Both the domestic and foreign arrivals have shown a rapid increase with India emerging as a vibrant and varied tourist destinations. The domestic tourism industry grew at a rate of 10. 7 % in whereas foreign arrivals at 8. 1% in 2010 (Indian Tourism Statistics,2010). To feed this splurge in arrivals hotels are booming across India and this most importantly has not been restricted to just metros. Even second tier cities like Bhopal, Amritsar, Surat, Ranchi etc are being looked upon as potential feasible destinations of upscale star brands.
The hotel industry in India can be divided into eight segments based on the norms set by the Ministry of Tourism. They are 5-Star Deluxe, 5-Star, 4-Star, 3-Star, 2-Star, 1-Star, Heritage and Unclassified. However, the 3-star, 2-star, 1star and unclassified hotels in India are spread across the length and breadth of the country and are highly fragmented in nature, whereas, the upscale, mid market and heritage categories are highly organized. Domestic tourist arrivals are the backbone of Indian Hotel Industry as the number of Domestic Tourists is more than 100 times (Indian Tourism Statistics, 2010) as compared to Foreign Tourists.
Haven’t found the relevant content? Hire a subject expert to help you with Brand Equity, Perceived Value and Revisit Intentions – an Evidence from the Hotel Industry
Domestic tourists are of 2 types, Leisure travelers and Business travelers. Growth in leisure travelers is driven by rising personal discretionary income, evolving lifestyle, growing number of multi earner families, weekend vacation culture, improvement in rail, air as well as road connectivity, diverse topography and rich cultural heritage. Drivers of domestic business traveling are rise in trade and commerce, increasing geographical spread of companies, growing MICE culture. Players like Lemon Tree, Ginger have identified that there is dearth of quality rooms in the mid market segment.
Entry of organized players is expected to improve the quality of offerings and bridge the wide gap between midmarket and upscale category. The competition in hotels has undergone drastic changes from being dependent on service or price advantages to increasingly relying on brand management. This change has been typically accompanied by the accelerating effects caused by the massive entries of foreign brands into India. Since all hotels basically offer the same products and services customers do tend to rely on established brands or where they have visited for easy selection.
As Prasad and Dev (2000) stated, the stronger the hotel brand equity, the more customers will prefer that hotel brand. Brand equity had been widely recognized as the most valuable asset to companies and has become a top management priority since it can more easily retain customer loyalty, launch product extension and be synonym with price premium (Aaker, 1991; Lassar et al. , 1995; Keller, 1993). It is due to this fact that hotels prefer acquiring an existing brand for expansion rather than developing a new in-house brand.
Example Marriott international took over Ritz-Carlton by adopting an acquisition strategy rather than developing a new luxury segment. In marketing aspects, building a strong brand yields a number of marketing advantages. This includes greater customer loyalty, higher resiliency to endure crisis, and increased marketing communication effectiveness. Ambler et al. (2002) argued that great effort should be exerted for creating and sustaining customer-based brand equity, in that the recognition of the importance of customers? value to a firm? s asset has been increasing in recent days.
Farquhar (1989) argued that the brand has value only if it has meaning to the customer. Cobb-Walgren insisted (1995) that “it is important to understand how brand value is created in the mind of the consumer and how it translates into choice of behavior” (p. 26). Moreover in India brand equity as concept is very different. Customers may perceive an unclassified hotel to be a stronger brand, which they can associate themselves to than a 3 star rated hotel. The categorization of the brand may be based on their familiarity with the staff, the ambience offered, price etc.
Thus measuring brand from the customer? s point of view becomes very important. Krishnan (1996) contended that an investigation of customers? mindsets should be conducted before measuring any other aspects of brand equity because customers mindsets about brand is a starting point for understanding the brand. Barwise (1993) stated that the only way to predict marketing actions of brand is measuring the brand equity from the customers? perspectives. By measuring these customer perspectives tactical and marketing decisions can be made and brand extended.
Aaker (1991) established five components of brand equity; brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations and other proprietary brand assets. Figure 1 shows the five dimensions of brand equity.
The five dimensions of brand equity affecting value to the customer have the potential to add value for the firm. Brand loyalty is both one of the dimensions of brand equity and is a consequence affected by brand equity. While brand loyalty is an attitudinal concept as one of the components of brand equity, it can also be a behavioral concept adding value to the firm.
In this study, just the first four dimensions of Aaker? s brand equity will be adopted because the fifth category representing patents, trademarks, and channel relationships address the firms? asset rather than customer perceptions and reactions to the brand. Thus, it is considered another intangible asset of the firm. This study examines whether the four components of brand equity affect customer value, and finally marketing result which is revisit intent adding value to the firm as a behavioral brand loyalty. Brand equity has been defined by many researchers according to the viewpoints of their studies?.
However, there is an agreement among researchers that brand equity is the value added to the product by the brand (Farguahr 1989). From the customers? perspectives marketing effects can be attitudes, awareness, image, and knowledge (Aaker 1991; Keller; 1993; Agarwal& Rao 1996), while from the firms? perspectives, outcomes can be price, revenue, and cash flow (Simon & Sullivan 1993).
This study assesses the four components of brand equity developed by Aaker (1991).
These four components include brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand association and brand awareness. According to Aaker? s definition, brand loyalty is “a measure of the attachment that a customer has to a brand. It is one of the indicators of brand equity which is demonstrably linked to future profits, since brand loyalty directly translates into future sales” (p. 39). Oliver (1997) defined brand loyalty as the tendency to be loyal to focal brand as a primary choice. In this study, overall attitudinal loyalty to a specific hotel brand was measured.
The other of three dimensions follow Aaker? s definition. Perceived quality is “the customer? s perception of the overall quality or superiority of a product or service with respect to its intended purpose, relative to alternatives”. Brand awareness is “the ability of potential buyers to recognize or recall that a brand is a member of a certain product category. A link between product class and brand is involved”. Finally, Aaker defined brand association as “anything linked in memory to a brand”.
SIGNIFICANCE AND NEED OF THE STUDY
The rapid transition of India to a market economy and being one of the fastest growing nations today it is getting unprecedented attention. Domestic demand for hotels has historically been higher in India a is growing at a healthy rate coupled with an increase in foreign arrivals. Indian hotels are now starting to realize the importance of brand equity and loyalty seeing their foreign counterparts who are making a beeline for Indian shores. Service and product alone are not able to capture the customer when he has no dearth of options at all price points.
