DIMENSIONS OF BRAND KNOWLEDGE: TURKISH UNIVERSITY STUDENTS CONSUMPTION OF INTERNATIONAL BRANDS
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009)
July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir
DIMENSIONS OF BRAND KNOWLEDGE: TURKISH
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ CONSUMPTION OF
INTERNATIONAL BRANDS
Nazli Alimen, Ph.D. Candidate, Izmir University of Economics, The Institute of Social Sciences,
Turkey, nazli.alimen@ieu.edu.tr
Prof. A. Guldem Cerit, Dokuz Eylül University, School of Maritime Business and Management,
Turkey, gcerit@deu.edu.tr
Abstract
Brand has been considered as one of the most important assets of a company and studied by many scholars.
Brand knowledge, which comprises brand awareness and brand image, is the consumer side of brand. The
objective of this study is to reveal the brand knowledge of nine fashion brands which are largely consumed
in Turkey. An exploratory study is performed among university students of different departments and the
results are compared with respect to the departments, gender of the students and the usage frequencies of
these brands. In conclusion it can be suggested that students belonging to the departments that are more
related with fashion and female consumers have deeper brand knowledge.
Keywords: Brand Knowledge, Fashion, International Brand.
I. INTRODUCTION
In international business, one of the factors that lead to success in consumer markets is to have a
strong brand, which is achieved through a greater level of brand knowledge. Brand awareness and brand
image are two components of brand knowledge, which are the consumer sides of brand; therefore they could
be controlled by a company via communication. Brand image is linked to functional and emotional elements,
which could also help a company to communicate with consumers. Fashion, on the other hand, is generally
used to refer to clothing and described as “a process which determines particular design, products or social
behaviours for a specific period of time and replaces them regularly with new ones” (Saviolo, 2002).
Fashion has three components that are style, acceptance and timing (Frings, 1982; Packard et al.,
1983; Wolfe, 2003). Guedes and da Costa Soares (2005) suggested that the brand could be added as a fourth
component of fashion. The brand component has two elements: the international fashion product and the
market segment fashion product. All over the world, international brands present the same image of fashion,
supported by franchising chains and marketing communication activities. It is required that the impact of
personal or environmental determinants on brand knowledge have to be clarified, mainly in the markets
where fashion is highly consumed, such as young university students. This paper focuses on such an
objective.
1. Brand Knowledge
Brand helps to differentiate products or services from the others (Kotler and Keller, 2009, 276) and
“embodies every undertaking of the company and represents it to the world as a hologram, plays a part in the
formation of relationships, and expresses and contributes group affiliation” (Sherry, 2005, 46). For firms,
brands are the markers of their offerings and signs of quality, risk and trust for consumers (Keller and
Lehmann, 2005).
Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Güldem Cerit 1
Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students’ Consumption of International BrandsEuropean and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009)
July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir
Knowledge is an outcome of apprehension and information within a particular context. Probst et al.
(2001, 24) described knowledge as “…the whole body of cognitions and skills that individuals use in order
to solve problems…”. Knowledge, which enables an individual or organization to appraise and aggregate
new ideas and information, is more than a collection of experiences and values (Davenport and Prusack,
1998). Knowledge can also be regarded as the accumulation and cultivation of information and data over
time (Leonard-Barton, 1995).
Correlating diverse information, such as awareness, attributes, benefits, images, thoughts, feelings,
attitudes and experiences, to a brand constitutes brand knowledge (Keller, 2003). Brand knowledge is based
upon a constant communication with consumers that elicits real comprehension of the product or service
(Richards et al., 1998). Keller (2003) defined consumer brand knowledge as all descriptive and evaluative
brand-related information, which was individualistic inference about a brand stored in consumer memory.
Kaplan (2007) mentions that “a brand’s overall value demonstrates its equity”. According to Aaker
(1996) brand equity is “a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol, that add to
or subtract from the value provided by a product to a firm, or to a firm’s customers or to that firm’s
customers”. It comprises brand related notions as brand awareness and brand image (shown in Figure 1),
which compose brand knowledge and directly affect consumer responses (Keller, 1993).
Figure 1. Dimensions of Brand Knowledge, Keller (1993).
