Separation of Brand Equity and Brand Value

Global http://gbr.sagepub.
com/ Business Review
Separation of Brand Equity and Brand Value

Munish Kumar Tiwari Global Business Review 2010 11: 421 DOI: 10.1177/097215091001100307 The online version of this article can be found at: http://gbr.sagepub.com/content/11/3/421
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Global Business Review can be found at: Email Alerts: http://gbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://gbr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://gbr.sagepub.com/content/11/3/421.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Sep 22, 2010 What is This?
Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com by guest on July 11, 2012
Article Military-Madrasa-Mullah Complex
421
Global Business Review 11(3) 421434 2010 IMI SAGE Publications Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC DOI: 10.1177/097215091001100307 http://gbr.sagepub.com

Munish Kumar Tiwari
Abstract Brand value and brand equity represent two different, yet intricately linked, concepts. Brand value is the net present value of future cash flows from a branded product minus the net present value of future cash flows from a similar unbranded productor, in simpler terms, what the brand is worth to management and shareholders. Brand equity is a set of perceptions, knowledge and behaviour on the part of customers that creates demand and/or a price premium for a branded productin other words, what the brand is worth to a customer. Brand equity may also be defined as a set of elements such as brand associations, market fundamentals and marketing assets that help distinguish one brand from another. While measuring brand value has its usefulness, the act of measurement by itself will not make a brand more valuable or less risky. Quantifying and managing brand equity, however, using a customized measurement model, is critical to transferring value to the corporations shareholders. During the past 15 years, brand equity has been a priority topic for both practitioners and academics. In this article, I propose a new framework for conceptualizing brand equity that distinguishes between brand equity, conceived of as an intrapersonal construct that moderates the impact of marketing activities, and brand value, which is the sale or replacement value of a brand. Such a distinction is important because, from a managerial perspective, the ultimate goal of brand management and brand equity research should be to understand how to leverage equity to create value. Keywords Book-to-market, brand equity, brand value, discounted cash flow, gross profit differential, relief from royalty Not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that is counted counts. Albert Einstein
The Importance of Measuring Brand Value and Brand Equity

Brand value and brand equity represent two different, yet intricately linked, concepts. Brand value is the net present value of future cash flows from a branded product minus the net present value of future cash flows from a similar unbranded productor, in simpler terms, what the brand is worth to management and shareholders. Brand equity is a set of perceptions, knowledge and behaviour on the part of customers that creates demand and/or a price premium for a branded productin other words, what the brand is
Munish Kumar Tiwari is Assistant Professor in the MBA Department at Anand Engineering College, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India. E-mail: munish_tiwari2007@rediffmail.com India Quarterly, 66, 2 (2010): 133149
422
Munish Kumar Tiwari
worth to a customer. Brand equity may also be defined as a set of elements such as brand associations, market fundamentals and marketing assets that help distinguish one brand from another. While measuring brand value has its usefulness, the act of measurement by itself will not make a brand more valuable or less risky. Quantifying and managing brand equity, however, using a customized measurement model, is critical to transferring value to the corporations shareholders (Kerin and Sethuraman 1998).
Brand Value
The value of every asset, whether tangible or intangible, can be estimated. Some assets are easier to value than others, and some valuations are more precise than others. Intangible assets, such as brands, often fall in the more difficult, less precise valuation category. While the valuation of brands requires techniques that are quite different from those used to value stocks or fixed assets, the basic principles are the same. First, from a shareholders perspective, the value of a brand is equal to the financial returns that the brand will generate over its useful life. Second, any financial returns attributed to a brand must be discounted to account for market uncertainty and asset-specific risks. These two principles apply to the valuation of all assets, not just brands.
Uses of Brand Valuation