Hence the importance of Brand Equity. Krishnan and Harline (2001) mentioned that service brands in the marketing literature received relatively less consideration than their product counterparts even if the service sector has dominated the economy in most advanced countries. While there is no dearth of branding literature on consumer goods yet only few researches have been carried out in the hotel industry. Moreover in the Indian context there are minimal researches. It is in this respect that this research will provide valuable insight.
Finally this study will measure brand equity and its relationship with perceived value and revisit intentions across different categories of hotels representing various price points and compare for difference.
BRAND EQUITY, PERCEIVED VALUE AND REVISIT INTENTIONS
This can test the veracity of the notion that even hotels with small inventory offering basic services at the lower price end can have brand equity more than the higher starred hotels. 1. 3 Objectives of the research The research objectives of this study are three fold : 1. To measure brand equity by adopting Aaker? (1991) four dimensions of brand equity which are brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand association and brand awareness in hotels. 2. To investigate the impact of brand equity on customer perceived value, and revisit intent in the Hotel Industry. 3. To compare the results of this study with a similar study carried out in USA.
CHAPTER - II LITERATURE REVIEW
Keller (1993) defines customer-based brand equity as the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand.
Brand knowledge consists of two dimensions: brand awareness and brand image. He stated that factors such as awareness of brand, and consumer memory including favorability, strength and uniqueness in which a customer had experienced brands affected brand knowledge. Customer-based brand equity, thus, is enhanced by creating favorable responses to pricing, distribution, advertising, and promotion activity for the brand (See figure 3).
Aaker (1996) suggests brand equity ten, a specific guideline for measuring brand equity.
He groups ten sets of measures into five categories brand loyalty, perceived quality, association, awareness and market behavior measure. The first four categories represent customer perceptions and the fifth expressed the information obtained from the market. He also suggested that all measurement items did not have to be standard across different market segments. He indicated that one should take appropriate modifications according to the characteristics of each industry into consideration when adopting the measurement of this brand equity ten.
Table 1 depicts the specific measurement items of each dimension recommended by Aaker. Erdem and Swait (1998) measured the brand equity in an information economics framework which emphasized the role of credibility as the main determinant of consumer-based brand equity. In that framework, consumer-based brand equity is related to negative information as well as positive information such as high quality products, and the reduction in perceived risk and information costs attributable to brands as antecedents of brand equity, which is unlike the psychological approach.
In their study, brand is regarded as a signal conveyed by the marketing mix strategies and activities associated with that brand. The information should be credible so that a brand can create value, thus, the market process by which credibility is created is important. Therefore, the consumer? s behavior and the firm? s behavior affect brand value as signals of product positions. B
MEASUREMENT OF BRAND EQUITY
Capon et al. (1994) argued that there were two kinds of brand equities which were organizational brand equity and customer brand equity.
He stated that on organizational based brand equity, financial values such as potential earning, market value, replacement cost can be criteria for the measurement of brand equity. On customer base equity, customers? consideration sets, customer based perceived quality, and preference and /or satisfaction can be measured. Thus, the measurement of brand equity can be divided two perspectives which are financial perspectives and customer perspectives. ? Financial Perspectives Based on the financial market value of the firm, Simon and Sullivan (1993) developed a technique estimating a firm? s brand equity.
By decomposing the value of intangible asset which is one of the components of market value of the firm along with tangible asset, brand equity can be estimated. They identified three categories consisting of the value of the intangible assets; a) brand equity, b) technological advantages such as patent and R&D and c) industry structure and the regulatory environment. The following equation is the value of intangible assets of a firm. V I ? (V b1 ? Vb2)? Vnb ? V ind V I ?? value of the firm? s intangible assets V b1?? value of the “demand-enhancing” component of brand equity such as perceived quality Vb2 ?? alue of expected reductions in marketing costs that result from established brand equity Vnb ?? non-brand factors giving rise to cost advantages such as patent and R&D Vind ?? industry structures and regulatory environment Here, Vb1and Vb2 are the value of brand equity determined by the four factors which are current and past advertising, age of brand, order of entry and current and past advertising shares. By using this technique Simon and Sullivan analyzed the brand equity of each.
Industry. They found that industries which are oriented toward strong consumer products have high brand equity. They also observed the impact of marketing events on brand equity by comparing the values of brand equity of Coca-cola and Pepsi. They discovered that their technique was adequate for measuring the effect of marketing events. Customer Perspectives Kamakura and Russell? s (1993) approach is based on the actual purchase behavior using check-out scanner data to estimate brand value to the customer. Their underlying concept of measuring brand equity is a consumer choice model in which the perceptions of a brand? s attributes are related both to the characteristics of physical product and to psychosocial cues. On the basis of this conceptual model, they developed a measurement method of brand value, defining brand value (BV) as a measure of the intrinsic utility consisting of brand tangible value (BTA) and brand intangible value (BIV). BV= BIV + BTV BTV represents physical features of the product and BIV is the perceptual distortions and other responses to psychosocial cues which is a measure of the value of intangibles.
For estimating this model, they analyzed the household purchase histories in a scanner panel by employing a clusterwise logit model in which customers are segmented for each brand market on the basis of long-run brand preferences and short-run responses to the marketing mix such as the order of entry and advertising. The first step of estimation by regression analysis is specifying the number of preference segmentations of brand by relative size, price and advertising sensitivities and brand values.
Identifying a set of relevant physical features and obtaining objective measure of these features and then removing them from the brand value are crucial processes of estimating brand intangible value because of the complexity of analyzing the brand intangible value. To illustrate this methodology, Kamakura and Russell apply it to the powder laundry detergent category. They found that the order of entry is relevant to creating positive brand intangible value, but large investments of advertising does not positively impact brand intangible value.
Lassar et al. (1995), on the basis of Keller? s conceptualizing of brand equity in which consumer-based brand equity occurs when the consumer is familiar with the brand and holds some favorable, strong, and unique brand associations in memory, identified five important elements of brand equity; consumer perception, global value associated with a brand, global value stem from the brand name, relative competition, and financial performance. From these five characteristics, they defined brand equity as the enhancement in the perceived utility and desirability a brand name confers on a product. They developed five underlying dimensions of brand equity which are performance, value, social image, trustworthiness and commitment/attachment. Blackston (1995) stated that brand equity could be seen as two perspectives which were brand value and brand meaning. He contended that brand meaning influences and creates brand value because value depends on the meaning, changing the brand meaning is equivalent to changing the value of the brand.