1.1. Brand Awareness
Brand awareness is “the ability of a potential buyer to recognize or recall that a brand is a member of
a certain product category” (Aaker, 1991). It is associated to the strength of brand clew in memory that
enables consumers to ascertain the brand under dissimilar conditions (Rossiter and Percy, 1987). Brand
awareness is the strength of a brand’s presence in the mind of the consumer (Ross, 2006). Ross (2006)
proposed that experience-induced antecedents do have an impact on brand awareness, and that impact is
indicated through the direct relationship within the framework.
Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Güldem Cerit 2
Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students’ Consumption of International BrandsEuropean and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009)
July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir
Keller (1993) classifies brand awareness into ‘‘brand recognition’’ and ‘‘brand recall’’ (Figure 1).
Brand recognition relates to consumers' ability to confirm prior exposure to the brand when given the brand
as a cue. Brand recall relates to consumers' ability to retrieve the brand when given the product category, the
needs fulfilled by the category, or some other type of probe as a cue (Keller, 1993).
1.2. Brand Image
Brand image is defined by American Marketing Association as “a mirror reflection [though perhaps
inaccurate] of the brand personality or product being. It is what people believe about a brand-their thoughts,
feelings, expectations”. Scholars variously described brand image as “the perceptions and beliefs held by
consumers, as reflected in the associations held in consumer memory” (Kotler and Keller, 2009, 783), “a set
of associations, usually organized in some meaningful way” (Aaker, 1991, 109) and “the external form and
observable characteristics of the market’s offering” (Sherry, 2005, 48).
Brand image is a source that provides the brand to accomplish and remain resonant and adequate in
consumers’ minds (Sherry, 2005). Communicating the brand image clearly to target consumers, which
allows consumers a need satisfaction by the brand (Park et al., 1986) and differentiate the brand from the
competitors’ (DiMingo, 1988), and is an important part of marketing activity (Gardner and Levy, 1955;
Grubb and Grathwol, 1967; Moran 1973; Roth, 1995). Roth (1995) suggests that “the effect of brand image
strategies on product performance and the management of brand images” should be considered while
analyzing brand image strategies.
Brand image is a meaning associated to the brand by consumers (Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990; Aaker,
1991; Keller, 1998; del Rio et al., 2001; Nandan, 2005). Brand image is regarded as a consumer-constructed
concept, due to consumers’ creating a personal or image related to the brand with regard to their knowledge
and perceptions (Nandan, 2005). These associations, which are linkages of a brand in memory (Aaker, 1991;
Keller, 1993, 1998) and differ among consumers (Hung, 2008), provide marketers “to differentiate, position,
and extend brands” (Low, Lamb, 2000)
and consumers “to process, organize, and retrieve information in making purchase decisions” (Aaker,
1991, 109-113). Brand image is a result of consumers’ decoding of all the signals delivered by the brand
such as brand name, visual signs, products, sponsoring, and advertising (Kapferer, 1994). Danesi (2006)
proposes that the use of brand name enables consumers not only to recognize certain goods and distinguish
them from others, but also to associate connotative meanings to them. Therefore, it allows consumers to
decode brand image.
2. Measuring Brand Knowledge: Brand Image and Brand Awareness
Knowledge can be divided into direct or explicit knowledge or indirect, implicit or tacit knowledge
(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Sveiby, 1997). Sharif (2004) mentions that explicit knowledge is objective and
theoretical which can be asserted via formal logical and systematic arguments. Such knowledge is enunciable
and alterable with ease, through many forms of media – documents, audiovisual equipment, computerised
records etc. He proposes that explicit knowledge can be a part of the world, i.e. relates to some object. Tacit
knowledge on the other hand, he explains, is mostly subjective, practical and personal. Therefore, it could be
a part of a person, i.e. relates to some subject and this is why it is difficult to formalise and communicate to
others. In this regard, brand knowledge could comprehend both explicit and implicit knowledge.
Perceptions of brand associations held in the consumers’ minds are called as brand image (Keller,
2003). Therefore, measuring brand image is to evaluate these brand associations. To do that, there are several
ways, as applying or adapting an existing list of brand associations (e.g., the brand personality list of Aaker)
or developing a new scale, which is achieved through revealing brand associations and then measuring the
strength of brand associations (Chandon, 2003).
Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Güldem Cerit 3
Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students’ Consumption of International BrandsEuropean and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009)
July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir
Brand image, which is enrooted in both tangible and intangible associations linked to the attributes of
the product, is assessed through various approaches (Kaplan, 2007). These approaches could be divided into
two main categories: scaling and sorting (Joyce, 1963). Whether there is a relation between a brand and
attribute and its strength is determined via scaling techniques whereas only corporeity of attribute is detected
through sorting techniques (Driesener and Romaniuk, 2006). The scale of Kaplan (2007) is consisted of 13
items (Figure 2). First 8 items of the brand image scale are cognitive brand associations, which evaluate the
associations attached to the physical features and functions of each brand’s products, and the remaining 5
items are emotional brand associations, which measure attributions that each individual himself or herself
attaches to a brand.
Products of this brand
1. Perform as expected.
2. Offer value for price.
3. Are reliable.
Cognitive
4. Are functional.
Brand
5. Are usable.
Associations
6. Are durable.
7. Have technical sophistication.
8. Are expensive.
1. Make a person feel good.
Emotional 2. Target high-income level.
Brand 3. Increase the respectability of its user.
Associations 4. Are admired by my friends and relatives.
5. Express my personality.
Figure 2. Brand Image Scale Items, Kaplan (2007).
Scaling and ranking measures provide to distinguish among brands, as pick-any measure asks for yes
or no for each brand (Driesener and Romaniuk, 2001). Several scholars pointed the distinct patterns in brand
image data while applying pick-any technique (Barnard and Ehrenberg, 1990; Sharp et al., 1998). Driesener
and Romaniuk (2006) evaluated three of these brand image measurement techniques, one of which was a
sorting, a pick-any, and the other two were, scaling, which were likert rating and ranking and revealed that
all provided equivalent results.
II. OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to reveal the knowledge of 9 fashion brands, which were largely
consumed by university students in Turkey. 7 of them were international fashion brands, Tommy Hilfiger,
GAP, Lacoste, Diesel, Zara, Guess, and Mango. The other 2 were Turkish international fashion brands,
which were chosen to compare with the other well-known ones. It was aimed to understand whether having
studied in the field of fashion affected the knowledge about fashion brands or not. Gender and consumption
of the brands could also be effective on the brand knowledge. These variables were also considered in the
analyses. The research model is given in Figure 3.
Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Güldem Cerit 4
Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students’ Consumption of International BrandsEuropean and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009)
July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir
Fashion Brand
Demographic Variables and Knowledge
Usage Frequency of Brands
University Departments
Brand
Gender of Students Awareness
Brand
Usage of Brands Image
Figure 3. Research Model
III. HYPOTHESES
In order to attain the objectives of the study, 3 main hypotheses and 48 sub-hypotheses were
developed. Each one of these hypotheses was analyzed according to demographic variables (see Table 5,
Table 6, and Table 7). These sub-hypothesis are 3 for H1, 8 for H2 and 5 for H3. Each sub-hypothesis
includes 3 sub-hypotheses adding up to a total of 48 sub-hypotheses.
H1: Brand awareness differs with respect to demographic variables and usage for different fashion brands.
H11: The students’ general awareness of the brand differs due to demographic variables and usage.
Sub-hypotheses H111, H112 and H113 test the general awareness of the brand with respect to
departments, gender and usage respectively.
H12: The students’ awareness of the brand differs due to demographic variables and usage.
Sub-hypotheses H121, H122 and H123 test the awareness of the brand with respect to departments, gender
and usage respectively.
H13: The students’ familiarity with the brand differs due to demographic variables and usage.
Sub-hypotheses H131, H132 and H133 test the familiarity of the brand with respect to departments,
gender and usage respectively.
H2: Cognitive brand image differs with respect to demographic variables and usage of different fashion
brands.
H21: The brands’ expected performance differs due to demographic variables and usage.
Sub-hypotheses H211, H212 and H213 test the expected performance of the brand with respect to
departments, gender and usage respectively.
H22: The brands’ offered value for price differs due to demographic variables and usage.
Sub-hypotheses H221, H222 and H223 test the perception of the brand’s offered value for price with
respect to departments, gender and usage respectively.
