conceptualization of CBBE model,
identified five dimensions (Aaker, 1996a, b, c; Yoo et al., 2000):
(1) brand awareness;
(2) association;
(3) loyalty;
(4) perceived quality; and
(5) other proprietary assets.
A review of the extant literature indicated that first four out of these five dimensions
were commonly identified as the components of brand equity in different contexts and
cultures (Atilgan et al., 2005; Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995; Kim and Kim, 2004; Sinha et al.,
2000; Sinha and Pappu, 1998; Yoo et al., 2000; Yoo and Donthu, 2001).
Keller (1993) defined CBBE as the differential effect of consumer brand related
knowledge on his/her response towards a company marketing mix strategies. Brand
knowledge was further divided into awareness and image (associations). Brand
awareness is the consumer ability to recall or recognize a brand and the brand image is
the set of association related with a brand (Keller, 1993). Consumer brand related
attributes, benefits and attitudes are considered as the building blocks of brand related
associations. Attributes were further divided into product and non-product related
attributes. Similarly, benefits that a consumer associates with a brand can be classified
into symbolic, functional or experiential benefits (Christodoulides et al., 2006; Keller,

1993). Nonetheless, the prime importance of brand associations resides in their role as a
cognitive bond between the customer and the brand.
On the other hand, literature rooted in information economics and signaling theory
consider brands as agents that transmit signals characterizing their specific attributes
(Christodoulides et al., 2006; Erdem and Swait, 1998; Erdem et al., 2006). In marketing
context, brand signals consist of all the past and present marketing strategies. These
signals, if perceived credible, will subsequently generate brands equity. It will be fair to
suggest that both the concepts are somewhat complementary to each other in a sense
that both focused on the value created by a brand. The cognitive psychologists are
more interested in identifying the sources that result into a brand equity, while the
informatics school of thought is outcome oriented.
Similar to its theoretical conceptualization, measuring CBBE is also not a
straightforward phenomenon. Past literature revealed numerous academic safaris to
empirically operationalize the inherently intangible nature of CBBE. Nonetheless, these
attempts can be classified into two broader approaches. The first is direct approach
that measures consumer based brand equity by focusing on consumer preferences or
utilities (Christodoulides et al., 2006; Kamakura and Russell, 1993; Pappu et al., 2005;
Park and Srinivasan, 1994; Swait et al., 1993). The indirect approach measures the
concept through its manifestation (Yoo and Donthu, 2001). The discussion is
summarized in Figure 1.
This research opted for an indirect approach to empirically expand the existing
consumer-based brand equity model based on Aaker (1992), conceptualization. The
next section will review the already established and most commonly used dimension of
consumer based brand equity.

After sale service

311

2.2 Components of CBBE

Understanding, building and measuring brand equity is the most critical aspect of the
brand management process. Positive brand equity leads to higher revenues and better
margins for the firms, by allowing them to charge premium prices, extend brand
names to other related or unrelated product categories and optimizing licensing
opportunities (Keller, 1993; Kim and Kim, 2004). Furthermore, building successful

Figure 1.
Brand equity
methodologies

MIP
30,3

312

brands serves as a source of competitive advantage that serves as a resisting force in a