Brand meaning consists of three dimensions including brand salience, brand association and brand personality. He proposed the brand relationships model in which all three were divided by two dimensions: brand image/brand personality and brand attitude. Thus, by measuring these two dimensions, he suggested that marketers could set their brand strategies. Dyson et al. (1996) proposed a consumer value model (CV) as a starting point for measuring brand equity by which the share value of requirements for each brand for each respondent can be estimated, correlating to consumer loyalty.
For underpinning the factors affecting the brand? s consumer loyalty, the BrandDynamics Pyramid developed by Millward Brown, an institution for evaluating brand equity, was used, and consequently they identified the key elements which discriminated between differing degrees of loyalty. The CV model bridges the gap between consumer and financial equity. The aggregation of the individual respondent consumer value model allows predicting market share, a familiar sales measure with a direct relationship to a brand? revenue stream. Yoo et al. (2000) investigated the relationship between the marketing mix and brand equity. Their proposition of the research stated that the marketing mixes such as price, store image, distribution intensity, advertising spending, and price deals affect each brand equity component including perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand awareness combined with brand association. They also examined how each component of brand equity affected the „overall brand equity? developed by the researchers.
They employed a structure equation model for estimating the parameters of their conceptual model, and consequently found that high price, high advertising spending, good store image, and high distribution intensity are related to high brand equity, whereas frequent price promotions are related to low brand equity. Berry (2002) stated that branding plays a special role in service companies because strong brands increase customers? trust of the invisible purchase.
However, despite the increasing importance of branding decisions in the services domain, there has been relatively little research in this area. Due to the special characteristics that service possesses such as inseparability, heterogeneity, intangibility, and perishability, an argument that the measurement brand equity in services should be different from physical goods has been rising. Yet, several researchers tried to adopt consumer-based brand equity for measuring brand equity in services. Krishnan and Hartline (2001) assessed brand equity in the context of services marketing and compare it to brand equity for goods.
They examined three types of services and one type of tangible good for their research according to three attributes that goods and services possesses, which are search, experience, and credence attributes. The result of their study is that brand equity is more important for services than for goods, which is quiet a different view from the traditional literature review. Mackay (2001) applied existing consumer based measures of brand equity to a financial services market. His study is meaningful in that it is the first attempt to adopt the measurement of consumer based brand equity to the services industry.
He finds that the measurement is reliable and valid in service marketing, and that the best measurement of brand equity in terms of correlation with market share is brand awareness. Kim and Kim (2004) investigated the relationship between customer based brand equity and quick service restaurant (QSR) chains? performance. They measured four dimensions of brand equity: brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality and brand image. Through regression analysis they explored the correlation between brand equity and sales revenue.
Consequently, they found that brand equity had a positive effect on the performance, especially brand awareness among the four dimensions of brand equity is the most important factor affecting QSR performance. Cobb-Walgren et al. (1995) demonstrated how the consumer? s brand perception affects the brand preference and brand choice. In their study, they adapted the familiar hierarchy of effects model as a framework for studying various antecedents and consequences of brand equity from the perspective of the individual consumer.
In their study, brand equity was not measured directly. Consumers form perceptions about the physical and psychological features of a brand from various information sources. These perceptions contribute to the meaning or value that the brand adds to the consumer-i. e. brand equity. Brand equity then influences consumer preferences and purchase intentions, and ultimately brand choice. After comparing Holiday Inn and Howard Johnson, they discovered that the brand with a higher equity generates significantly greater preferences and purchase intentions.
Considering customers as the sources of all cash flow and resulting profits, Prasad and Dev (2000) developed a customer-centric index of hotel brand equity. This customer-centric brand equity index was a measure for converting customers? awareness of a brand and their view of a brand? s performance into a numerical index. This was based on: actual customer data on customer satisfaction, intent to return, perception of price-value relationship, brand preference, and top-of-mind awareness of the brand.
Kim, Kim, and An (2003) investigated the relationship between brand equity and the firms? financial performance. Based on the dimensions of customer-based brand equity which are brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality and brand image, Kim et al tried to identify brand equity? s correlation with financial performance (RevPAR) in the hotel industry. The result revealed that brand equity perceived by the customers can affect generating revenue.
Brand equity research in marketing has largely concentrated on a customer-based approach. Keller (1993) mentioned that the customer-based brand equity is more practical for managers in that it provides for them a strategic vision of customer behavior that can be adapted to brand strategy. Yet, Ailawadi et al (2003) insisted that the measuring of customer mindset cannot be objective and that it is difficult to calculate the precise figure because its measurement is based on consumer surveys. In this study, brand equity measurement from a customer perspective was adopted.
Especially, the items Yoo and Donthu (2001) have developed were mainly used because some researchers (Washburn and Plank, 2002) proved its validation. Sun et al. (2008) investigated the impact of customer based brand equity on 6 mid-price hotels in U. S. A. The results indicated that brand loyalty had the least score which they concluded showed that it was most difficult to win loyalty of the customers. Moreover apart from brand loyalty, none of the other dimensions had any effect on revisit intent but perceived value did have an impact on
A model of this study has been constructed. In this model, dimensions of brand equity affecting perceived value and revisit intention will be argued. Each of the constructs in the proposed model is described and the theoretical support for the hypothesized relationships is set forth. In this paper, the approach and questionnaire developed by Sun et al. (2008) has been used. In their study, as method of measuring brand equity, four of the five dimensions of Aaker? s brand equity (Aaker 1991) were adopted.
Aaker (1991) mentioned that brand equity consists of brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, brand association and other proprietary brand assets such as patents, trademarks, and channel relationship. However, since the fifth components was not relevant to the consumer perception, only the first four components of brand equity were adopted, and this study takes that approach forward implementing it in the Indian scenario. Sun et al. (2008) described the four dimensions of Brand Equity with Perceived Value and Revisit Intentions in the following ways :
Loyalty is a core dimension of brand equity. Aaker (1991) described brand loyalty as “the attachment that a customer has to brand” (p. 65). A strong form of attachment refers to the resistance to change and the ability of a brand to withstand bad news. Brand loyalty can be seen as two types: attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty. Gounaris et al. (2003) summarized these two types of brand loyalty in which behavioral loyalty refers to repeated purchase and attitudinal loyalty refers to a strong internal disposition towards a brand leading to repeated purchases.