H23: The brands’ reliability differ due to demographic variables and usage
Sub-hypotheses H231, H232 and H233 tests the reliability of the brand with respect to departments,
gender and usage respectively
Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Güldem Cerit 5
Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students’ Consumption of International BrandsEuropean and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009)
July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir
H24: The brands’ functionality differ due to demographic variables and usage
Sub-hypotheses H241, H242 and H243 test the brands’ functionality with respect to departments, gender
and usage respectively.
H25: The brands’ usability differs due to demographic variables and usage.
Sub-hypotheses H251, H252 and H253 test the brands’ usability with respect to departments, gender and
usage respectively.
H26: The brands’ durability differs due to demographic variables and usage.
Sub-hypotheses H261, H262 and H263 test the brands’ durability with respect to departments, gender and
usage respectively.
H27: The brands’ technical sophistication differs due to demographic variables and usage.
Sub-hypotheses H271, H272 and H273 test the brands’ technical sophistication with respect to
departments, gender and usage respectively.
H28: The perception of the brands’ expensiveness differs due to demographic variables and usage.
Sub-hypotheses H281, H282 and H283 test the brands’ expensiveness with respect to departments, gender
and usage respectively.
H3: Emotional brand image differs with respect to demographic variables and usage of different fashion
brands.
H31: The brands’ making a person feel good differ due to demographic variables and usage.
Sub-hypotheses H311, H312 and H313 tests the brands’ making a person feel good with respect to
departments, gender and usage respectively.
H32: The brands’ targeting low-income level differs due to demographic variables and usage.
Sub-hypotheses H321, H322 and H323 test the brands’ targeting low-income level with respect to
departments, gender and usage respectively.
H33: The brands’ increasing the respectability of its user differ due to demographic variables
and usage.
Sub-hypotheses H331, H332 and H333 tests the brands’ increasing the respectability of its user with
respect to departments, gender and usage respectively.
H34: The brands’ being admired by the students’ friends and relatives differ due to demographic
variables and usage.
Sub-hypotheses H341, H342 and H343 test the brands’ being admired by the students’ friends and
relatives with respect to departments, gender and usage respectively.
H35: The brands’ expressing the students’ personality differs due to demographic variables
and usage.
Sub-hypotheses H351, H352 and H353 test the brands’ expressing the students’ personality with respect to
departments, gender and usage respectively.
Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Güldem Cerit 6
Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students’ Consumption of International BrandsEuropean and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009)
July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir
IV. METHODOLOGY
An exploratory study is designed to evaluate the brand knowledge of university students of different
departments, ages, genders, grades and usage frequencies. A field study is performed regarding the brand
awareness and brand image of the students with respect to nine international fashion brands and partial
descriptive findings are reached.
1. Questionnaire
A questionnaire is developed to measure the variables. The brand awareness was evaluated according
to the approach of Aaker (1996) by the statements, “I am generally aware of this brand”, “I am aware of this
brand” and “I am familiar of this brand”. For brand image, the scale of Kaplan (2007), which consisted of 13
items, was used (Figure 2).
The brand awareness statements were translated into Turkish and then, together with the brand image
statements, were formed into a 5-point Likert-scale construct (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree). All
translated statements were tested by 11 students and the translation was adapted into the Turkish meanings
instead of the literal translation. In the first part of the questionnaire, the demographic variables, which
include age, gender, department, grade, if they had ever shopped or frequently shop from the brands listed,
were asked. The second part contained open-ended questions and it was asked to describe each brand by two
or three words that come in to mind. The brand awareness and brand image questions were inquired in the
third part.
2. Sample
The survey was conducted at Izmir University of Economics in January 2009. Convenience sampling
method was used in order to reach a heterogeneous group and a total of 201 undergraduate students from the
total number of 10 different departments constructed the sample. The departments selected were Business
Administration, Interior Design, Fashion Business, Translation and Interpretation Studies, Public Relations,
Industrial Design, Fashion Design, Communication Design, Architecture and Logistics Management, of
Izmir University of Economics. In selecting the departments, it was aimed to analyze the responses of
different samples that were experienced in fashion or not.
3. Evaluation of the Results
Data processing is maintained by the SPSS Program version 11. The hypotheses, which are based on
multiple-choice questions, are analyzed by frequencies and t-tests. The answers to the open-ended questions
were analyzed and counted manually.
