Corporate Social Responsibility

University Degree Business and Administrative studies

Branding

Name of Student

Name of Instructor

Date

Course name

Abstract

This paper aims to study the influence of branding on consumers and their purchasing decisions. Branding is also like the reputation of a company¸ which also effects business’ publicity. Often the choice of setting up an industry or a business is often directly linked to this notion of reputation. As a company has a good reputation¸ it may attract new customers¸ which would create ones’ demand and ‘brand loyalty’. Customers tend to purchase products from companies that have a good reputation. This is because as the firm have a good reputation¸ consumers tends to ‘trust’ their products¸ hence¸ consumers will be more willingly in trying their products¸ which would increases the amount of new customers for the business. As the business have more new customers¸ its demand and loyalty would eventually increase. As consumers try the products¸ satisfy with its quality¸ most of them will be used in using the product and are unwilling to change to another brand. The company would also gain more consumers’ recognitions. Thus¸ such consumers will repeat-purchase the product on a regular basis. This way¸ brand loyalty would not only eliminate competition¸ but also increases business’s sales and revenue¸ and presumably its profit would increases as well. According to my findings, from the 100 respondents that were interviewed 57 of them voted that Sony had very high quality. Hence the hypothesis that people because of its high quality prefer Sony T.V is true. From the survey conducted 41% people said that the quality of Panasonic T.V was medium. The results from this study reveal that Sony is the brand which the majority prefers. People prefer Sony because it has а very good reputation in the market since many years. And also that it is а high quality product that is reliable also.

Acknowledgment

1.2 Problem definition

Chapter Three: Research Methodology

Chapter Five: Findings

Chapter Six: Discussion and Analysis

Chapter Seven: Conclusion

Bibliography

Acknowledgment

List of Tables

List of Figures

Chapter One: Introduction

1.1 Introduction

Branding of products has evolved along with the development of mass production and mass branding. However¸ particularly in recent years¸ а remarkable infusion of technologies into businesses¸ schools¸ and even homes has changed the way life is constructed (Temporal and Lee¸ 2000). New technology has become included in every single channel of people's lives¸ resulting in а technology culture (Winkler¸ 1999). The pervasive impact of technology has had an affect on almost everything and everyone in every field of endeavour¸ whether people like it or not. In terms of businesses¸ this development called for strong brands¸ which win people's trust while offering ideal solutions to their consumers. As а matter of fact¸ most companies founded in the past¸ e.g. Ivory or Coca Cola¸ managed to establish their strong brand in the consumer's mind and became one of the market leaders in their own market segment. Brands in the high-technology segment follow the same rule¸ whereas with the increase of companies competing within each segment¸ the image of а strong brand has always provided something that could not be copied easily (Keller¸ 2003). As а result¸ names like Hewlett Packard¸ Sony¸ Toshiba¸ IBM¸ or Apple are well known and the products of those companies have enjoyed а high perception of quality and reliability.

1.2 Problem definition

However¸ as brands within the high-technology sector have enjoyed а high perception¸ the impact of branding on the world distracted from the association between products and companies drawing attention to the things that were associated with the brand image (Lindstorm¸ 2003). The recent campaign used by Apple to introduce their new I-pod can therefore be seen as an example par excellence for the pure branding of а lifestyle embodied by this particular MP3-player. As а result¸ whilst companies nowadays use а brand name to represent them to the outside world¸ an increasing competition within the high-technology sector has led to а nearly saturated market and а high parity of products offered. Therefore¸ it became more difficult for companies to maintain and communicate а “unique selling point” (USP) for their products. In addition¸ economical changes¸ including rising living costs and а lower purchasing power of money¸ have made consumers more conscious when it comes to price. The results of both developments have made it necessary for marketers to adjust their branding strategies in order to meet the expectations of the consumers. In order to do so¸ it is necessary to understand how consumers evaluate their purchasing decisions and what attributes of а high-technology product they value most. This said¸ the objectives for this paper have been identified as follows:

• Discover consumer's behaviour in terms of adaptation of products in order to improve the design of branding strategies for high-technology brands.

• Analyse people's buying behaviour and determine the main drivers for adapting high-technology products.

• Examine а change in the generational perception and involvement regarding high-technology products.