constantly changing business environment (Aaker, 1989; Adams, 1995; King, 1991;
Lannon, 1993). An investment in the brand building process will only yield profit, if the
sources to build equity are identified and measured correctly. A wrongful
inclusion/exclusion of brand equity source has the potential of jeopardizing the
whole process.
Brand awareness refers to a customer ability to recognize or recall a brand in its
product category (Aaker, 1991; Pappu et al., 2005). Brand awareness creates value for a
firm and its customers by developing positive attitudes and reasons to buy that brand
(Aaker, 1991). Thus, a marketers prime focus remains on creating awareness of his
brand to draw favorable purchase intentions. On the other hand, brand association
helps consumers in arranging and retrieving brand related information for facilitating
purchase decisions (Aaker, 1991, 109-13). Brand associations are consumer memory
structures, linked with a brand and considered as an important antecedent of his/her
purchasing behavior (Aaker, 1991). In fact, anything that is associated with a brand in
a consumers memory structure is brand association. These associations can be a
product, a country image or a store (Bullmore, 1984; Pappu et al., 2006; Yoo et al., 2000).
Brand loyalty is the pillar on which the idea of brand equity stands. Thus, building
and sustaining long-term consumer based brand equity is impossible without investing
in loyal customers (Aaker, 1991, 1996a, b, c; Gil et al., 2007; Xu and Chan, 2011; Yoo et al.,
2000). Most marketing researchers agreed that loyalty could be best explained in the
context of attitudinal and behavioral dimensions (Taylor et al., 2004; Xu and Chan, 2011).
The attitudinal brand loyalty is the consumers tendency to be loyal to brands that
generally remain present in his/her intention to buy list (Oliver, 1997; Yoo and Danthu,
2001). The behavioral loyalty is reflected by actual consumption behavior. Thus, brand
loyalty adds value to the brand, by ensuring habitual and repeat purchases, over a long
period of time (Bowen and Shoemaker, 1998; Rossiter and Percy, 1987).
Finally, perceived quality is a customers subjective evaluation of a product
(Zeithaml, 1988). High perceived quality gives value and reason to buy the brand,
allows differentiation and provides a strong base for brand extension (Aaker, 1991).
Marketing managers have increasingly recognized the importance of perceived quality
in brand management (Morton, 1994).
However, despite the fact that product quality remains an important consideration
in the consumer purchasing decision, it no longer serves as an absolute source of
competitive advantage. As competition intensifies and many products are becoming
similar, the ability of the firm to provide problem solutions is becoming more
important (Asugman et al., 1997; Loomba, 1998; McLaughlin and Fitzsimmons, 1996;
Morschett, 2006; Simon, 1993). Customer requires a bulk of these solutions in shape of
post purchase services. The next section will review the relevant literature on after
sales service in the automotive context and its link with CBBE for the firms operating
on a hybrid business models.
2.3 After sales service
Some estimates suggest that the revenue generated from the provision of after sales
service and spare parts sales, exceeds three times the value of the initial purchase
(Saccani et al., 2007; Wise and Baumgartner, 1999). As a matter of fact, the after sales
service market is five times larger than the new products market (Bundschuh and

Dezvane, 2003; Saccani et al., 2007). The difficulties and limitations of achieving
product-based differentiation have helped automotive companies to realize the vast
potential in their service areas (Godlevskaja et al., 2011; Horvath and Partners, 2007).
This realization allowed companies to build after sales service networks on more
robust business models than before. Furthermore, the customers willingness to pay a
price premium for securing warranties and reliable after sales service also helped in
achieving substantial growth in their after sales service businesses (Eagle et al., 2003).
Thus, the level of after sales service is not only critical for a customer decision process
but also a source of significant revenue for the firms. Moreover, after sales service
offers differentiation potentials that a producer can use to strengthen their brand
equity (Cavalieri et al., 2007).
Literature on after sales service reveals five aspects that are critical in meeting the
customers expectations for an acceptable service level (Asugman et al., 1997;
Ehinlanwo and Zairi, 1996a, b; Simon, 1993). These include parts availability,
warranties and coverage, extent of technical support, pricing policies and technical
service assistance. In an automotive context, after-sales service becomes a vital source
of brand building as it represents continuous contact between car producers and
customers through authorized dealers network. It is perfectly logical to assume that
these interactions provide bases of brand equity. The contact between customers and
after sale service dealers generates multiple experiences that are considered to be one
of the most credible sources of building brand equity (Keller, 1993).
The learning organizations in the automotive and other industries have long before
shifted their business paradigm from being a manufacturing powerhouse to a service
centered company. These companies operate with a simplistic business approach of
creating value by integrating their product and services as an optimal solution for the
customer (Godlevskaja et al., 2011). This also ensures that apart from finding new
avenues for brand differentiation, it also serves as a source of additional cash flow
(Godlevskaja et al., 2011). The principle contribution of this study is that it incorporates
and empirically tests after sales service as the fifth dimension of consumer based brand
equity in the automobile sector. Figure 2 provides the conceptual model of consumer
based brand equity in the automotive industry.
3. Methodology
There are two common approaches to measure CBBE, one is the direct approach and
other is the indirect approach (Keller, 1993). While the indirect approach identifies brand
equity sources, the direct approach measures the impact of brand knowledge on
consumer response (Pappu et al., 2005). The first approach was adopted in this research,
as it provides a better assessment of customers evaluations of a brand. In line with past
research, associative relationships among the five dimensions were examined using the
confirmatory factor analysis procedure (Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995; Pappu et al., 2005;
Sinha et al., 2000; Sinha and Pappu, 1998; Yoo et al., 2000; Yoo and Donthu, 2001). The
associative approach is adopted as the five dimensions were considered as representing
the multi-variate construct of CBBE (Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995).
Furthermore, in line with the past research that uses indirect approach to measure
CBBE, these five dimensions were measured using multiple reflective indicators.
Structured questionnaire was developed using the established scales to measure
components of CBBE. The questionnaire was developed in English as the majority of