Oliver (1997) defined brand loyalty as the tendency to be loyal to focal brands as a primary choice. In their study, overall attitudinal loyalty to a specific hotel brand was measured as a dimension of brand equity and behavioral loyalty which in the hotel industry can be translated into revisit intent.
Zeithmal (1988) defined perceived quality as the consumer? s perception of the overall quality or superiority of a product or service with respect to its intended purpose, relative to alternatives.
Aaker (1991) mentioned that perceived quality could be considered two different contexts which are product quality and service quality. While product quality consists of seven dimensions: performance, features, conformance with specifications, reliability, durability, serviceability, and fit and finish, service quality dimensions are tangibles, reliability, competence, responsiveness and empathy. Since the hotel industry is one of the important service businesses, in their paper, the measurement of service quality model (SERVQUAL) developed by Parasuraman et al. (1988) was adopted.
Brand awareness is “the ability for a buyer to recognize or recall that a brand is a member of certain product category” (Aaker 1991, p. 61). Aaker (1996) refers to brand awareness as the strength of a brand? s presence in the customer? s mind. Brand awareness can be measured as a brand recognition or brand recall, otherwise both of them. In their study, Yoo and Donthu (2001)? s item scale which measures brand recognition was adopted. BRAND ASSOCIATION Aaker (1991) defines brand associations as “anything linked in memory to a brand” (p. 109).
This includes the strength, favorability, and uniqueness of perceived attributes and benefits for the brand. (Keller 1993). On the basis of this concept of brand association, Yoo and Donthu (2001) developed items for measuring brand association.
Customer value is defined as “the consumer? s overall assessment of the utility of a product based on the perceptions of what is received and what is given” (Zeithmal, 1988, p. 14). Sweeny et al(1999) interpreted this value as “the trade off of salient „give? and „get? components” (p. 79). In the same study, they found the positive effect of perceived quality on perceived value.
It is the intention to repurchase the product or reuse the service. Washburn & Plank (2002) examined the relationship between different dimensions of brand equity including brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand awareness and brand association and repurchase intention. They found that the correlation between the dimensions of brand equity and repurchase intention is significant. In the study, repurchase intention was modified into revisit intention.
The following hypothesis were made to measure the impact of Brand Equity on Perceived Value and Revisit Intention.
Hypothesis1: The four dimensions of brand equity positively affect the perceived value of the Hotels. H1a: Brand loyalty will have a positive effect on customers? perceived value. H1b: Perceived quality will have a positive effect on a customers? perceived value. H1c: Brand awareness will have a positive effect on a customers? perceived value H1d: Brand association will have a positive effect on a customers? perceived value Hypothesis2: The four dimensions of brand equity positively affect Revisit intention of the hotels H2a: Brand loyalty will have a positive effect on customers? evisit intention H2b: Perceived quality will have a positive effect on customers? revisit intention H2c: Brand awareness will have a positive effect on customers? revisit intention H2d: Brand association will have a positive effect on customers? revisit intention Hypothesis3: Perceived value will have a positive effect on revisit intention of the hotels. Hypothesis4: The perception of the people regarding Brand Equity Dimensions, Perceived Value and Revisit Intention varies across the three segments of the hotels. H4a :The perceptions of the people regarding Brand Loyalty varies across the three segments.
H4b :The perceptions of the people regarding Perceive Quality varies across the three segments. H4c :The perceptions of the people regarding Brand Awareness varies across the three segments. H4d :The perceptions of the people regarding Brand Association varies across the three segments. H4e :The perceptions of the people regarding Perceived Value varies across the three segments. H4f : The perceptions of the people regarding Revisit Intent varies across the three segments. Hypothesis5: The perception of the people regarding Brand Equity Dimensions, Perceived Value and Revisit Intention varies with age.
H5a : The perceptions of the people regarding Brand Loyalty varies with age. H5b :The perceptions of the people regarding Perceive Quality varies with age. H5c :The perceptions of the people regarding Brand Awareness varies with age. H5d :The perceptions of the people regarding Brand Association varies with age. H5e :The perceptions of the people regarding Perceived Value varies with age H5f : The perceptions of the people regarding Revisit Intent varies with age.
Hypothesis6: The perception of the people regarding Brand Equity Dimensions, Perceived Value and Revisit Intention varies with gender. H6a : The perceptions of the people regarding Brand Loyalty varies with gender. H6b :The perceptions of the people regarding Perceive Quality varies with gender. H6c :The perceptions of the people regarding Brand Awareness varies with gender. H6d :The perceptions of the people regarding Brand Association varies with gender. H6e :The perceptions of the people regarding Perceived Value varies with gender. H6f : The perceptions of the people regarding Revisit Intent varies with gender.
Hypothesis7: The perception of the people regarding Brand Equity Dimensions, Perceived Value and Revisit Intention varies with Income. H7a : The perceptions of the people regarding Brand Loyalty varies with income. H7b :The perceptions of the people regarding Perceive Quality varies with income. H7c :The perceptions of the people regarding Brand Awareness varies with income. H7d :The perceptions of the people regarding Brand Association varies with income. H7e :The perceptions of the people regarding Perceived Value varies with income. H7f : The perceptions of the people regarding Revisit Intent varies with income.
18 3. 3 SAMPLING : Chandigarh has more than 50 hotels at all price points. The range lies from Hotels having an ARR of just Rs. 600 to a Hotel like Marriott where the present tariff is Rs. 10400 base category room. It was decided to do this research on hotels across various price points and hotel star judgements. Thus price points for a number of hotels were taken and together with the perceptions of 10 respondents regarding their segments. Finally for this study the following 10 hotels were taken, divided into three segments.
Upscale: J. W. Marriott, Mount View and Bella Vista. Mid-Price Segment- Amara, Maya Hotel, Western Court Budget – Aroma, The Piccadily, Sunbeam and Himani Residency. The sampling method used was Stratified Random of the people visiting these 10 hotels for their stay in Chandigarh. The sample size was estimated to be 225, taking around 20-25 respondents from each of these hotels. The data collection process was carried out over the months of November, December and January and a total of 215 filed questionnaires were collected from these properties.