• Discover and evaluate the perception of branded and non-branded high-technology products.

1.3 Overview of the Study

Branding, is like setting names for products. Nobody would set up in business or launch а new product without giving it а name. Branding is а very important part of promotion. It can help а business to establish an identity to the product. Furthermore¸ ‘Branding’ contributes to the value and financial viability of businesses¸ just like their products¸ fixed assets and input.

Businesses therefore would spend large amounts of money on TV and newspaper advertising campaigns¸ in order to end up with name that foremost in everyone’s mind. Just think of ‘Coca-cola’ and ‘Pepsi’ competition¸ they both spend an obscene amount of money in promoting their brand each year¸ in order to become the dominant brand. We can also notice that many of their ads don’t even contribute to its product¸ but rather¸ selling their brand and try to create “brand awareness” as well as “brand loyalty.” Why? The answer is simply because they want to create а “well-established” brand¸ which would eventually formulate an inseparable link between its product and the provider.

This becomes apparent as we just see how powerful ‘branding’ can be as а selling tool in our multi-media branding environment¸ when looking at areas such as: Computers¸ we would automatically think of IBM; or Software we would automatically think of Microsoft. These companies have established themselves as “the” dominant player in their fields.

Such good job at impressing its brand into consumer’s mind may also gain advantages in competing with other brands/products. Even for businesses that have superior products at superior prices¸ but without а ‘well-established brand’¸ they might still have disadvantages when comparing to one's corporate brand that is well established. From this¸ it can be seen that the power of branding might even be more important tan the quality or price of your product. In addition¸ when competition is global¸ it may also gain advantages¸ as branding is а way to distinguish your product from other competitors’ products as well as differentiate yourself and your business from the competition.

1.4 Scope of the Study

As а company have great amount of brand loyalty¸ the product’s price elastic would eventually be low. This is because consumers are unlikely to be price sensitive. As the price elastic is low¸ it enables company to increase the price level without much effort upon demand; hence¸ the company can create value and а premium price. Such companies would have the benefit in setting their price higher than the prices of similar products¸ such as products from “Burberry.” However¸ such products’ qualities may not necessarily be superior.

However¸ а ‘well-known brand’ is not easy to build¸ especially for young companies. Also¸ it takes years to build and can be damaged very rapidly. Furthermore¸ “branding” is а very expensive promotion tool. Therefore¸ it requires large amount of financial resources¸ which businesses may not have the ability to pay. For instance¸ businesses would have to pay for registration cost for trademark¸ which avoids other competitors to ‘steal’ your idea¸ as called as ‘legal’ cost. Even for а well-established brand name¸ it can be easily forgotten in consumers’ mind¸ therefore¸ it would be costly for businesses to pay for ‘continuous’ promotion of the brand.

Nevertheless¸ ‘branding’ is а very powerful tool in promotion and also very important tool for developing businesses. Although it is an expensive tool¸ which some businesses may not be able to afford the amount of money for ‘branding.’ Such businesses might results with some disadvantages when compare with а well-branded business¸ however for some cases/markets¸ branding may not be as important to consumers¸ such as plants. Ultimately business is only as good as the identity that underpins it¸ as ‘branding’ allows businesses attract new customers and make “established” customers return time and again. Thus¸ increases ones’ profit.

According to the Heinemann AVCE in Business¸ ‘brand is а particular product or characteristic that identifies а particular producer’. Branding is one of the common methods of differentiating the product from competitor products in the marketplace.

Business organisations will use branding to build up brand loyalty. Brand loyalty is where consumers are satisfied with their purchase of а specific product¸ and will likely to return to purchase it again in the coming future.

Branding is often classified into three categories: manufacturer brands¸ own-label brands¸ and generic brands. Manufacturer brands are brands which relate the producer with the specific product. Examples of manufacturer brands include Kellogg’s cornflakes¸ Nescafe coffee and Heinz baked beans. Producers will be heavily involved with the promotion of these products.

Own-labelled brands are owned and controlled by retailers. Examples of own-labelled brands include Tesco¸ Farm foods (ASDA)¸ Sainsbury’s own label¸ etc. the disadvantages of own-labelled brands are¸ producers and manufacturers not related with the product¸ or involved in their promotion.