For American corporations, brand valuation is a relatively new science. The valuation of brands tends to be more common outside the US, primarily in Europe, where International Accounting Standards allow for the capitalization of acquired brands. In the US, brands are not capitalized, making the use of brand valuations far more limited. There are, however, circumstances that will require a corporation to measure the financial value of its products brand and/or of its corporate brand. Mergers and Acquisitions Rarely will a corporation pay book value to acquire another business entity. The difference between book value and the acquisition price paid is called goodwill. Goodwill is often defined as the value of a business entity not directly attributable to its tangible assets and/or liabilities. Estimating the financial value of a brand helps determine the premium over book value that a buyer should pay. Licensing One of the ways to cash in on the equity of a strong brand is by extending or licensing the brand. It is possible for both the licensor and the licensee to benefit economically from a licensing arrangement. The licensor benefits from a new source of revenue that requires little capital investment. The licensee benefits by having lower channel, advertising and customer acquisition costs. Financing While corporations do not carry brands on their balance sheets as long-term assets, financial markets recognize the contribution brands have on shareholder value. Companies with strong brands regularly obtain better financial terms than companies with poor brands. The higher the value of the brand, the better the terms.
Global Business Review, 11, 3 (2010): 421434
Separation of Brand Equity and Brand Value Brand Reviews
423
Usually, brand investment reviews entail the comparisonacross brands and against competitorsof hard measures, such as sales and market share, and soft measures, such as reputation and awareness. For some brands, it is also important to determine financial value. Brand valuations allow companies to gauge their return on brand investment and to develop appropriate investment strategies across a portfolio of brands. Budget Allocations Market mix modelling is becoming an increasingly popular tool employed by marketers who must make decisions about the allocation of budget and resources. Companies can now more accurately estimate the mix of marketing vehicles required to maximize both budget efficiency and marketing effectiveness. For some companies, brand valuations are an essential element of market mix modelling.
Brand Valuation Methods

Several methods are commonly used to establish the financial value of brands. All of them should establish the future economic benefit of brand ownership, discounted for market and brand-specific risks. The most commonly used valuation models are: discounted cash flows, book-to-market, gross profit differential and relief from royalty. Before reviewing these models, though, it is important to have a clear understanding of the role that risk plays in estimating future financial value. This reflects the concept of risk beta, which can be explained as follows. Every investment has an expected return, and that return has a certain level of risk, or variance, attached to it. The variance is a measure of the gap between expected and actual returns and is commonly referred to as the beta (Aaker and Jacobson 1994). Discounted Cash Flow This is the most commonly used approach to brand valuation. A discounted cash flow model estimates the valuetodayof a brand that will generate anticipated cash flows in future years. In other words, it suggests what the future economic benefit (cash) of the brand is worth today. Anticipated cash flows must be discounted to account for future risks and uncertainty. In simple financial terms, discounted cash flow can be expressed as: DCF = C (1 + r )t
where DCF is the discounted cash flow, C is the cash flow inflow attributed to the brand, r is the discount rate or risk factor and should be calculated using the brands beta and t is the number of discounting periods. The actual formula used may be somewhat more complex. Enough data on cash inflows and risk factors must be compiled and the right set of assumptions must be determined before any data modelling takes place.
424 Book-to-Market
Munish Kumar Tiwari
The book-to-market approach is used to estimate the value of an asset or brand by subtracting its book value from its market value. Book value is calculated by adding a companys total assets and subtracting liabilities and intangible assets. Market value is estimated by looking at market capitalizationthat is, the value of all outstanding shares. This approach lets market forces determine the value of a brand. There are limitations to this approach, though. First, in the attempt to estimate the value of one of many brands. It is important to have a clear understanding of the role that risk plays in estimating future financial value of brands. For example, what is the value of the Tide brand relative to the Procter & Gamble brand? Second, if the company is privately held, this approach will not work because a private company does not have market capitalization. The formula for book-to-market valuation can be expressed as: bv = m b, where bv is brand value, m is market value and b is book value. Gross Profit Differential For certain product brands, the easiest way to determine brand value is by using a gross profit differential approach. In this approach, the value of a branded product will be equal to the price of that product minus the average price of similar non-branded products. For example, the brand value of Scope mouthwash will be equal to the price of a unit of Scope minus the average price of all other non-branded mouthwashes times the number of units of Scope sold. In mathematical terms, this can be expressed as: bv = (p n) x, where bv is brand value, p is the price of a branded unit, n is the average price of similar, non-branded products and x is the number of branded units sold. Relief from Royalty In this approach, a corporation uses the royalty fee it charges to license its brand as a proxy for brand value. In other words, if the company does not own the brand being valued, the company would have to pay the owner a royalty for the right to use the brand. The royalty is based on a percentage of income and is a function of the right being granted and other microeconomic and macroeconomic factors. Once a royalty fee is ascertained, a variation of the discounted cash flow method is used to estimate the actual value of the brand.
Brand Equity
Brand equity consists of elements such as the brand associations, market fundamentals and marketing assets that distinguish one brand from another and that influence a customers perceptions of knowledge about a brand. When brand elements are favourable in a customers mind, brand equity is considered to be positive. When they are not favourable, the brand equity is negative. Positive associations of a brand in a customers mind are generally stronger and more sustainable than those of a product, assuming that sufficient investments are being made in appropriate brand management (Keller 1993). Brands with Global Business Review, 11, 3 (2010): 421434
425
positive equity will consistently generate, maximize and grow cash flows. They achieve this by commanding a price premium, allowing for brand extensions and licensing, creating barriers of entry, attracting and retaining more valuable customers and reducing the costs of customer acquisition. Positive brand equity drives customer value, which in turn drives shareholder value (Barwise et al. 1990, Gupta et al. 2004). To leverage positive brand equity, marketers must take a measured approach to identifying, developing and managing brand elements relevant to the corporation and its products. Several marketing organizations offer services and products around the measurement and management of brand equity (Figure 1). Three of them have developed unique approaches to measuring brand equity: Young & Rubicam (Y&R), Millward Brown and Tocquigny. Y&R:
Figure 1. Brand AssetTM Valuator