A self-administered survey questionnaire was used as the data collection tool, as suggested by Crimp and Wright (1993) that it is a valuable tool that is flexible, fast, accurate and easy to be used in statistical analysis. Miller et al. (2002) believe that a large sample size obtained via questionnaires can provide unbiased statistical results and can be implied as the representatives of the whole population. The questionnaire as mentioned earlier was taken from the one developed by Sun et al. (2008). It consisted of 2 sections.
The first statement provided specific statements for each dimension. The items for measuring brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand awareness and brand association followed by perceived value and revisit intent constituted this section. The demographic information was the second section of the questionnaire. The questionnaire had 31 total items. Brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand awareness and brand association are measured on a five point Likert scale, with 1 for “strongly agree” and 5 for “strongly disagree”.
Except perceived quality, all items were modified to a hotel context from the original format of other studies. Parasuraman et al. (1988) developed the SERVQUAL model for measuring service quality in which all items were divided into five dimensions: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. This study will adopt Gabbie and O? Neil (1996)? s tool for measuring hotel service quality. In their study, the first four dimensions were assessed because the empathy dimension of SERVQUAL was less important and even irrelevant in hotel service quality.
Brand loyalty is considered as perceptual/ attititudinal loyalty consisting of one of the components of brand equity. However, as Aaker mentioned (1991), brand loyalty is regarded as both one of the dimensions of brand equity and is affected by brand equity. Therefore, this behavioral loyalty can be used to estimate the consequences of brand equity.
In Churchill? s (1995) term, the pretest, a stage during the questionnaire design process, is usually conducted after the completion of the initial questionnaire, but before the data collection procedure.
Its basic objective is to ensure that the structure and language used in the questionnaire are appropriate enough to enable the instrument to actually collect the data required from the target population (Reynolds and Diamantopoulos 1996). Compeau et al. (1995) recommend that a pretest should be conducted prior to the real distribution of the questionnaires in order to find out the deficiencies and validate the instrument. In this study pretesting was done on a convenience sample of 20 respondents. It was observed that the respondents found no ambiguity while filling up of the questionnaire.
Moreover the Cronbach alpha calculated for these 20 respondents in SPSS yielded an Apha of 0. 834, which was more than acceptable level of 0. 7. Hence the questionnaire was retained as it is in its current form and used further up for data collection.
STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES USED
The research data collected was analyzed using SPSS V. 19 and the following statistical techniques were employed. Correlation Analysis The preliminary analysis of the degree of linear association between the variables has been done with the help of correlation.
Correlation is a statistical device which helps in analyzing the co variation of two or more variables. Correlation analysis determines the degree of relationship between two or more variables. In other words it? s a technique that is used to measure the closeness of the relationship between two or more variables. The correlation analysis can be broken into two steps: 1. Determining whether a relationship exists and if yes, the measuring it. 2. Testing whether it is significant. There are different methods of measuring of measuring the correlation but the two prominent methods are: 1. Karl Pearson? s coefficient of correlation. . Spearman? s coefficient of correlation. For the purpose of the present study, Karl Pearson? s coefficient of correlation has been used. The following are the general rules for interpreting the value of r: When r = +1, it means there is perfect positive relationship between the variables. When r = -1, it means there is perfect negative relationship between the variables. When r = 0, it means there is no relationship between the variables i. e. the variables are uncorrelated. The closer the value of r is to +1 or -1, the closer the relationship between the variables and the closer r is to 0, the lesser is the relationship.
The coefficient of determination i. e. r2 is defined as the ratio of the explained variance to total variance. Coefficient of determination = Explained Variance/ Total Variance Regression Analysis Regression analysis focuses on techniques for modeling and analyzing several variables when the focus is on the relationship between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables. More specifically, regression analysis helps understand how the typical value of he dependent variable changes when any one of the independent variables is varied while the other independent variables are held constant. Most commonly, regression analysis estimates the conditional expectation of dependent variable given the independent variables- that is, the average value of the dependent variable when the independent variables are held fixed. The estimation target is a function of the independent variables called the regression function. ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) ANOVA is a statistical technique designed to test whether the means of more than two quantitative populations are equal.
It consists of classifying and cross classifying statistical results and testing whether the means of a specified classification differ significantly.
The hypotheses constructed on the basis of literature review are tested using various techniques in this stage of data analysis. SPSS version 19. 0 was used for analyzing the data by employing various tests that are explained in this Chapter. Before the data analysis begins, the data is first edited and coded.
Editing involves checking the data collected through questionnaires for completeness, omissions and legibility. Since the data forms were self administered, care was taken to get omissions and illegibility in forms simultaneously corrected from the respondents. Despite that in 8 forms it was noticed discrepancy in the nature of some variables not being answered. They were marked 3 signifying a neutral score or undecided one. A lower score for the variables indicated a better positive response and a total of 215 usable questionnaires were obtained from the data collection process. . 1 Demographic Profile of the Respondents Demographics regarding gender, age, income level and the segment of the hotel where they stayed has been shown in this section. Table 4. 1 Gender-wise distribution of respondents Hotel Segment * Gender Crosstabulation Gender Male Hotel Segment Budget 46 Female 34 29 17 80 Total 80 75 60 215 Mid-Price 46 Upscale Total 43 135 Chart 4. 1 Bar-graph of the gender wise distribution of respondents An analysis of the table and chart reveals that a majority, 62. % of the respondents were male and the rest female. Moreover whereas there was almost an equal distribution of males throughout the 3 segments, most of the female respondents were taken from the Budget segment. Table 4. 2 Age-wise distribution of respondents Hotel Segment * Age Crosstabulation Age 54 0 2 2 4 Total 80 75 60 215 Mid-Price 12 Upscale Total 10 50 24 Chart 4. 2 Bar-graph of the age wise distribution of respondents An analysis of the above reveals that a majority of the respondents totaling to 92. 1% were below the age of 44 years.