After sale service

313

MIP
30,3

314

Figure 2.
Extended model for
measuring brand equity in
car industry

the respondents were from the middle class background, and were educated enough to
read and comprehend English language. A pilot run with 25 respondents, who were
excluded from the main study was conducted to test the questionnaire. The
respondents indicated no confusion in answering the questions. More importantly, for
the main study the enumerators were instructed to help in case a person faced
difficulty in understanding any question.
Four brand equity dimensions brand awareness, brand association, perceived
quality and brand loyalty were adopted from the previous studies of Tong and Hawley
(2009) and Pappu et al. (2005). The fifth proposed component, after sales service, was
measured on five items adopted from the work of Ehinlanwo and Zairi (1996a, b),
Simon (1993) and Asugman et al. (1997). All items were measured on a seven-point
Likert type scale where 1 representing strongly disagrees and 7 as strongly agree. Data
was analyzed using the Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) version 15 and

AMOS version 7.0. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out to establish the
multi-dimensionality of the consumer based brand equity construct.
CFA was preferred over EFA (Exploratory factor analysis) for two reasons. First,
CFA is a more appropriate technique when sufficient theoretical knowledge is
available regarding the relationship among latent and observed variables. CFA is also
an appropriate technique for model testing when a researcher builds his/her theoretical
model on logic and existing research. Given the fact that CBBE is at an advanced stage
of theoretical exploration, CFA was preferred over EFA.
CFA models results for all three brands were assessed using multiple fit indices
such as Chi-square; Goodness of Fit Index (GFI); Normal Fit Index (NFI), and Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). The battery of fit indices was used
to demonstrate how well the data fits the proposed model. This battery included
absolute fit measures such as the chi-square statistic, which demonstrates that
predicted and actual matrix differences are non significant for a model to be
acceptable. Owing to test sensitivity of deducting minute differences, especially for
large sample size, other fit indices were used. The GFI is a commonly used absolute
fit index. A result of 0.9 or above indicates acceptable model fit (Meyers et al., 2006).
The second category, RMSEA, is the average of the residual between the observed
correlation/covariance from the sample and the expected model estimation of the
population (Byrne, 2001). The other fit indices include relative fit measures like CFI
and NFI. These are measures of model fit relative to the independent model (Meyers
et al., 2006). A researcher needs to use a battery of fit indices to deduce how well
the data suits the proposed model.
This research opted for a non-student sample, helping to overcome a shortfall,
common in most of the previous studies in the area of CBBE (Pappu et al., 2005).
Individuals who own, a personal car were contacted for data collection using
convenience sampling. Data were collocated from the four major cities of Pakistan,
namely Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore and Peshawar. Out of 250 distributed
questionnaires, 213 were returned and 205 were found usable after the incomplete and
irrational responses were eliminated, resulting in a response rate of 82 percent. The
sample size was appropriate for running structural equation modeling procedures. The
respondents were asked to rate a series of questions for the three dominant car brands
(Suzuki, Toyota and Honda) accounting for more than 90 percent share of the
automobile market in Pakistan.
4. Data analysis
Before proceeding to the main analysis, the data was first examined for missing
values and wrong coding, Examination of the data revealed no cases of wrong
coding. Further analysis indicated random cases of missing values. It is hardly
possible to obtain a large data set without any missing values (Hair et al., 2007). A
mean score substitution procedure was applied to replace the randomly missing
values in the data (Shammout, 2007; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001). Furthermore, the
normality of data was ascertained through Skewness and Kurtosis, value less than
/21.00 indicated the normality of the data. None of the observed variables in the
data set was found to be violating this assumption. A visual assessment of
probability plots was also carried out and the plots indicated no serious deviation
from normality.