Source: http://personalbrandingblog.wordpress.com
Millward Brown has developed the concept of a brand pyramid. Five building blocks, stacked atop each other to form a pyramid, are used to explain why some customers are more valuable than others. These blocks representfrom low customer loyalty to high customer loyaltypresence, relevance, performance, advantage and bonding. The purpose is to move customers from lower to higher levels in the pyramid to increase brand loyalty (Figure 2). Tocquigny understands that no two brands are alike. Therefore, a cookie-cutter approach that uses the same process and that measures the same associations from brand to brand is likely to result in a distorted measure of brand equity. Tocquigny believes that each brand has a unique set of brand equity elements that distinguishes it from other brands. These elements go beyond brand associations to include proprietary brand business assets such as trademarks, patents, distribution reach and others. In Tocquignys approach, equity elements are identified, weighted and measured in order to determine a brands metrics. Global Business Review, 11, 3 (2010): 421434
426
Munish Kumar Tiwari
Figure 2. Brand Dynamics

Source: http://www.brandz.com
Brand Associations A brand association is a specific perception, whether real or imagined that a customer has about a product, service or organization. For example, someone might associate Enron with corruption and Kia with low cost. For each of these brands, the association elements that must be measured and managed would be different. Enrons level of awareness would be less critical to measure than Kias, for example. Brand Assets The elements that drive brand equity go beyond customer associations to include a brands business assets. These assets include, but are not limited to, intellectual properties, business processes and distribution reach. For example, it does not matter how many positive associations a customer has of a brand if that product cannot be found where the customer shops. Gillettes most important brand asset is its business process. For Coca-Cola, it is its distribution reach. Market Fundamentals Corporations do not operate in a vacuum. A brands equity can be negatively affected by actions taken by governmental and non-governmental organizations. A city ordinance banning smoking will dilute the equity of a tobacco brand. Brands are also affected by competitors actions and business strategies. A drop in price by one airline will become a brand liability for another airline. It is important to assess how market events increase or decrease brand equity risks. Global Business Review, 11, 3 (2010): 421434
427
Tocquigny believes that each brand has a unique set of brand equity elements that distinguish it from other brands. To create value for shareholders, corporations must also focus on qualifying, measuring and managing the equity elements of their brands (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Brand Metrics DNATM