The highest number of the respondents were from the 25-34 year bracket while the lowest, just 4 respondents above the age of 54. Moreover it is noticeable that as the age went higher there were more respondents opting out for Mid-Price and Upscale hotels. Table 4. 3 Income-wise distribution of respondents Hotel Segment * Household income per month Crosstabulation Hotel Segment Budget Household income per month 100000 Total 6 21 28 25 80 12 11 44 22 19 69 28 27 80 75 60 215 Total Mid-Price 13 Upscale 3 Chart 4. 3 Bar-graph of the income wise distribution of respondents
An analysis of the above reveals that the majority 37. 2% of the respondents had a household income greater than 1 lakh per month while 32. 1% in the 50001-100000 bracket. 20. 5% of the respondents were earning between Rs. 20000-50000 while just 10. 2% below Rs. 20000. Also it is noticeable that with the rise in income there is an increasing number of people preferring Mid-Price and Upscale hotels. Table 4. 4 Segment-wise distribution of respondents Hotel Segment Cumulative Valid Percent Percent 37. 2 34. 9 27. 9 100. 0 37. 2 72. 1 100. 0 Frequency Percent Valid Budget 80 37. 2 34. 9 27. 9 100. 0 Mid-Price 75 Upscale Total 60 215
Chart 4. 4 Bar-graph of the segment wise distribution of respondents Thus, the majority of the respondents were taken from the Budget Segment representing 37. 2 % of the total sample. While 34. 9 % and 27. 9 % were taken from the Mid-Price and Upscale Segments. 4. 2 RECODING Reverse coding is a procedure where some questions in a survey are worded such that high values of a theoretical construct is reflected by high scores on the item, while other questions are worded such that high values of the same construct is reflected by low scores on the item.
Reversing the order of the codes for negative statements so that their codes reflect the same direction and order as the positive statements? codes requires a simple transformation which is available in SPSS. The formula for the same is New Value = (Scale minimum + Scale minimum) – Old value The following two questions were recoded : 1. I have difficulty in imagining the hotel in my mind. 2. The price shown for the hotel is unacceptable. Thus these two questions were thereby positively stated in SPSS.
Reliability is the degree to which the measures are free from errors and therefore yield consistent results. Two dimensions underlie the concept of reliability: one is repeatability and the other is internal consistency (Zikmund, 2009). The internal consistency measure is the most preferred one because it requires a single administration and establishing reliability through the other measures is difficult since once a subject has been put through some test, it will no longer remain neutral to the test.
Researchers commonly use Cronbach Alpha coefficient, which is an indicator of the internal consistency of the scale, for establishing scale reliability. A high value of Cronbach alpha coefficient suggests that the items that make up the scale measure the same underlying construct. A value of Cronbach alpha above 0. 70 can be used as a reasonable test of scale reliability. Thus Alpha was measured for each dimension of the scale separately and then for the whole scale i. e. for the 26 items. Table 4. 5 Cronbach’s Alpha co-efficient of reliability for Brand Loyalty Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha . 17 N of Items 3 The value is acceptable being over 0. 7 and hence Brand Loyalty is internally consistent. Table 4. 6 Cronbach’s Alpha co-efficient of reliability for Perceived Quality Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha . 938 N of Items 1 The value for Perceived Quality is over the acceptable level of 0. 7 and hence the items are internally consistent. Table 4. 7 Cronbach’s Alpha co-efficient of reliability for Brand Awareness Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha . 842 N of Items 3 The value for Brand Awareness is over the acceptable level of 0. and hence the items are internally consistent. Table 4. 8 Cronbach’s Alpha co-efficient of reliability for Brand Association Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha . 706 N of Items 3 The value for Brand Association is just over the acceptable level of 0. 7 and hence the items are internally consistent. Table 4. 9 Cronbach’s Alpha co-efficient of reliability for Perceived Value Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha . 731 N of Items 3 The value for Perceived value is over the acceptable level of 0. 7 and hence the items are internally consistent. 9 Table 4. 10 Cronbach’s Alpha co-efficient of reliability for Revisit Intention Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha . 857 N of Items 2 The value for revisit intentions is over the acceptable level of 0. 7 and hence the items are internally consistent. Table 4. 11 Cronbach’s Alpha co-efficient of reliability for the Whole Scale Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha . 926 N of Items 26 Thus for all dimensions of the scale the alpha is above the acceptable threshold of 0. 7. In fact the alpha for the whole scale signifying a value of 0. 926 is excellent. Moreover it is oticeable that for scales which have fewer items the alpha is comparatively lower. This simply follows from the fact that value of alpha is directly proportional to the number of items on the scale and one of the ways to increase alpha has been to increase the number of items. 4. 4 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS Descriptive statistics reveal the mean value and the standard deviation of the variables. They also show the general direction of the variables i. e. towards the positive side or negative side. The following tables first give descriptive statistics of the total 26 items of the scale.
In the second part a comparison has been made between the individual dimensions and the 3 segments of the hotels. Table 4. 12 Descriptive statistics for Brand Loyalty Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean I consider myself to be loyal to the 215 1 5 2. 37 hotel. The hotel would be my first choice. 215 1 5 2. 27 I will not visit other brands if the 215 1 hotel has no room available. Brand Loyalty Valid N (listwise) 215 1. 00 215 5 3. 48 Std. Deviation 1. 081 1. 038 1. 147 5. 00 2. 7054 .81970 Table 4. 3 Descriptive statistics for Perceived Quality Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum The physical facilities at the 215 1 5 hotel are visually appealing. Staff at the hotel appears neat. 215 1 5 Quality of food /beverage at the hotel satisfies me. When I have problems, the hotel shows a genuine interest in solving them. The hotel performs the service right the first time. The hotel insists on error free service. Staff at the hotel is able to tell patrons exactly when services would be performed. 215 215 1 1 5 5 Mean 2. 18 2. 05 2. 12 2. 20 Std. Deviation . 795 . 853 . 927 1. 002 215 215 215 1 1 1 5 5 5 2. 17 2. 34 2. 6 .991 1. 047 . 949 Staff at the hotel is always 215 willing to help me. Staff at the hotel gives prompt 215 service to me. Staff of the hotel is consistently 215 courteous with me. The behavior of staff at the 215 hotel instills confidence in me. I feel safe in my transaction. Perceived Quality Valid N (listwise) 215 215 215 1 1 1 5 5 5 1. 99 2. 11 1. 98 .962 1. 071 . 927 1 5 2. 36 .994 1 1. 00 5 5. 00 1. 96 2. 1345 .888 . 73543 BRAND EQUITY, PERCEIVED VALUE AND REVISIT INTENTIONS 31 Table 4. 14 Descriptive statistics for Brand Awareness Descriptive Statistics N I know what the hotel? s physical appearance looks like.