After sale service

315

MIP
30,3

316

5. Results
The majority of the respondents were male with an average age of forty-four, and an
average income ranging from 50,000 to 100,000 Pakistani rupees. Brand usage patterns
reflected the share of Suzuki at 52 percent, Toyota at 33 percent and Honda at 12
percent. These ratios approximately reflect the actual market share of these brands in
Pakistan. Table I presents the mean and standard deviation for each of the measured
variate and its individual items for three car brands. The variates were computed by
averaging the sum of all the items representing it.
To assess the multi-dimensional construct of consumer based brand equity, the data
for each brand of car was analyzed separately with the help of confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA). CFA is the most appropriate technique when establishing the reliability
of a measurement scale and has been widely used by past researchers (Steenkamp and
Van Trijp, 1991; Washburn and Plank, 2002; Yoo et al., 2000; Yoo and Donthu, 2001). The
confirmatory factor analysis results for each brand were assessed using a battery of
goodness of fit indices and their cut-off criteria (Hu and Bentler, 1999).

Statements

Table I.
Mean and standard
deviations of scale items

Brand awareness (overall)

I am familiar with (brand X) cars
Some characteristics of (brand X) car come to my mind
quickly
I can recognize (brand X) car quickly among other cars
Brand association (overall)
(Brand X) cars are very unique as compared to others
I respect and admire people who use (brand X) car
I like (brand X) company
I am proud to buy car of (brand X) company
I trust (brand X) company
Brand product quality (overall)
(Brand X) cars are of good quality
(Brand X) cars are of consistent quality
(Brand X) cars are very durable
(Brand X) cars are very reliable
(Brand X) cars have excellent features
Brand Loyalty (overall)
I feel loyal to (brand X) company
(Brand X) cars are my first choice
I would love to recommend (brand X) cars to my friends
I am willing to buy (brand X) car even if price is a little
higher than other similar cars
Brand after sale service (overall)
Spare parts of (brand X) cars are easily available
Spare parts of (brand X) cars are low priced
Technical support for (brand X) cars is easily available
Technical support for (brand X) cars is low priced
Warranty on new (brand X) cars is an important feature
for me

Suzuki
Toyota
Honda
Std.
Std.
Std.
Mean dev. Mean dev. Mean dev.
5.34
5.26

1.94
2.12

5.17
5.14

1.84
2.00

4.98
4.97

1.81
2.01

5.36
5.42
4.92
5.07
4.95
4.88
4.89
4.82
4.87
4.70
4.64
4.88
5.11
5.03
4.98
5.07
5.00
4.98

1.95
1.92
1.68
1.85
1.80
2.01
1.93
1.87
1.64
2.04
2.00
1.86
1.65
1.64
1.54
1.66
1.66
1.67

5.15
5.24
5.07
5.05
5.05
5.12
5.02
5.15
5.22
5.20
5.20
5.26
5.27
5.19
5.13
5.19
5.11
5.20

1.88
1.81
1.63
1.70
1.71
1.79
1.74
1.76
1.64
1.70
1.70
1.75
1.70
1.72
1.51
1.69
1.66
1.63

5.03
4.97
4.94
4.86
4.84
5.06
4.97
4.99
5.09
5.11
5.07
5.05
5.18
5.05
5.09
5.02
5.07
5.13

1.85
1.81
1.69
1.70
1.73
1.72
1.75
1.73
1.57
1.72
1.67
1.70
1.54
1.67
1.51
1.57
1.65
1.63