V. FINDINGS
1. Profile of the Respondents
The questionnaires were responded in January 2009 by 201 undergraduate students from 10 different
departments of Izmir University of Economics. 63.7% of the students were female and 36.3% was male. 3%,
6 students, aged 18, 9%, 18 students aged 19, 13.4%, 27 students, aged 20, and 22.4%, 45 students, aged 21.
The majority, 52.2% of the sample, was 22 years old and over, that were 105 students, shown in Table 2. 33
of the students, 16.4%, were at freshmen, 68, 33.8%, sophomore, 49, 24.4%, junior, and 51, 25.4%, at the
senior (Table 1).
Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Güldem Cerit 7
Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students’ Consumption of International BrandsEuropean and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009)
July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir
Total
Gender , n(%) Age, n(%) Grade, n(%) (n=201
100%)
22
Departments Male Female 18 19 20 21 and 1 2 3 4 n(%)
over
Business 19 16 4 5 9 17 1 6 22 6 35
-
Administration (54.3) (45.7) (11.4) (14.3) (25.7) (48.6) (2.9) (17.1) (62.9) (17.1) (17.4)
5 6 1 3 4 3 1 8 1 1 11
Interior Design -
(45.5) (54.5) (9) (27.3) (36.4) (27.3) (9.1) (72.7) (9.1) (9.1) (5.5)
13 20 4 29 9 5 19 33
Fashion Business - - - -
(39.4) (60.6) (12) (88) (27.3) (15.2) (57.5) (16.4)
Translation and
3 15 4 5 3 2 4 13 1 2 2 18
Interpretation
(16.7) (83.3) (22) (28) (17) (11) (22) (72.2) (5.6) (11.1) (11.1) (9)
Studies
16 16 1 1 6 22 2 8 3 19 32
Public Relations 2(6.2)
(50) (50) (3.1) (3.1) (18.8) (68.8) (6.2) (25) (9.4) (59.4) (15.9)
3 6 1 3 5 1 1 5 2 9
Industrial Design - -
(33) (67) (11.1) (33.3) (55.6) (11.1) (11.1) (55.6) (22.2) (4.5)
5 35 1 2 9 10 18 11 19 9 1 40
Fashion Design
(12.5) (87.5) (2.5) (5) (22.5) (25) (45) (27.5) (47.5) (22.5) (2.5) (19.9)
Communication 3 3 1 1 4 2 3 1 6
- - -
Design (50) (50) (16.7) (16.7) (66.6) (33.3) (50) (16.7) (3)
2 5 3 1 3 7 7
Architecture - - - - -
(28.6) (71.4) (43) (14) (43) (100) (3.5)
Logistics 4 6 3 4 3 2 6 1 1 10
- -
Management (40) (60) (30) (40) (30) (20) (60) (10) (10) (5)
Total 73 128 6 18 27 45 85 33 68 49 51
(n=201, 100%) (36.3) (63.7) (3) (9) (13.4) (22.4) (42.3) (16.4) (33.8) (24.4) (25.4)
Table 1. Demographic Variables (Number of Students and Percentage).
The respondents shopped from at least one of the brands listed. The majority of the students have
ever bought an item from Zara, Mavi, Koton, and Mango, respectively. The number of consumers for
Lacoste and Diesel were the same. The students often shop from Zara, Mango, Mavi and Koton. The least
preferred ones for habitual shopping are Tommy Hilfiger, Diesel, Lacoste, GAP, and Guess. For both of the
questions, GAP and Guess were on the bottom line (Table 2).
Brands I have shopped from (n,%) I have never shopped from (n,%) I often shop from (n,%)
Zara 151 (75.1%) 50 (24.9%) 118 (58.7%)
Mavi 150 (74.6%) 51 (25.4%) 85 (42.3%)
Koton 145 (72.1%) 56 (27.9%) 80 (39.8%)
Mango 131 (65.2%) 70 (34.8%) 106 (52.7%)
Tommy Hilfiger 112 (55.7%) 89 (44.3%) 30 (14.9%)
Diesel 107 (53.2%) 94 (46.8%) 48 (23.9%)
Lacoste 107 (53.2%) 94 (46.8%) 37 (18.4%)
GAP 95 (47.3%) 106 (52.7%) 42 (20.9%)
Guess 59 (29.4%) 142 (70.6%) 17 (8.5%)
Table 2. Usage Frequencies (Number of Students and Percentage).