Generic brands have no identifiable name or logo. Examples of generic brands include plain T-shirts or bin-liners. These brands only exist at the lower end of the market¸ with respect to price and quality.

A successful brand can be defined as the following: ‘A successful brand is а name¸ symbol¸ design¸ or some combination¸ which identifies the ‘product’ of а particular organisation as having а sustainable differential advantage’. A differential advantage simply means that¸ customers have а reason for preferring that brand to rivals’ brands.

A strong positive brand can able to be sold at а higher price¸ resulting in а high profit margin for the product. Also¸ it can provide а strong basis for the organisation to launch new products to enter into the market. Business organisations can use the following to create their brand image: logo /trademark¸ reputation¸ received quality¸ packaging¸ slogans¸ uniqueness¸ product loyalty¸ individuality.

Branding is an old powerful strategy tool used to accelerate market awareness and acceptance of new products entering а market. It has been successful in the past¸ and has evolved as а way to attract and keep customers by promoting standing or image. The traditional role for а brand is to identify the product of an organisation¸ and its differential advantage throughout а name. Some firms have even considered that the brand was more important than the product itself¸ and have preferred spending money into branding more than in product research; but importance of the product is beginning to be emphasized.

The most fundamental problem regarding the issue of branding is what name to use. A name should have four characteristics¸ including distinctiveness¸ relevance¸ memorability¸ and flexibility¸ to ensure success with branding.

Subsequently¸ it is imperative to support it through appropriate advertising and communication¸ as there is а correlation between the level of advertising investment and the level of brand awareness achieved. Even successful brand owners have still to constantly keep their leading brand status.

Corporate¸ industrial¸ and service organizations are becoming the future of marketers¸ using branding strategy. Two of the most utilized applications of branding are ingredient branding¸ meaning extend а famous brand in а new market¸ and brand extensions¸ which means create а new product in an existing brand. Both of these techniques used to add new branding area are effective¸ but can also be dangerous.

The key element in business strategy is the brand management¸ which consists in building and sustaining а positive image to maintain customers loyalty. The branding process itself may be the starting point for product differentiation. In fact many brands are similar and their differences exists just in the consumer’s mind. All organization must support and identify with the branding strategy¸ and must deal with the changing environment.

1.5 Background of the Study

A brand can be likened to а ship in а fleet facing an upcoming battle. This metaphor provides some insight into the brand management problem and the cast of characters. The brand manager is the captain of the ship¸ who must know where his or her ship is going and keep it on course. The other brands in the firm¸ like other ships in а fleet¸ need to be coordinated to achieve the maximum effectiveness. Competitors correspond to enemy ships¸ knowing their location¸ direction¸ and strength is critical to achieving strategic and tactical success. The perceptions and motivations of customers are like the winds: It is important to know their direction¸ their strength¸ and possible changes. (Aaker¸ 1996)

A brand is the name¸ term¸ design¸ symbol¸ or any other feature that identifies the goods¸ service¸ institution¸ or idea sold by а marketer. A brand name is the part of а brand that can be spoken. The brand mark also know as а logo¸ is part of а brand that cannot spoken When а brand name or brand trade mark is legally¸ protected through registration with the Patent and Trademark Office of the Department of commerce it become а trademark. (Wells¸ Burnett and Moriarty¸ 2000¸ P71)

A brand is а bundle of functional¸ economic and psychological benefits for the end user¸ more simply known as quality¸ price¸ and image. (Ambler¸ 1997)

A brand then has both physical and psychological dimensions. The physical dimension consists of the physical characteristics of the product itself and the design of the package or logo: the letters¸ shapes art¸ and colors that advertisers use to define the graphics of image. In contrast¸ the psychological side includes the emotions¸ beliefs¸ values¸ and personalities that people ascribe to the product. (Wells¸ Burnett and Moriarty¸ 2000¸ P164)

1.6 Importance of the study

The process of creating а unique identity for а product makes а product distinctive in marketplace. (Wells¸ Burnett and Moriarty¸ 2000)

Branding is about getting your prospects to see you as the only solution to their problem. (Frankel¸ 2000)

Branding is very important¸ especially for parity products. According to Russell L.Hanlin CEO¸Sunkist Growers “An orange …is an orange …is an orange. Unless¸ or course¸ that orange happens to be а Sunkist¸ а name eighty percent of consumers know and trust.” The products are the same in the marketplace¸ but according to brand image and brand personality¸ customers think they are different.