4.88
5.59
5.61
5.61
5.66
5.65

1.66
1.20
1.34
1.36
1.39
1.36

5.05
5.34
5.36
5.28
5.41
5.20

1.57
1.30
1.38
1.50
1.45
1.45

5.02
4.96
4.84
4.76
5.08
4.85

1.58
1.30
1.60
1.57
1.46
1.61

5.46

1.43

5.49

1.36

5.30

1.29

AMOS 16.0 was used to independently test the measurement model of consumer-based
brand equity for all the three car brands in Pakistan. Five latent variables, namely:
after sales service; perceived quality; brand awareness; brand association; and brand
loyalty, were associated in the model as the first order factor structure of the consumer
based brand equity scale. Goodness of fit indices indicated moderate acceptability of
the models as shown in Table II.
Based on the CFA results, the reliability of the sub components of the consumer
based brand equity was established using Cronbachs alpha, construct reliability (CR)
and average variance extracted (AVE). Cronbachs alpha coefficients for all the scales
used were above 0.90, indicating strong internal consistency of the scale. Construct
reliability and average variance extracted were calculated using formulae proposed by
Fornell and Larcker (1981). Calculated values for CR and AVE were above the
minimum threshold of 0.6 and 0.5 respectively (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) endorsing the
reliability of these dimensions of consumer based brand equity. Table III summarizes
the reliability results for each construct and the brand.
For establishing the validity of the scales, construct, convergent and discriminant
validity were measured. Construct and convergent validity can be measured using
CFA. Construct validity exists when the results of a measurement model are good for a
given scale. The measurement model results are good when the goodness of fit indices
surpass the minimum acceptable limit (Hsieh and Hiang, 2004; Shammout, 2007). The
results of all the three models for each brand reflect that the construct validity for the
scale was achieved. Convergent validity is established when the factor loading of all
the indicator variables of a construct are large and statistically significant. The results
indicate that all the factor loadings were above the minimum criteria of a factor loading
Indices

Suzuki

Toyota

Honda

Chi-square
Chi-square/df
Degrees of freedom (df)
Significance
Goodness of fit (GFI)
Adjusted GFI
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)

316.7
2.90
109
0.001
0.852
0.793
0.951
0.097

239.193
2.99
80
0.001
0.871
0.802
0.967
0.090

339.34
3.11
109
0.001
0.839
0.774
0.950
0.098

Constructs
Brand awareness
Brand association
Perceived quality
Brand loyalty
After sales service

Cronbachs alpha
S
T
H
0.97
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.92

0.97
0.96
0.97
0.96
0.89

0.95
0.95
0.97
0.95
0.91

Note: S Suzuki; T Toyota; H Honda

CR
T

AVE
T

0.99
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.96

0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99

0.99
0.99
0.93
0.99
0.99

0.97
0.97
0.97
0.94
0.85

0.98
0.97
0.97
0.96
0.96

0.97
0.97
0.79
0.96
0.95

After sale service

317

Table II.
CFA model results
goodness of fit measures

Table III.
Reliability results

MIP
30,3

318

greater than 0.40 and did not violate the assumption of statistical significance (Hu and
Bentler, 1999).
Finally, discriminant validity was established by examining the co-relation between
the five factors of brand equity scale for each brand. A co-relation of less than 0.85
indicates discriminant validity for a construct (Kline, 2005; Shammout, 2007). All the
constructs were randomly assigned to co-relate. The results indicate no violation of the
assumption establishing the discriminant validity of the scale.
The factors that emerged from the three scales were also compared. The results
indicate that the same set of factors emerged for each brand involved in the research.
The root mean square values for all three scales were reasonably close to zero, thus
indicating that CFA results are quite similar in magnitude and direction. This
established the pattern and magnitude similarity of confirmatory factor analysis
across three brands (Pappu et al., 2005).
6. Discussion
The principle objective of this study was to expand and empirically test the Aakers
model of CBBE for hybrid business models. Five sources were hypothesized as the
multidimensional manifestation of consumer based brand equity for hybrid business
firms. Apart from after sale service, the others were most commonly cited dimensions
(awareness, association, perceived product quality, and loyalty) in consumer based
brand equity literature
The proposed five-factor brand equity model fitted well for all of the three car
brands. Factor loadings were large and significant for all three brands. Furthermore,
the results of the goodness of fit indices support the five-factor model, thus indicating
that our theorized model and data fit well with each other. These results also validate
our initial conception that other dimensions can emerge in industry specific
explorations of consumer based brand equity construct.
Despite the plethora of research on the topic of CBBE, little effort was dedicated in
exploring the possible expansion due to unique contextual factors such as the nature of
industry in which a brand operate. The major contribution of this paper is to provide
empirically evidence that existing CBBE models can be expanded by incorporating
related but previously ignored variables. This will provide help for developing sector
specific brand equity models that can contribute better understanding for building
brands in a specific context.
The identification of after sale service as a unique dimension of CBBE provides
crucial guideline for the managers involved in transcending a manufacturing
organization towards a hybrid model. The emergence of after sale service as a separate
dimension also provides empirical and objective evidence that firms after sales services
capabilities can significantly contributes in building its brand equity. Thus, it will be
appropriate to suggest that brand managers of hybrid firms should pay more attention
on the provision of services in generating the desired level of CBBE for their firms. It
will be fair enough to argue that managers involved in building brand equity should
always allocate significantly higher resources on factors that yield greater return on
marketing investments. Nonetheless, one must not ignore the relevant importance of
other factors that contribute towards a firms brand equity.
Although the concept and importance of after sales service is deeply entrenched in
the automotive industry, none of the previous researchers empirically established that