Source: http://www.brandz.com
Separation of Brand Equity and Brand Value Brand Equity versus Brand Value
Developing an understanding of true brand equity is separating the concepts of brand equity and brand value. In making this distinction, we argue that most of the outcome measures used in previous brand Global Business Review, 11, 3 (2010): 421434
428
Munish Kumar Tiwari
equity research have focused more on brand value than on brand equity. The distinction between equity and value becomes clear if we imagine two firms bidding to purchase a brand from a third firm. At a particular point in time, assuming an objective measure of brand equity exists and is used by all three firms, each firm should be looking at the same number for the brands equity. However, the different prospective owners might develop totally different brand valuations on the basis of their existing capabilities and resources, as well as how they might be able to leverage that brand equity to generate value. Moreover, if a purchase takes place, the purchasers valuation must have been higher than that of the current owner. It should follow that because the prospective owner determines a valuation for a brand prior to purchase, brand equity does not immediately increase for consumers when ownership is transferred. Instead, the value of the brand may increase (decrease) if the new owner is (not) able to leverage existing brand equity. Different bid prices do not represent different assessments of brand equity calculated by the firms, but rather different valuations based on their perceived abilities to leverage existing and build new brand equity. Figure 4 presents a simplified version of the process a firm might follow to value a brand.
Figure 4. Simplified Brand Valuation Process

Source: http://www.palgrave-journals.com
What Figure 4 lacks is an explanation for where the individual-level outcomes come from. To understand the source of these outcomes, it is necessary to take the consumers perspective. Figure 5 shows how the environment, with all its information (marketing related and not) contributes to brand knowledge, which links with brand equity. Consumer-based brand equity then impacts the individual-level outcomes that are observable in the marketplace. Even if we have multiple observations for a single individual, it is still critical to control for alternative explanations (for example, objectively good products) before concluding that marketplace actions are caused by brand equity, and we must be careful to not assume that measures of brand equity based on individual-level outcomes fully capture all of a brands brand equity (Dawar and Pillutla 2000). A specific case that demonstrates the distinction between equity and value is the $ 1.7 billion purchase of Snapple by Quaker Oats in 1994. Quaker Oats distribution strength rested in supermarkets and drug stores, not the smaller convenience stores and gas stations that constituted more than half of Snapples sales (Feder 1997). Because Quaker Oats was unable to increase supermarket and drug store sales enough to compensate for lost convenience and gas station sales, Quaker was forced to sell Snapple for a mere $ 300 million only three years later. In this case, Snapples brand value decreased enormously over the three years that Quaker Oats owned it, but this decrease may have had nothing to do with its brand equity, Global Business Review, 11, 3 (2010): 421434
429
Figure 5. Moving Upstream to the Drivers of Individual-level Customers

which could have stayed the same over this time period or even increased due to its new exposure in supermarkets and drug stores. In other words, neither a brands purchase price nor a dramatic change in its selling price provide information about the magnitude or movement of a brands equity. Not only are the constructs of brand value and brand equity different, they are not necessarily directionally related. Consider the decision by Lee Jeans to increase its distribution by agreeing to sell its product at Wal-Mart. Lee should have been able to generate higher revenues due to its huge distribution gains, and consequently, the value of the Lee brand may have increased. It does not follow, however, that the brand equity for Lee Jeans construct.
Brand Equity
Among research in the brand equity area, a single, uniformly accepted theoretical foundation still has not emerged. Such a theoretical foundation should describe how to develop brand equity and leverage it to create value by clarifying the distinction between brand equity and brand value in an appropriate framework. I suggested that brand value is specific to a particular owner and implies a unique, company-based perspective. We now propose that brand equity resides within, and is specific to, each consumer. Therefore, a single, individual-level, objective measure of true brand equity exists because brand equity resides within consumers, not within the brand (Dillon et al. 2001).
Brand Equity Defined

A brand represents a promise of benefits to a customer (business or individual). Brands may choose to focus on one or more of the functional, emotional, social, safety, and so on, benefits of the brand. Whereas it has long been accepted that all goods and services provide benefits, consumer perceptions determine whether a brands promise is salient, and whether or not the brand has met its promise, which cannot be determined simply by observing outcome measures based on purchase behaviour. I therefore define brand equity as the perception or desire that a brand will meet a salient promise of benefits. Operationally, we conceptualize brand equity as a moderator of the impact of marketing activities (products, messages, and so on) on consumers actions (consideration, purchase, and so on) (Figure 6). Both the salience of the promise and the level of equity affect the degree to which the action Global Business Review, 11, 3 (2010): 421434
430
Munish Kumar Tiwari
Figure 6. Brand Equity as a Moderator of Marketing Activity Consumer Action Link