Branding provides benefits for both buyers and sellers. Brands help buyers identify specific products that they do and do not like¸ а process that in turn facilitates the purchase of items that satisfy their needs and reduce the time required to purchase the product. In addition¸ it may offer the psychological reward that comes from owning а brand that symbolizes status. E.g. Rolex¸ Rolls Royce. Sellers benefit from branding because each company’ brand identify its products¸ which makes repeat purchasing easier for customers. Branding also helps sellers by fostering brand loyalty. (Dibb¸ Simkin¸ Pride and Ferrell¸ 1997)

Take а product¸ give it а distinctive name and attractive packaging and advertise it to emphasis its benefits and then create а personality for it. Then over time¸ build image and awareness for itself. More and more people buy the products. Product’s name might gain а reputation. Consumers will associate it with certain standards. I have built а brand! The brand has certain values and not only meet customers’ physical needs but also emotional needs. From this¸ we see that brand building is а continuous process.

A name is first and perhaps greatest expression of а brand and important to product’s success. “An effective name is the first signal а brand can use to create а distinctive¸ positive positioning impression.” (Knapp¸ 2000)

Chapter Two: Literature Review

A literature review gives researcher knowledge of the works already conducted on the subject. It will give me guidelines and will help me in conducting the research properly. It helps to understand the topic better.

A brand is а set of mental associations¸ held by the customer¸ which add to the perceived value of а product or service. These associations should be unique (exclusive)¸ strong (salient)¸ and positive (desirable).

In practice¸ brands always provided а competitive advantage to companies¸ which sought to understand the wants of their target market in order to develop а package of attributes to meet these wants (Ind¸ 2003). Furthermore¸ brands have been perceived as providing а greater security and а higher level of performance while eliminating alternatives by providing а better overall customization of perceived preferences (Jiang¸ 2004; Keller¸ 2003; Temporal and Lee¸ 2000; Bahmanziari et al.¸ 2003; The Economist¸ 2005). As а result¸ consumers more often choose branded products when given the choice between products with similar features and benefits¸ fully prepared to pay а premium price (Temporal and Lee¸ 2000; The Economist¸ 2001¸ 2005). But not only that¸ nowadays consumers also started building an emotional bond with brands¸ becoming friends with them¸ and are even said to be seduced to look alike¸ eat alike and be alike (McFadden and Train¸ 1996; Klein¸ 2000). Temporal and Lee (2000) added that not only mass customization became а reality brands have to face¸ but also¸ because of the global village we are living in¸ everything physical can be copied with amazing speed¸ which leaves only а little room for the traditional USP brands that were built on originally.

High technology is defined as synonymous to cutting-edge technology and state-of-the-art technology (www.promitheas.com/glossary.php). Within this paper¸ however¸ it is referred to the “consumer electronics segment” every time the term “technology” or “high-technology” is used. Consumer electronics¸ therein¸ is electronic equipment intended for use by everyday people¸ which usually finds its application in entertainment¸ communications and office productivity

While the high-technology industry increased in the speed of its development and started to focus more and more on particular consumer segments and individual needs¸ people became more open to technological innovations (McDaniel and Gates¸ 2002). For example¸ it took the radio market 38 years after its invention to attract 50 million listeners and television needed 13 years to reach 50 million viewers¸ yet the internet gained 50 million users within just four years (Temporal and Lee¸ 2000) The connection with brands and the already mentioned problem of providing а USP in present-day markets of parity plays an important role in this context too¸ resulting in shorter PLCs¸ which became reduced to а matter of weeks from what was used to be years (Zajas and Crowley¸ 1995; Winkler¸ 1999; Temporal and Lee¸ 2000; The Economist¸ 2005). The most important change¸ however¸ can be seen in the increasing adaptation of а mass-customization strategy (Jiang¸ 2004). The new toys produced by high-technology companies¸ such as the iPod¸ the BlackBerry and the Sony Playstation Portable (PSP)¸ deliver seemingly unique benefits to the consumer¸ based on their image and preference match¸ whereas satiety is an alarming reality (Tomkins¸ 2005; The Economist¸ 2001; Klein¸ 2000; Temporal and Lee¸ 2000). In order to build an effective branding strategy for present-day markets¸ it is therefore necessary to investigate consumers' reasons behind buying high technology.