after sales service can also contribute towards firm brand equity. In fact it is the
practice that precedes the theory in this case. The results also contribute to the
literature by providing more validated results on the grounds that unlike many of the
previous studies it did not employ student sample. Furthermore, the lack of brand
equity research in Pakistan in general and in the automotive sector globally also
highlights the significant contribution of this research.

After sale service

319
7. Limitations and future research
This study has limitations in terms of its sample size. A larger sample size collected
from all the major cities would be more representative of Pakistani automotive
customers. Moreover, a comparison across different product categories that requires
similar nature and intensity of after sales service could help in establishing strong
validity of the scale. Future researchers could test the scale across cultures and product
categories to develop a more robust scale.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1989), Managing assets and skills: the key to a sustainable competitive
advantage, California Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 91-106.
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. (1992), Managing the most important asset: brand equity, Planning Review, Vol. 20
No. 5, pp. 56-8.
Aaker, D.A. (1996a), The agency as brand architect: how todays agencies are restructuring to
become better brand builders, American Advertising, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 18-21.
Aaker, D.A. (1996b), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. (1996c), Measuring brand equity across products and markets, California
Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 102-20.
Adams, J. (1995), Brands at the crossroads, American Advertising, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 18-20.
Antioco, M., Moenaert, R., Lindgreen, A. and Wetzels, M. (2008), Organizational antecedents and
consequences of service business orientations in manufacturing companies, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 337-58.
Asugman, G., Johnson, J. and McCullough, J. (1997), The role of after-sales service in
international marketing, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 11-28.
Atilgan, E., Aksoy, S. and Akinci, S. (2005), Determinants of the brand equity: a verification
approach in the beverage industry in Turkey, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 23
Nos 2/3, pp. 237-48.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), On the evaluation of structural equation models, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bowen, J. and Shoemaker, S. (1998), Loyalty: a strategic commitment, Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, pp. 12-25.
Brasco, T.C. (1988), How brand names are valued for acquisition, in Leuthesser, L. (Ed.),
Defining, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity: A Conference Summary Report,
Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, pp. 88-104.
Buil, I., de Chernatony, L. and Martinez, E. (2008), A cross-national validation of the consumer based
brand equity scale, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 384-92.
Bullmore, J. (1984), The brand and its image re-visited, International Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 235-8.