I am aware of the hotel. I can recognize the hotel among other competing brands. Brand Awareness Valid N (listwise) 215 Minimum Maximum 1 5 Mean 2. 07 Std. Deviation . 783 215 215 1 1 5 5 2. 06 1. 93 .923 . 812 215 215 1. 00 5. 00 2. 0202 .73349 Table 4. 15 Descriptive statistics for Brand Association Descriptive Statistics N Some characteristics of the 215 hotel come to my mind quickly. I can quickly recall the symbol 215 or logo of the hotel. I do not have difficulty 215 imagining the hotel in my mind. Brand Association Valid N (listwise) 215 215 Minimum Maximum 1 4 Mean 2. 13 Std. Deviation . 921 1 1 5 5 . 38 2. 14 .968 1. 351 1. 00 4. 00 2. 2171 .77835 Table 4. 16 Descriptive statistics for Perceived Value Descriptive Statistics N The hotel is good value for money. The price shown for the hotel is acceptable. The hotel appears to be a bargain. Perceived Value Valid N (listwise) 215 215 215 215 215 Minimum Maximum 1 1 1 1. 00 5 5 5 5. 00 Mean 2. 23 2. 48 2. 67 2. 4589 Std. Deviation 1. 023 1. 380 . 990 . 82235 32 Table 4. 17 Descriptive statistics for Revisit Intention Descriptive Statistics I plan to revisit the hotel. N 215 Minimum Maximum Mean 1 5 2. 2 1 5 2. 05 Std. Deviation . 940 . 918 The probability that I 215 would consider revisiting the hotel is high. Revisit Intentions Valid N (listwise) 215 215 1. 00 5. 00 2. 1372 .86926 The following points are noticeable from the above tables. Firstly for the individual variables the best positive score is for the question – “ I can recognize the brand among competing brand” while the most negative score was for the question – “I will not visit other brands if the hotel has no room available” which actually signifies the urgency of staying in any hotel accommodation if there is no room available in this brand.
Secondly in comparison of each of the dimensional score Brand Awareness had the best positive score followed by Perceived Quality, Revisit Intention, Brand Association, Perceived Value and Brand Loyalty in this order. This signified that people? s perception were most positive towards Brand Awareness and the least towards Brand Loyalty.
COMPARISON AMONG THE THREE SEGMENTS
Now a comparison among the three segments has been shown through the following 3 tables: Table 4. 18 Descriptive statistics for the Budget Category Descriptive Statisticsa Minimum Maximum 1. 00 5. 00 1. 58 5. 00 1. 00 4. 00 1. 00 4. 00 1. 33 3. 98 1. 00 5. 0 1. 00 5. 00 a. Hotel Segment = Budget Brand Loyalty Perceived Quality Brand Awareness Brand Association Brand Equity Perceived Value Revisit Intentions Valid N (listwise) N 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Mean 2. 9500 2. 4969 1. 9958 2. 1833 2. 4065 2. 4833 2. 3438 Std. Deviation . 82694 . 72726 . 64630 . 72702 . 57637 1. 03239 1. 01443 Table 4. 19 Descriptive statistics for the Mid-Price Category Descriptive Statisticsa N Brand Loyalty Perceived Quality Brand Awareness Brand Association Brand Equity Perceived Value Revisit Intentions Valid N (listwise) 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 a.
Hotel Segment = Mid-Price Minimum 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 25 1. 00 1. 00 Maximum 5. 00 4. 42 5. 00 3. 67 3. 67 5. 00 5. 00 Mean 2. 5333 1. 9833 1. 9956 2. 2533 2. 1914 2. 4889 2. 0333 Std. Deviation . 81833 . 75162 . 75036 . 79003 . 54355 . 73180 . 82746 : Table 4. 20 Descriptive statistics for the Upscale Category Descriptive Statisticsa N Brand Loyalty Perceived Quality Brand Awareness Brand Association Brand Equity Perceived Value Revisit Intentions Valid N (listwise) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 a. Hotel Segment = Upscale Minimum 1. 33 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 29 1. 00 1. 00 Maximum 4. 33 3. 75 5. 00 3. 67 3. 60 4. 00 3. 50 Mean 2. 944 1. 8403 2. 0833 2. 2167 2. 1837 2. 3889 1. 9917 Std. Deviation . 74179 . 49983 . 82482 . 83885 . 47957 . 58919 . 64105 The above tables have important ramifications. It reveals that for Brand Loyalty the best score is for the Mid-Price and worst for Budget. For Perceived Quality following in the logical order the best score is for Upscale and the least for budget. For Brand Awareness the best score is for the mid-price and the worst surprisingly for the Upscale segment. For Brand Association the best positive score is for the budget and the least for the upscale segment. Overall if we notice Brand equity as a sum of these 4 dimensions the best positive score is for the Upscale category with a mean of 2. 1837 followed by Mid-price and then Budget. Moreover for Perceived value surprisingly the perceptions are most positive for Upscale hotels and least for mid-price properties. Lastly the revisit intention is most positive for Upscale hotels and least for Budget Hotels.
COMPARISON CORRELATION OF THE THREE SEGMENTS THROUGH
Bivariate correlation tests were used to compare the 4 dimensions of brand equity, perceived value and revisit intentions across the three segments.
The impact and the importance of variables was studied and compared. Table 4. 21 Correlation for Budget Category Correlationsa Brand Perceived Brand Associatio Perceived Revisit Quality Awareness n Value Intentions . 652** . 489** . 338** . 432** . 652** Brand Loyalty Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Brand Loyalty 1 .000 .000 .002 .000 .000 Perceived Quality N Pearson Correlation 80 . 652** 80 1 80 . 500** 80 . 347** 80 . 520** 80 . 818** Sig. (2-tailed) . 000 .000 .002 .000 .000 Brand Awareness N Pearson Correlation 80 . 489** 80 . 500** 80 1 80 . 645** 80 . 401** 80 . 588** Sig. 2-tailed) . 000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 80 80 80 80 80 80 35 Brand Pearson Association Correlation .338** .347** .645** 1 .486** .494** Sig. (2-tailed) . 002 .002 .000 .000 .000 N 80 80 80 80 80 80 Perceived Value Pearson Correlation .432** .520** .401** .486** 1 .631** Sig. (2-tailed) . 000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 80 80 80 80 80 80 Revisit Intentions Pearson Correlation .652** .818** .588** .494** .631** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) . 000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 80 80 80 80 80 80 **. Correlation is significant at the 0. 01 level (2-tailed). a.