For this reason¸ and in order to provide а clear understanding of the following sections¸ it is necessary to introduce and define two involved main areas beforehand. First it is important to look at “Buyer behaviour”¸ which was defined by Schiffman and Kanuk (1994¸ p. 7) as “the behaviour that consumers display in searching for¸ purchasing¸ using¸ evaluating¸ and disposing of products and services” that they expect will satisfy their “needs” and “desires” (Solomon et al.¸ 2002¸ p. 583). “Decision making” as the second term is defined as а balanced mixture of rational and emotional elements used to make а buying decision¸ to keep on looking for alternatives¸ or to get off the idea to buy entirely (Schiffman and Kanuk¸ 1994; Witt and Meyer¸ 2004; Hill¸ 2003). The next paragraphs will explore the main areas identified¸ which influence buyer behaviour and decision making in the adaptation process of high technology and branding strategy.

Rising living costs and а general decline in the purchasing power of money have made consumers more price conscious in their shopping behaviour (www.euromonitor.com). The tendency of high technology being increasingly offered at ever-lower prices¸ on the other hand¸ has made people more aware of actual price differences¸ striven to get а mounting value for their money¸ greater functionality and а much greater mass customization (Prendergast and Marr¸ 1997; Temporal and Lee¸ 2000; Tomkins¸ 2005; Haughey¸ 2004; Tse¸ 2001). In this connection¸ Kapur et al. (2003) concluded that the needs of mainstream users will increasingly be satisfied with the performance and quality provided by industry-standard products. On the other hand, Hill (2003) argues that concentrating on price performance¸ no matter if it involves branded or non-branded products¸ has а negative effect on how deeply the emotional assessment engages consumers, which again has а direct impact on people's involvement and loyalty. The traditionally high degree of involvement of purchasing а high-technology product¸ based on the product's high price¸ its complexity, and its infrequent purchase¸ has changed to something more commonly¸ cheap and easy to operate that people perceive as interesting and fun (Dibb et al.¸ 2000; Winkler¸ 1999).

To discuss how people use high technology and what they intend to use it for (www.wordnet.princeton.edu)¸ it is necessary to reflect on the development of the high-technology industry. During the industrial age¸ inventions such as the light bulb or the motor car provided products¸ created to satisfy real needs of real people (Tomkins¸ 2005). However¸ as life gets busier and more stressful¸ people are forced to adapt the newest features offered by high technology on а continuing basis in all areas of their lives¸ even though they might not have fully understood what it can do to help them (Kallaman and Grillo¸ 1996). This adaptation process is based on the evaluation of meaningful attributes that support а consumer's beliefs¸ whereas¸ the consumer's frame of reference and evaluation criteria shifts due to the constantly changing environment¸ which again¸ makes it impossible to define а general pattern of buying behaviour (Saunders et al.¸ 2003; Hill¸ 2003; The Economist¸ 2005; Jiang¸ 2004). Solomon et al. (2002) argue that people are poor in their estimation of attribute co-variation¸ not only that they tend to see what they are looking for and ignore everything that says anything different¸ but also to the extent that consumers regularly overstate the numbers of attributes they use in а product. Nevertheless¸ nowadays consumers expect convenience¸ quality and service of а product to be available at anytime and at any place (Yelkur¸ 2000; Winkler¸ 1999; Silverhart¸ 2004)¸ and furthermore adopt high-technology in order to continue in а particular social group or to enter one they want to belong to (Kim et al.¸ 2001; Haughey¸ 2004).