3. Results of the Hypotheses Tests
H1 aimed to reveal that there is a difference in brand awareness for different fashion brands within the
demographic variables, which are departments and gender, and with usage frequency. For that, t-test was run
and according to the results, p values lower than 0.05 showed that there was a significant difference. H11 was
supported within Public Relations and Fashion Design departments for the brands Zara and Mango, and
within Public Relations and Fashion Business departments for Zara that the students of these departments are
more aware of these brands than the students from the other departments. It was supported among male and
female students for the brands Zara, Guess, Mango and Koton (shown in Table 3). H12 was supported
between gender for Zara, Guess, Mango, Koton, and Mavi that female students are more aware of these
brands than male students. All the sub-hypotheses of H1 were supported for all brands due to consumption of
the brands that a student, who has consumed a brand, has more knowledge about it than others. Thus, having
consumed a brand increases the knowledge about it.
Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Güldem Cerit 8
Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students’ Consumption of International BrandsEuropean and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009)
July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir
Supported Sub-Hypotheses (Method of Analyses: t-test)
H11: I am generally aware of this brand. Koton t= 3,203 pEuropean and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009)
July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir
Supported Sub-Hypotheses (Method of Analyses: t-test)
H2: Cognitive brand image differs with respect to demographic Business Administration- Public Relations
variables for different fashion brands. Tommy Hilfiger t=2,261 pEuropean and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009)
July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir
Supported Sub-Hypotheses (Method of Analyses: t-test)
H3: Emotional brand image differs with respect to demographic H341: Departments
variables for different fashion brands. Fashion Business-Public Relations
H31: Make a person feel good. Koton t=-2,188 pEuropean and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009)
July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir
Mango and Koton. Tommy Hilfiger, GAP, Diesel and Mavi were also sportive according to the students’
description.
Brands Statements n %
Expensive 40 28.6
High Quality 19 13.6
Tommy Hilfiger
(Total Number of Sportive 15 10.7
Respondents
Colors (Red, White, and/or blue) 14 10
=140)
Products (Sweater and T-Shirt) 4 2.9
Brand 4 2.9 Brands Statements n %
Sportive 28 21.9 Expensive 27 23
Products (Bag, Shoes and
Comfortable 18 14 20 17
GAP Guess Watch)
(Total Number of Expensive 14 11 (Total Number Unnecessary 14 12
Respondents Products (Sweat shirt, Polar and of Respondents
12 9.4 High Quality 7 6
= 128) T-Shirt) = 117)
Basic 7 5.5 Exaggeration 6 5.1
High Quality 6 4.7 Stylish 6 5.1
Expensive 27 19 Inexpensive 44 33.6
High Quality 27 19 For Women 14 10.7
Lacoste Mango
Classic 19 13.4 Low Quality 12 9.2
(Total Number of (Total Number
Crocodile 11 7.8 Bazaar 10 7.6
Respondents of Respondents
= 142) Basic 11 7.8 = 131) Design 8 6.1
Products (Shirt, T-Shirt and
5 3.5 Many people have 5 3.8
Shoes)
Expensive 44 30.7 Inexpensive 25 21
Diesel Stylish 38 26.6 Koton Assortment 10 8.4
(Total Number of Products (Jeans and shoes 16 11.2 (Total Number Low Quality 8 6.7
Respondents High Quality 15 10.5 of Respondents Feminine 7 5.9
= 143) Sportive 8 5.6 = 119) High Quality 6 5
Young 6 4.2 Turkish 3 2.5
Inexpensive 33 23.4 Jeans 32 24.4
Zara Many Assortments 19 13.5 Mavi Turkish 17 13
(Total Number of Stylish 17 12 (Total Number Sportive 13 10
Respondents High Quality 12 8.5 of Respondents High Quality 11 8.4
= 141) Casual 6 4.3 = 131) Expensive 10 7.6
Form 3 2.1 Proper Price 9 6.8
Table 6. Description of the Brands by the Respondents
40.0
35.0
DESCRIPTIONS, %
30.0
EXPENSIVE
25.0
HIGH QUALITY
20.0
INEXPENSIVE
15.0
SPORTIVE
10.0
5.0
0.0
TH
E
N
RA
O
L
AP
I
S
AV
ST
E
TO
ES
NG
ES
ZA
G
M
CO
KO
U
A
DI
G
M
LA
BRANDS
Figure 4. Description Frequencies of Brands
Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Güldem Cerit 12
Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students’ Consumption of International BrandsEuropean and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009)
July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir
VI. CONCLUSION
Consumer demands are rapidly changing and getting similar to each other not only in a single country
but also internationally. In order to be successful internationally, it is important to have a strong brand. In
this paper, brand knowledge, which consists of brand awareness and brand image, of 9 international fashion
brands was evaluated by a research among the Turkish university students. It is concluded that three
variables, gender, departments and usage frequency have an effect on brand knowledge. The students, who
were studying in Fashion Design and Fashion Business departments, had a little more knowledge of these
brands than others. This slight difference could be as a result of advertising and communication activities.
