I believe that the CAA Integrated Brand Equity model by Wang et al (2008) is the best modern support for Keller’s CBBE model, and best focuses on the future of this theory. I will compare Keller’s CBBE pyramid to five different customer-based brand equity models, particularly, I will discuss how Aaker and supporting journals differ from Keller’s model, and will explain how these differences might manifest in marketing practice.
Aaker (1992)
Aaker’s model conceptualizes brand equity as consisting of five different dimensions used to create value. These dimensions are: (1) brand loyalty, (2) brand name awareness, (3) perceived brand quality, (4) brand associations, and (5) brand assets. I think that while Keller’s model focuses largely on emotion, Aaker believes CBBE is built primarily through recognition. Therefore, Aaker believes that the most successful brands are one that drive recognition (e.g. Disney) while Keller believes that the most successful brands are ones that drive emotion (e.g. Apple, Playstation for Sony). Notwithstanding these differences, Keller’s formative discussion of brand awareness is very similar to Aaker’s view, in that it is an essential element of CBBE.
Yoo et al (2000) - Structural CBBE Model
This model explains CBBE in three levels: (1) the elements of the marketing mix, (2) brand equity dimension, and (3) overall brand equity. This model is similar to Aaker’s model, but extends it by separating overall brand equity from the actual dimensions of brand equity. This model states that overall brand equity consists of perceived quality, brand loyalty, and brand awareness (Yoo et al. 2000). This is different to Keller’s CBBE because it is not a hierarchical ranking of the important components, but a structural attempt at defining the components of CBBE. This model is useful for marketing researchers as it allows them to map components of CBBE and measure interactions within the model.
Wang and Finn (2013)
Similar to Keller, this CBBE model emphasized the formative importance of uniqueness and perceived quality, however this model takes it a step further stating that these concepts jointly define CBBE. This model is a combination of Keller & Aaker’s models as it integrates emotional elements with recognitional elements of CBBE. I believe this model best demonstrates how formative components can be used to identify cannibalising effects within sub-brands of a company’s brand portfolio.
Wang et al (2008)
I believe this model best supports Keller’s model as it highlights the importance of brand resonance in CBBE. Like Keller, this model draws hierarchical links between components, stating that corporation ability association (‘CAA’) and brand awareness have an impact on quality perception, which in turn leads to greater brand resonance. Furthermore, I believe this model best focuses on the future of CBBE theory as it extends the concepts of Keller’s model to a global scale by integrating CAA as a core component of building brand equity. This structural and interlinking approach allows for the flexible application of the model to multiple different cultural and global environments.
Other Models and Final Thoughts
In addition to the above four models, the destination brand equity model (Boo et al., 2009) applies CBBE to destination brands, and differentiates the circumstances where brand experience does not directly impact brand loyalty. In conclusion, the five models discussed differ from Keller’s CBBE in their structural approach, and often disagree with the strict hierarchical nature of Keller’s pyramid. Wang’s CAA integrated model best supports Keller’s views on brand resonance being the pinnacle of CBBE, and extends themes of Keller’s model to a cross-cultural scale.
Aaker (1992)
Aaker’s model conceptualizes brand equity as consisting of five different dimensions used to create value. These dimensions are: (1) brand loyalty, (2) brand name awareness, (3) perceived brand quality, (4) brand associations, and (5) brand assets. I think that while Keller’s model focuses largely on emotion, Aaker believes CBBE is built primarily through recognition. Therefore, Aaker believes that the most successful brands are one that drive recognition (e.g. Disney) while Keller believes that the most successful brands are ones that drive emotion (e.g. Apple, Playstation for Sony). Notwithstanding these differences, Keller’s formative discussion of brand awareness is very similar to Aaker’s view, in that it is an essential element of CBBE.
Yoo et al (2000) - Structural CBBE Model
This model explains CBBE in three levels: (1) the elements of the marketing mix, (2) brand equity dimension, and (3) overall brand equity. This model is similar to Aaker’s model, but extends it by separating overall brand equity from the actual dimensions of brand equity. This model states that overall brand equity consists of perceived quality, brand loyalty, and brand awareness (Yoo et al. 2000). This is different to Keller’s CBBE because it is not a hierarchical ranking of the important components, but a structural attempt at defining the components of CBBE. This model is useful for marketing researchers as it allows them to map components of CBBE and measure interactions within the model.
Wang and Finn (2013)
Similar to Keller, this CBBE model emphasized the formative importance of uniqueness and perceived quality, however this model takes it a step further stating that these concepts jointly define CBBE. This model is a combination of Keller & Aaker’s models as it integrates emotional elements with recognitional elements of CBBE. I believe this model best demonstrates how formative components can be used to identify cannibalising effects within sub-brands of a company’s brand portfolio.
Wang et al (2008)
I believe this model best supports Keller’s model as it highlights the importance of brand resonance in CBBE. Like Keller, this model draws hierarchical links between components, stating that corporation ability association (‘CAA’) and brand awareness have an impact on quality perception, which in turn leads to greater brand resonance. Furthermore, I believe this model best focuses on the future of CBBE theory as it extends the concepts of Keller’s model to a global scale by integrating CAA as a core component of building brand equity. This structural and interlinking approach allows for the flexible application of the model to multiple different cultural and global environments.
Other Models and Final Thoughts
In addition to the above four models, the destination brand equity model (Boo et al., 2009) applies CBBE to destination brands, and differentiates the circumstances where brand experience does not directly impact brand loyalty. In conclusion, the five models discussed differ from Keller’s CBBE in their structural approach, and often disagree with the strict hierarchical nature of Keller’s pyramid. Wang’s CAA integrated model best supports Keller’s views on brand resonance being the pinnacle of CBBE, and extends themes of Keller’s model to a cross-cultural scale.
Comments
Post a Comment