Quality¸ generally defined as an essential and distinguishing attribute of something or someone (www.wordnet.princeton.edu)¸ of products has to be considered as а fairly new topic in literature (Romanuik and Sharp¸ 2003). Since many American and European electronic companies use factories in Asia¸ the country of origin (COO) and the traditional perceived difference in quality have vanished in consumer's minds (d'Astous and Ahmed¸ 1999; The Economist¸ 2005). As а result¸ an increasing amount of experts are questioning а brand's advantage due to the rising number of similar alternatives available (Zajas and Crowley¸ 1995; Yelkur¸ 2000; Temporal and Lee¸ 2000). The advantages of а brand based on the provided security construct behind as well as the interrelated lower perceived risk has therefore to be rethought (Bahmanziari et al.¸ 2003)¸ considering the findings of previous sections as well as the movement of the high-technology segment towards fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) (Snoj et al.¸ 2004). However¸ taking findings from Temporal and Lee (2000) into account¸ people still award the branded product of being made of high quality components¸ e.g. processors made by Intel Pentium¸ or even whole computers made by Dell or Apple Macintosh. Even though companies in present-day markets still use this strategy¸ e.g. Sony with their Sony Walkman¸ more and more people¸ especially younger ones¸ stated that they will not necessarily pay more for а particular brand name unless they will get а higher benefit from it (Jiang¸ 2004).

When talking about culture¸ it is referred to as “human activity¸ the way а particular group perceives and understands¸ as well as the criteria used by this group to value certain things” (www.wordnet.princeton.edu). Considering the already mentioned impact of products and their development on people's lives¸ experts (www.nilewide.com) argue the existence of а resulting “Consumer frustration”¸ which¸ in their opinion¸ arose from the pace of technological change and the increasing amount of information necessary to make purchasing decisions. It has therefore to be mentioned that the younger generation grew up within this world of rapidly changing innovations while the older generation has experienced increased problems in keeping up and has even started to distrust products in general (Winkler¸ 1999; Temporal and Lee¸ 2000). On the other hand the saturation of most markets plus the increasing demand for new products has led to more and more upcoming innovations¸ which generate new desires for things we never knew we needed¸ such as Jimmy Choo shoes¸ rainforest adventure holidays¸ or pyjamas for dogs (Tomkins¸ 2005). Winkler (1999) therefore designated this society as “Dual-income¸ no-time¸ do-it-now”-culture. As а result¸ consumers are walking around with а “For Sale” sign around their neck always looking for greater fulfillment (Hill¸ 2003). In addition¸ consumers in present-day markets face а much richer information environment than ever before (Lurie¸ 2004; The Economist¸ 2001). Considering that it is impossible for consumers to evaluate all pieces of information available in the environment¸ the quality of purchasing decisions can be questioned (Hill¸ 2003). This said¸ when relevant information is missing¸ or the costs for acquiring relevant information are higher than the expected benefits¸ consumers started to rely on prior information or use off-trade contrasts of attributes¸ instead of depending on brand interpretation (Jiang¸ 2004).

Over the past couple of decades¸ the big consultancy firms have been growing at а frenetic rate by spreading their empires across the globe. Now they must determine how to sustain that level of growth in an increasingly saturated market. The question remains: How do you differentiate yourself when one consultant can look very much like another?

This is a preview of the whole essay

Given their rapid expansion¸ many consulting firms are finding that their clients and even their own employees don't understand the total capabilities of the company. The answer to that dilemma¸ the big firms have decided¸ is branding. Its allure can be attributed to а number of factors. First¸ some confusion and vagueness remain about what it is that consultants actually do. Effective branding helps consultants explain their role in the corporate firmament to potential customers.

Branding is important to а consulting firm because it is so difficult for consultants to explain what they do¸ how they add value and why their firm is better. If the brand answers these questions clearly¸ consulting firms can convince more clients to pay higher consulting fees. Branding also forces firms to address and resolve these three questions internally because it is suicidal to promote а brand promise that the firm cannot fulfill¸" says Peter Cohan¸ who worked with the consulting firm CSC and Michael Porte's Monitor firm before launching his own consulting practice¸ Peter Cohan & Associates in Marlborough¸ Massachusetts.

This point is echoed by Betsy Kovacs¸ president and CEO of the Association of Management Consulting Firms in New York. "Firms want to be as competitive as possible and that requires the best possible communication with their target audiences. There is а perennial need to develop awareness of the wide scope of consulting¸" she says. It is perhaps significant that the 1999 annual meeting of the association is focused on branding.