Not only people in the fashion business, but also others get some information about fashion brands willingly
or not through promotions. Magazines, shopping centres and other consumers around could also provide
such knowledge. This could also be an explanation for the knowledge about GAP, which recently entered
into the Turkish market that had almost the same values as the other brands. The students might have
accumulated information about GAP via TV, magazines, travels and so on. Therefore, it is important to
consider these factors too while creating a successful fashion brand or entering into a new market.
Comparison of the brand knowledge among genders revealed that the female students had more
knowledge of the listed brands than the males. Furthermore, having consumed a brand leads to a significant
effect on brand knowledge. Moreover, the brands Lacoste, Tommy Hilfiger, Diesel and Guess, which are
positioned as luxury items in Turkey, were more likely to be described on a negative way, e.g. unnecessary,
for middle-age and low quality, by non-users and positively, such as high quality and comfortable by users.
The study has presented interesting outcomes regarding the perceptions of university students from
different departments. The fashion brands aiming young consumers should consider brand knowledge, brand
image and brand awareness impacts on their target segments. In a globalized world where local preferences
are also playing an important role, brands act effectively in the development of the market demand. Brand
knowledge is a key to evaluate in reaching the consumers and this study has proved the importance of
empirical studies in this respect.
Limitations and Further Research
This study revealed the effects of demographic variables on brand knowledge by evaluating nine
international fashion brands. It is noticed that the brand awareness statements, although they were not
literally translated into Turkish, were difficult to be understood by the students since there was no strict line
to describe them in Turkish. Therefore, for the further studies, it will be useful to describe what is aimed to
gather through these statements in the native language instead of translating the exact statements. It is also
purposeful to compare the brand knowledge of the same brands in different samples and different countries
in future studies.
References
Aaker, D. A. 1991. Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. New York: Free
Press.
Aaker, D. A. 1996. Building Strong Brands. New York: Free Press.
Aaker, J. L. 1997. ‘Dimensions of Brand Personality’. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXXIV (August
1997), 347-356.
Barnard, N.R. and Ehrenberg, A.S.C. 1990. ‘Robust Measures of Consumer Brand Beliefs’. Journal of
Marketing Research, 27 (November), 477-487.
Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Güldem Cerit 13
Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students’ Consumption of International BrandsEuropean and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009)
July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir
Chandon, P. 2003. ‘Note on Measuring Brand Awareness, Brand Image, Brand Equity and Brand Value’.
March 2003, INSEAD Working Paper Series, http://library.nyenrode.nl/INSEAD/2003/2003-019.pdf ,
retrieved on 26 December 2008.
Danesi, M. 2006. Brands. UK: Routledge.
Davenport, T. H. and Prusak, L. 1998. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know.
Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA.
Del Rio, A.B., Vazquez, R. and Iglesias, V. 2001. ‘The Effects of Brand Associations on Consumer
Response’. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 410-425.
DiMingo, E. 1988. ‘The Fine Art of Positioning’. Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 9, Issue 2, pp. 34-38.
Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G.M. 1990. ‘In Search of Brand Image: A Foundation Analysis’. Advances in
Consumer Research, 17: 110-119.
Driesener, C. and Romaniuk, J. 2001. ‘Brand Image? Pick a Measure, Any Measure’. Australian & New
Zealand Marketing Academy 2001, Parmerston North, Department of Commerce, Massey University.
http://smib.vuw.ac.nz:8081/WWW/ANZMAC2001/anzmac/AUTHORS/pdfs/Driesener.pdf , Retrieved
on 26 December 2008.