MIP
30,3

320

Bundschuh, R.G. and Dezvane, T.M. (2003), How to make after sale services pay off,
The McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. 4, pp. 116-27.
Byrne, B.M. (2001), Structural Equation Modelling with Amos: Basic Concepts, Applications and
Programming, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Cavalieri, S., Gaiardelli, P. and Ierace, S. (2007), Aligning strategic profiles with operational
metrics in after-sales service, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 56 Nos 5/6, pp. 436-55.
Chattopadhyay, A., Dutta, R.N. and and Sivani, S. (2010), Media mix elements affecting brand
equity: a study of the Indian passenger car market, IIMB Management Review, Vol. 22
No. 4, pp. 173-85.
Christodoulides, G., de Chernatony, L., Furrer, O. and Abimbola, T. (2006), Conceptualising and
measuring the equity of online brands, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22
Nos 7/8, pp. 799-825.
Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Beal, C. and Donthu, N. (1995), Brand equity, brand preferences, and
purchase intent, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 25-40.
de Chernatony, L., Harris, F.J. and Christodoulides, G. (2004), Developing a brand performance
measure for financial services brands, Services Industries Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 15-33.
Eagle, L., Kitchen, P., Rose, L. and Moyle, B. (2003), Brand equity and brand vulnerability: the
impact of gray marketing/parallel importing on brand equity and values, European
Journal of Marketing, p. 37(10.
Ehinlanwo, O.O. and Zairi, M. (1996a), Best practice in the car after-sales service: an empirical
study of Ford, Toyota, Nissan and Fiat in Germany part I, Business Process
Re-engineering and Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 39-56.
Ehinlanwo, O.O. and Zairi, M. (1996b), Best practice in the car after-sales service: an empirical
study of Ford, Toyota, Nissan and Fiat in Germany part II, Business Process
Re-engineering and Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 39-53.
Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (1998), Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 131-57.
Erdem, T., Swait, J. and Valenzuela, A. (2006), Brands as signals: a cross-country validation
study, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 34-49.
Farquhar, P.H. (1989), Managing brand equity, Marketing Research, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 24-33.
Farquhar, P.H., Han, J.Y. and Ijiri, Y. (1991), Recognizing and measuring brand assets, working
paper (report 91-119), Marketing Science Institute Working Paper Series, Marketing
Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gil, R.B., Andres, E.F. and Salinas, E.M. (2007), Family as a source of consumer-based brand
equity, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 188-99.
Godlevskaja, O., Jos Van, I. and Ton Van Der, W. (2011), Moving from product-based to
service-based business strategies services categorization schemes for the automotive
industry, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 28 No. 1.
Haigh, D. (1999), Understanding the Financial Value of Brands, European Association of
Advertising Agencies, Brussels.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (2007), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th
ed., Prentice Hall International, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Horvath and Partners (2007), Automotive Retail Performance 2007, Ergebnisbericht, Competence
Centre Automotive, Horvath and Partners, Stuttgart.
Hsieh, Y. and Hiang, S. (2004), A study of the impacts of service quality on relationship quality
in search-experience-credence service, Total Quality Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 43-58.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 1-55.
Kamakura, W.A. and Russell, G.J. (1993), Measuring brand value with scanner data,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 9-22.
Keller, K.L. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Kim, D.H. and Lehmann, D.R. (1990), The role of brand equity in modelling the impact of
advertising and promotion on sales, working paper, Department of Marketing, School of
Management, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.
Kim, W.G. and Kim, H. (2004), Measuring customer-based restaurant brand equity:
investigating the relationship between brand equity and firms performance, Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 115-31.
King, S. (1991), Brand-building in the 1990s, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 43-52.
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, 2nd ed., The Guilford
Press, New York, NY.
Lannon, J. (1993), Branding essentials and the new environment, Admap, June, pp. 17-22.
Loomba, A. (1998), Product distribution and service support strategy linkages, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 143-61.
McLaughlin, C. and Fitzsimmons, J. (1996), Strategies for globalizing service operations,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 43-7.
Mahajan, V., Rao, V.R. and Srivastava, R.K. (1990), Development, testing and validation of
brand equity under conditions of acquisition and divestment, in Maltz, E. (Ed.), Managing
Brand Equity: A Conference Summary Report, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge,
MA, pp. 14-15.
Meyers, L.S., Gamst, G. and Guarino, A.J. (2006), Applied Multivariate Research: Design and
Interpretation, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mittal, V., Kamakura, W.A. and Rahul, G. (2004), Geographic patterns in customer service and
satisfaction: an empirical investigation, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 48-62.
Morschett, D. (2006), Firm-specific influences on the internalization of after-sales service
activities in foreign markets, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 309-23.
Morton, J. (1994), Predicating brand preference, Marketing Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 32-44.
Neu, W. and Stephen, W.B. (2008), Manufacturers forming successful complex business
services, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 232-51.
Oliver, R.L. (1997), A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W. (2005), Consumer-based brand equity: improving
the measurement, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 143-54.
Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W. (2006), Consumer-based brand equity and
country-of-origin relationships, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 5/6,
pp. 696-717.