outcome link is moderated. A large amount of equity will have little impact on a consumer who believes the strong promise of a brand offering in a category for which he is not a prospect. For example, a young person may have developed a large amount of equity for Pampers even though she is not yet in the market for diapers. This definition and operationalization are in line with Farquhars (1989) suggestions that the brand equity construct is conceptually similar to attitude strength and should manifest the intra-personal advantages of strong brands. Thus defined, brand equity should result in (i) biased processing of information, (ii) persistent attitudes or beliefs that are (iii) resistant to change and (iv) behaviour that are influenced by those beliefs. Since each consumer has his or her own perceptions about the salience of a promise of benefits and the brands performance, brand equity must be an individual-level construct. Furthermore, perceptions can exist at either a detailed attribute or an overall brand level, and brand equity may be based on perceptions that relate to specific attributes for one consumer or those that relate to some overall brand impression for another (Broniarczyk and Gershoff 2003). It is important to distinguish between brand equitys effect and its existence. Brand equity may exist even in cases where purchase is habitual and based on inertia (or even addiction). In such cases, at some point in time, and as a result of his or her positive experience with the brand, brand equity was developed and had an impact on the consumer, making future purchases habitual. Once a habit is formed, its maintenance may be affected by brand equity only to the extent that the equity causes the person to not reevaluate his or her consideration set, even in the face of new information or choices. For example, if a loyal Diet Coke consumer hears that a new beverage has been added to the assortment or that aspartame may be linked to memory loss, brand equity moderates the impact of that new information, and may affect his or her decision to continue purchasing Diet Coke. In situations that force consumers to reconstruct their consideration sets and re-evaluate the options available, brand equity may help consumers demonstrate trust in a brands promise of benefits (for example, Table 1). Although brand equity is not required to maintain consistent choice, consistent performance by a brand may contribute to its brand equity, which makes it possible for even an expert to hold significant amounts of brand equity for a well-known brand. For example, its regular users may believe that Diet Coke consistently meets its promise of benefits and this awareness leads to increased levels of brand equity for those consumers. Global Business Review, 11, 3 (2010): 421434

Table 1. Sample Situations in which Brand Equity may become Activated 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Changes in the consumers personal or usage situation The introduction of a new brand into a category or assortment Changes (positive or negative) to an existing product Brand extensions Product harm crises Claims made by a competitor Word of mouth and Out-of-stock.
431
Brand Value
Brand value represents what the brand means to a focal company. More formally, we conceive of brand value as the sale or replacement value of a brand. Brand value may vary depending on the owner of the brand, because different owners may be able to capture more or less potential value according to their ability to leverage brand equity. In Figure 7, I introduce two important levels of brand value: current and appropriable. Both are subjective and depend on the resources and capabilities of a focal firm. For a particular firm at a particular point in time, all other things being equal, the firm will recognize a brands current value. However, a higher appropriable value might be accessible if the firm were able to perfectly leverage the existing brand equity. Both values represent the net present value of all future brand profits. Thus, current value is based on projected profits that will accrue to the current owners with the existing strategy, capabilities and resources, whereas appropriable value is based on the projected profits that would accrue to a firm that fully leveraged the existing brand equity. In other words, current brand value defines what is for a particular firm, whereas appropriable value defines what can be, if brand equity is fully leveraged. Estimates of appropriable value can be based on sources that include the superior resources of competitors or the vision of an individual or firm.
Figure 7. Levels of Brand Value

