Assessing the validity of brand equity constructs: A comparison of two approaches

Menictas, C; Wang, PZ; Louviere, JJ

Assessing the validity of brand equity constructs: A comparison of two approaches

Menictas, C Wang, PZ Louviere, JJ

Permalink

Publisher:: University of Canterbury
Publication Type:: Conference Proceeding
Citation:: Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference 2010, 2010, pp. 1 - 8
Issue Date:: 2010-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download full textAdobe PDF (222.1 kB)

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Menictas, C	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Wang, PZ	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Louviere, JJ	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Ballantine, P	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Finsterwalder, J	en_US
dc.date	2010-11-29	en_US
dc.date.issued	2010-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference 2010, 2010, pp. 1 - 8	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	978-0-473-17820-8	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/16678
dc.description.abstract	This paper tests both the internal and external validity of the Erdem and Swait (1998) brand equity framework using two measurement modelling approaches, namely the relatively new Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) method (Finn and Louviere, 1992; Marley and Louviere, 2005) and the more traditional Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) method. Data were collected from the Australian banking services sector. We find the measurement models derived from BWS outperformed the models based on CFA of the rating data in predicting both stated and real brand choices. The findings have implications for both academics and practitioners in brand equity measurement and management.	en_US
dc.publisher	University of Canterbury	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference 2010	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference	en_US
dc.title	Assessing the validity of brand equity constructs: A comparison of two approaches	en_US
dc.type	Conference Proceeding
utslib.location	Christchurch, New Zealand	en_US
utslib.location.activity	Christchurch, New Zealand	en_US
utslib.for	150505 Marketing Research Methodology	en_US
dc.location.activity	Christchurch, New Zealand	en_US
dc.location.activity	ISI:000278873900012
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business/Marketing Discipline
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CENSOC - Study of Choice
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.place-of-publication	Christchurch, New Zealand	en_US
pubs.start-date	2010-11-29	en_US

Abstract:

This paper tests both the internal and external validity of the Erdem and Swait (1998) brand equity framework using two measurement modelling approaches, namely the relatively new Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) method (Finn and Louviere, 1992; Marley and Louviere, 2005) and the more traditional Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) method. Data were collected from the Australian banking services sector. We find the measurement models derived from BWS outperformed the models based on CFA of the rating data in predicting both stated and real brand choices. The findings have implications for both academics and practitioners in brand equity measurement and management.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/16678