After sale service

321

MIP
30,3

322

Park, C.S. and Srinivasan, V. (1994), A survey-based method for measuring and understanding
brand equity and its extendibility, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 271-88.
Pauwels, K., Jorge, S.R., Shuba, S. and Hanssens, D.M. (2004), New products, sales promotion
and firm value: the case of the automobile industry, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68,
October, pp. 142-56.
Rangaswamy, A., Burke, R. and Olive, T.A. (1993), Brand equity and the extendibility of brand
names, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 61-75.
Reynolds, T.J. and Phillips, C.B. (2005), In search of true brand equity metrics: all market shares
aint created equally, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 171-86.
Rossiter, J.R. and Percy, L. (1987), Advertising and Promotion Management, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Saccani, N., Johansson, P. and Perona, M. (2007), Configuring the after-sales service supply
chain: a multiple case study, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 110,
pp. 52-69.
Sawhney, M., Balasubramanian, S. and Krishnan, V. (2004), Creating growth with services,
MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 34-43.
Shammout, A.B. (2007), Evaluating an extended relationship marketing model for Arab guests
of five-star hotels, unpublished PhD dissertation, School of Hospitality, Tourism and
Marketing, Faculty of Business and Law, Victoria University, Melbourne.
Shankar, V., Berry, L. and Dotzel, T. (2009), A practical guide to combining products and
services, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 87 No. 11, pp. 94-9.
Simon, C.J. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993), The measurement and determinants of brand equity:
a financial approach, Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 28-52.
Simon, H. (1993), Industrielle Dienstleistung und Wettbewerbsstrategie, in Simon, H. (Ed.),
Industrielle Dienstleistungen, Schaffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart, pp. 3-22.
Sinha, A. and Pappu, R. (1998), Parcelling of the sub components of consumer-based brand
equity using factorial survey: an empirical investigation in the New Zealand consumer
electronics sector, Proceedings of the Australia New Zealand Marketing Academy
Conference (ANZMAC), University of Otago, Dunedin, December, pp. 2433-8.
Sinha, A., Leszeczyc, P.P. and Pappu, R. (2000) in Gregory, G.T. and Murphy, P.E. (Eds),
Measuring customer based brand equity: a survey-based methodology using hierarchical
Bayes model, Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, Vol. 11, AMA Educators
Proceedings, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, August, pp. 156-7.
Slotegraaf, R.J. and Inman, J. (2004), Longitudinal shifts in the drivers of satisfaction with
product quality: the role of attribute resolvability, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 41
No. 3, pp. 269-76.
Steenkamp, J. and Van Trijp, H. (1991), The use of LISREL in validating marketing constructs,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 283-99.
Swait, J., Erdem, T., Louvie`re, J. and Dubelaar, C. (1993), The equalization price: a measure of
consumer-perceived brand equity, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 23-45.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001), Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th ed., Allyn & Bacon,
Boston, MA.
Taylor, S.A., Celuch, K. and Goodwin, S. (2004), The importance of brand equity to customer
loyalty, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 217-27.

Tong, X. and Hawley, J.M. (2009), Measuring customer based brand equity: empirical evidence
from the sportswear market in China, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 262-71.
Ulaga, W. and Reinartz, W. (2011), Hybrid offering: how manufacturing firms combine goods
and services successfully, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 1-47.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68, January, pp. 1-17.

Vazquez, R., Del Rio, A. and Iglesias, V. (2002), Consumer-based brand equity: development and
validation of a measurement instrument, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 18
Nos 1/2, pp. 27-48.
Washburn, J.H. and Plank, R.E. (2002), Measuring brand equity: an evaluation of a
consumer-based brand equity scale, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 46-62.
Wise, R. and Baumgartner, P. (1999), Go downstream the new profit imperative in
manufacturing, Harvard Business Review, September-October, pp. 133-41.
Xu, J.B. and Chan, A. (2011), A conceptual framework of hotel experience and customer-based
brand equity: some research questions and implications, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 174-93.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based
brand equity scale, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52, pp. 1-14.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), An examination of selected marketing mix elements and
brand equity, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 195-211.
Zeithaml, V. (1988), Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of the evidence, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.
Further reading
Alexander, W.L., Dayal, S., Dempsey, J.J. and Vander Ark, J.D. (2002), The secret life of factory
service centers, The McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. 3.
Gaiardelli, P., Saccani, N. and Songini, L. (2007), Performance measurement systems in
after-sales service: an integrated framework, International Journal of Business
Performance Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 145-71.
Mohsin Butt, M. and de Run, E.C. (2010), Private healthcare quality: applying a SERVQUAL
model, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 658-73.
Shocker, A.D. and Weitz, B. (1988), A perspective on brand equity principles and issues,
in Leuthesser, L. (Ed.), Defining, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity Report:
A Conference Summary, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, pp. 2-4.
About the authors
Sajjad Ahmad is the Vice President of SME Bank Pakistan and a research student at MS level.
Dr Muhammad Mohsin Butt is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Management Sciences,
International Islamic University Islamabad. He has gained his PhD in Marketing from Universiti
Malaysia Sarawak Malaysia. His research has been published in many international journals.
Muhammad Mohsin Butt is the corresponding author and can be contacted at
mohsinbutt@hotmail.com
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

After sale service

323