Brand Equity/Brand Value Conceptual Model

This model demonstrates that traditional measures are at least two stages removed from the consumer, which may explain the potential disconnect between actual brand equity and outcomes that can be measured in the marketplace. This model is not intended to describe the components or dimensions of brand Global Business Review, 11, 3 (2010): 421434
432
Munish Kumar Tiwari
equity or its impact on choice; however, it can be modified to bring in other existing consumer behaviour theory (for example, central versus peripheral processing) that influences judgement and decision making (Figure 8). The foundation of the proposed model is based on the following definitions and assumptions. Brand is a promise of benefits to the consumer. Differentiation in perceived ability to meet that promise contributes to brand equity. Brand equity is the perception or desire that a brand will meet a salient promise of benefits. Brand equity is an intra-individual construct similar to attitude strength. The literature on attitude strength supports the following additional definitions. Within the person: Brand equity results in biased processing of information that leads to persistent attitudes or beliefs that are resistant to change. Individual-level outcomes: Behaviour consistent with high levels of salient brand equity are more positive responses to product changes (improvements/mistakes), product harm, new competition, brand extensions. Market outcomes: Aggregated individual behaviours lead to the traditionally measured firm-level outcomes (for example, loyalty, price premium, market share).
Conclusion
From a managerial standpoint, brand managers primary task is to maximize and leverage brand equity to increase brand value. The proposed framework provides these brand managers with a more comprehensive understanding of the component parts than has been presented in the literature. The framework also applies the concept of appropriable value to the brand equity literature, which is consistent with both literature on mergers and acquisitions (for example, Barney 1986) and current managerial practice (for example, P&Gs value pricing; Ailawadi et al. 2001). An interesting question for further research is whether well-known brands have higher market capitalization than do less well-known brands due to higher estimates of appropriable value. My framework suggests that this would be the case when the more well-known brands enjoy higher brand equity among consumers than do the less well-known brands. Future operationalization of brand equity should: 1. 2. 3. 4. consider non-customers and future potential, consider differences across markets or usage occasions, not assume that all firms share the same goals and objectives and not emphasize short-term effects that may be vulnerable.
From a managerial perspective, the failure to address these issues may result in measures that do not track consistently with changes in the underlying consumer brand equity. Future potential in terms of future revenue stream and brand extendibility is influenced by the perceptions of current customers and non-customers, but outcome measures may not account for future profitability or potential. The framework suggests that any complete measure of brand equity should consider non-customers, though noncustomers are valuable only to the extent that they either will become customers in the future or will
Figure 8. Brand Equity/Brand Value Conceptual Framework
434
Munish Kumar Tiwari
positively influence others. Thus, appropriate measures should account for heterogeneity in the value that accrues from current non-customers. Brand equity might be measured by asking consumers specifically about how they would react to each of the identified situations as they pertain to a particular brand. Responses could be compared across brands that compete in the same category to provide relative measures. It is not clear whether absolute measures of brand equity are useful; therefore, it may not be appropriate to compare brand equity measures for brands across categories. This question thus is left for further research. References
Aaker, David A. and Robert Jacobson. 1994. The financial information content of perceived quality, Journal of Marketing Research, 31(Spring): 191201. Ailawadi, Kusum L., Donald R. Lehmann and Scott A. Neslin. 2001. Market response to a major policy change in the marketing mix: Learning from Procter & Gambles Value Pricing Strategy, Journal of Marketing, 65(January): 4461. Barney, Jay B. 1986. Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck and business strategy, Management Science, 42(10): 123141. Barwise, Patrick, Christopher Higson, Andrew Likierman and Paul Marsh. 1990. Brands as separable assets, Business Strategy Review, 1(Summer): 4359. Broniarczyk, Susan M. and Andrew D. Gershoff. 2003. The reciprocal effects of brand equity and trivial attributes, Journal of Marketing Research, 40(May): 16174. Dawar, Niraj and Madan M. Pillutla. 2000. Impact of product-harm crises on brand equity: The moderating role of consumer expectations, Journal of Marketing Research, 37(May): 21526. Dillon, William R., Thomas J. Madden, Amna Kirmani and Soumen Mukherjee. 2001. Understanding whats in a brand rating: A model for assessing brand and attribute effects and their relationship to brand equity, Journal of Marketing Research, 38(November): 41529. Farquhar, Peter. 1989. Managing brand equity, Marketing Research, 1(September): 111. Feder, Barnaby J. 1997. Quaker bites the bullet, sells snapple to triarc, The New York Times, 28 March. Gupta, Sunil, Donald R. Lehmann and Jennifer A. Stuart. 2004. Valuing customers, Journal of Marketing Research, 41(February): 718. Keller, Kevin Lane. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity, Journal of Marketing, 57(January): 122. Kerin, Roger A. and R. Sethuraman. 1998. Exploring the brand value-shareholder value nexus for consumer goods companies, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 26(Fall): 26073.

Separation of Brand Equity and Brand Value

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Separation of Brand Equity and Brand Value

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Global http://gbr.sagepub.

com/ Business Review