Hotel Segment = Budget This table shows the correlations between the 4 dimensions of brand equity, perceived value and revisit intention for the Budget segment. For Perceived Value the correlation is strongest with Perceived Quality in the Brand Equity domain while with Revisit Intention it is 0. 631 which is the strongest of all components. With respect to revisit intention the strongest correlation has been with perceived quality while the weakest with Brand Association. Moreover all the correlations are positive and significant. 6 Table 4. 22 Correlation for Mid-Price Category Correlationsa Brand Perceived Brand Brand Perceived Revisit Loyalty Quality Awareness Association Value Intentions Brand Loyalty Pearson Correlation 1 . 619** . 000 75 1 . 251* . 030 75 . 486** . 000 75 1 -. 035 . 764 75 . 240* . 038 75 . 377** . 001 75 1 . 268* . 020 75 . 416** . 000 75 . 283* . 014 75 . 448** . 000 75 1 . 549** . 000 75 . 707** . 000 75 . 486** . 000 75 . 514** . 000 75 . 508** . 000 75 1 Sig. (2-tailed) N Perceived Pearson Quality Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Brand Pearson Awareness Correlation Sig. 2-tailed) N Brand Pearson Association Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Perceived Pearson Value Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Revisit Pearson Intentions Correlation 75 . 619** . 000 75 . 251* . 030 75 -. 035 . 764 75 . 268* . 020 75 . 549** 75 . 486** . 000 75 . 240* . 038 75 . 416** . 000 75 . 707** 75 . 377** . 001 75 . 283* . 014 75 . 486** 75 . 448** . 000 75 . 514** 75 . 508** Sig. (2-tailed) . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 N 75 75 75 75 75 **. Correlation is significant at the 0. 01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0. 05 level (2-tailed). a. Hotel Segment = Mid-Price 75
This table shows the correlations between the 4 dimensions of brand equity, perceived value and revisit intention for the Mid-Price segment. For Perceived Value the correlation is strongest with Brand Association in the brand Equity domain while with Revisit Intentions it is 0. 508. With respect to revisit intention the strongest correlation has been with perceived quality while the weakest with Brand Awareness. Moreover apart from the correlation between Brand Awareness and Brand Loyalty all the correlations are positive and significant. 7 Table 4. 23 Correlation for Upscale Category Correlationsa Brand Loyalty Brand Loyalty Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Perceived Quality N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 60 . 438** . 000 60 . 173 . 186 60 -. 183 . 161 60 . 100 . 448 60 . 064 . 627 60 1 Perceived Brand Brand Perceived Revisit Quality Awareness Association Value Intentions . 438** . 000 60 1 . 173 . 186 60 . 407** . 001 60 1 -. 183 . 161 60 . 309* . 16 60 . 428** . 001 60 1 . 100 . 448 60 . 378** . 003 60 . 502** . 000 60 . 634** . 000 60 1 . 064 . 627 60 . 329* . 010 60 . 509** . 000 60 . 739** . 000 60 . 652** . 000 60 1 Brand Awareness 60 . 407** . 001 60 . 309* . 016 60 . 378** . 003 60 . 329* . 010 60 Brand Association 60 . 428** . 001 60 . 502** . 000 60 . 509** . 000 60 Perceived Value 60 . 634** . 000 60 . 739** . 000 60 Revisit Intentions 60 . 652** . 000 60 60 **. Correlation is significant at the 0. 01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0. 05 level (2-tailed). a. Hotel Segment = Upscale
This table shows the correlations between the 4 dimensions of brand equity, perceived value and revisit intention for the upscale segment. For Perceived Value the correlation is strongest with Brand Association in the brand Equity domain while with Revisit Intentions it is 0. 652. With respect to revisit intention the strongest correlation has been with Brand Association while the weakest with Brand Loyalty. Moreover the glaring part in this category is that the correlations between Brand Loyalty and Perceived Value and Brand Loyalty and Revisit Intention have not been found to be significant.
38 Table 4. 24 Correlation for all the three segments Correlations Brand Loyalty 1 Perceived Brand Brand Perceived Revisit Quality Awareness Association Value Intentions . 618** . 293** . 048 . 306** . 517** . 000 215 1 . 000 215 . 409** . 000 215 1 . 486 215 . 256** . 000 215 . 474** . 000 215 1 . 000 215 . 432** . 000 215 . 362** . 000 215 . 485** . 000 215 1 . 000 215 . 703** . 000 215 . 498** . 000 215 . 527** . 000 215 . 590** . 000 215 1 Brand Loyalty Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. 2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Perceived Quality 215 . 618** . 000 215 . 293** . 000 215 . 048 . 486 215 . 306** . 000 215 . 517** . 000 Brand Awareness 215 . 409** . 000 215 . 256** . 000 215 . 432** . 000 215 . 703** . 000 Brand Association 215 . 474** . 000 215 . 362** . 000 215 . 498** . 000 Perceived Value 215 . 485** . 000 215 . 527** . 000 Revisit Intentions 215 . 590** . 000 215 215 215 215 215 **. Correlation is significant at the 0. 01 level (2-tailed). 215
This table shows the correlations between the 4 dimensions of brand equity, perceived value and revisit intentions in the three segments combined that is for the whole sample. For Perceived Value the correlation is strongest with Brand Association followed by perceived quality in the brand Equity domain while with Revisit Intentions it is 0. 590. With respect to revisit intention the strongest correlation has been with Perceived Quality while the weakest with Brand Awareness. Apart from the correlations between Brand Loyalty and Brand Association, rest are significant.
TESTING THE IMPACT OF BRAND EQUITY
In this section Regression has been used to study the impact of Brand Equity Dimensions and Perceived Value and Revisit Intentions. In regression the Stepwise Method has been used to stepwise ascertain which all dimensions of Brand Equity have the highest impact and
Haven’t found the relevant content? Hire a subject expert to help you with Brand Equity, Perceived Value and Revisit Intentions – an Evidence from the Hotel Industry
Cite this page
Brand Equity, Perceived Value and Revisit Intentions – an Evidence from the Hotel Industry. (2017, Jan 07). Retrieved from https://phdessay.com/brand-equity-perceived-value-and-revisit-intentions-an-evidence-from-the-hotel-industry/