Driesener, C. and Romaniuk, J. 2006. ‘Comparing Methods of Brand Image Measurement’. International
Journal of Market Research, Vol. 48, Issue 6.
Frings, G. S. 1982. Fashion from Concept to Consumer, 3rd edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Gardner, B.B. and Levy, S.J. 1955. ‘The Product and the Brand’. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 33, March-
April, pp. 33-39.
Grubb, E.L. and Grathwol, H.L. 1967. ‘Consumer Self-Concept, Symbolism, and Market Behaviour: A
theoretical Approach’. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, pp. 22-27.
Guedes, G. and da Costa Soares, P. 2005. ‘Branding of Fashion products: a Communication Process, A
Marketing Approach’. Proceedings of the Association for Business Communication 7th European
Convention, May 2005.
Joyce, T. 1963. ‘Techniques of Brand Image Measurement’. in New Developments in Research, Market
Research Society: London.
Kapferer, J. 1994. Strategic Brand Management. New York: Free Press.
Kaplan, M. D. 2007. ‘Product Appearance and Brand Knowledge: An Analysis of Imperative Relationships’.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Izmir University of Economics.
Keller, K. L. 1993. ‘Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity’. Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57, (January 1993), 1-22.
Keller, K. L. 2003. ‘Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge’. Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 29.
Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. 2005. ‘Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities’.
Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 740-759.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. 2009. Marketing Management. 13th Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Güldem Cerit 14
Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students’ Consumption of International BrandsEuropean and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009)
July 13-14 2009, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir
Leonard-Barton, D. 1995. Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation.
Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA.
Low, G. S. and Lamb Jr, C. W. 2000. ‘The Measurement and Dimensionality of Brand Associations’.
Journal of Product&Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 350-368.
Moran, W.R. 1973. ‘Why New Products Fail’. Journal of Advertising Research, 5-13.
Nandan, S. 2005. ‘An Exploration of the Brand Identity-Brand Image Linkage: A Communications
Perspective’. Brand Management, Vol. 12, No.4, 264-278.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create
the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford Press: Oxford, UK.
Packard, S., Winters, A.A. and Axelrod, N. 1983. Fashion Buying and Merchandising, 2nd edition. New
York: Fairchild Publications.
Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and MacInnis, D.J. 1986. ‘Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management’. Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 50, (October 1986), 135-145.
Probst, G. JB, Raub, S. and Romhardt, K. 2001. Managing Knowledge: Building Blocks for Success. John
Wiley: Chichester, UK.
Richards, I., Foster D. and Morgan, R. 1998. ‘Brand Knowledge Management: Growing Brand Equity’.
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol:2, Issue 1, 47-54.
Ross, S. D. 2006. ‘A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Spectator-Based Brand Equity’. Journal of
Sport Management, 20, 22-38.
Rossiter, J. R. and Percy, L. 1987. Advertising and Promotion Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Roth, M. S. 1995. ‘The Effects of Culture and Socioeconomics on the Performance of Global Brand Image
Strategies’. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXXII (May 1995), 163-175.
Saviolo, S. 2002. ‘Brand and Identity Management in Fashion Companies’. DIR, Research Division SDA
BOCCONI Working Paper No. 02-66.
Sharif, A.M. 2004. ‘Information, Knowledge and the Context of Interaction’. The paper presented at EMCIS
(European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems) 2008, on 25-26 May 2008, in Dubai.
Sharp, B., Romaniuk, J. and Mackay, M.M. 1998. ‘Displaying and Analysing Patterns in Perceptual Data’, in
Comparing Methods of Brand Image Measurement, Carl Driesener, and Jenni Romaniuk., 2006,
International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 48, Issue 6.
Sherry, J. E. 2005. ‘Brand Meaning’, in Alice M. Tybout and Tim Calkins (eds.), Kellogg on Branding: The
Marketing Faculty of the Kellogg School of Management, John Wiley&Sons, Inc., pp. 40-72.
Sveiby, K. E. 1997. The New Organizational Wealth. Berret-Koehler: San Francisco, CA, USA.
Wolfe, M. G. 2003. The World of Fashion Merchandising. Illinois: The Goodheart-Wilcox Company.
Nazli Alimen, Prof. A. Güldem Cerit 15
Dimensions of Brand Knowledge: Turkish University Students’ Consumption of International BrandsYou can also read