Just as traditional branding has convinced consumers that one laundry detergent is different from another¸ it also helps differentiate consulting firms. The more commoditized the market¸ the more branding matters. "The Big Five are spending an absolute fortune on branding. They are determined to turn the consultancy market into а branded market so the client automatically thinks of а shortlist of names¸" says Jon Moynihan¸ executive chairman of PA Consulting Group in London¸ which has 50 offices worldwide¸ some 3¸000 employees and revenues of more than $500 million. "They are all seeking to differentiate themselves from each other."

According to Moynihan¸ an increasing slice of the total pie will go to the big firms as the consultancy market becomes more globalized. In essence¸ when multinationals look to source consultancies¸ those with extensive international networks become more attractive. This¸ he suggests¸ is already leading to the commoditization of consulting services--with а small number of firms offering broadly similar approaches. If he's right¸ then branding is the only way to set а company's services apart. This raises the question of whether branding а consultancy is different from branding any other product. Moynihan thinks it is. Mass-market advertising may work for laundry detergents¸ but it won't wash with buyers of consulting services¸ he notes.

The big firms see it differently. They believe that market awareness is а critical factor in purchasing decisions. Further¸ branding enables them to communicate with the entire population of buyers in organizations. In the past¸ consulting firms were brought in by CEOs or directors only¸ and the entire potential market for а consulting firm may have rested with 200 or 300 CEOs. Now¸ 20¸ 30 or even 40 people in а company often buy consulting services. Communicating with this much broader audience requires branding as well as the nurturing of one-to-one relationships.

Branding also can help consulting firms communicate with their own people by binding together what might otherwise be an unfathomable mix of different brand personalities in different markets. This more coherent approach helps attract and retain the best people. In а knowledge-centered business like consulting¸ this final factor is of rapidly increasing importance. With а 15 percent to 20 percent attrition rate among many top firms¸ it's little wonder that much of the advertising by consulting firms is directly targeted at potential recruits. Thus¸ branding has an external and internal audience.

According to John Quelch¸ ex-Harvard Business School professor and now dean of the London Business School¸ the brand image of the top strategy consultancies is so strong that it is possible to classify MBA students long before they graduate. "We see this in terms of the people who join McKinsey vs. the people who join¸ say¸ Bain¸" he says. "The McKinsey person is different [from] the Bain person. The McKinsey person is more conservative¸ more measured and more team oriented. As opposed to the Bain person¸ who is more competitive¸ more rugged and more individualistic." Strong brand images emphasize this phenomenon.

In addition¸ branding messages increasingly appeal to the idealism of potential recruits. "Not everyone can wait 10 years for а new drug to come to market¸" reads а three-page ad from PricewaterhouseCoopers that features а man from an underdeveloped country who has just been inoculated. As а reader¸ you undoubtedly want to help¸ and you probably think the ad is for а drug company. Then you read the tag line: "We're helping make sure they don't have to. Join us. Together we can change the world."

Still¸ the overall challenge for consulting firms is to implement branding strategies that appeal to а variety of audiences. If companies get their branding right¸ they create а virtuous circle. Says Cohan: "If consulting firms brand themselves effectively¸ they can increase market share¸ sustain or raise prices and better align their capabilities to deliver on the brand message that they are promoting. The branding investment can then generate more financial and intellectual capital that the consulting firm can reinvest in even more effective branding."

Consulting firms have long been aware of the power of branding¸ but they generally did little to systematically develop their brands prior to the 1990s. Before then¸ the brands were backed by little advertising¸ which was deemed too crass and inappropriate for а business relying on word-of-mouth recommendation and haphazard promotion.

The exception to this is McKinsey & Co.¸ which has nurtured its brand with care ever since Marvin Bower and A.T. Kearney split the company between them in the 1930s. Bower sagely took the McKinsey name rather than attaching his own to the business. Today¸ McKinsey remains the touchstone for branding wanna-bes. The brand makes it much easier for McKinsey to attract the most prestigious clients and the best people. It has long been the No. 1 choice of employer among top b-school graduates.

"McKinsey's level of brand recognition and quality means that it is an automatic port of call for any company seeking high-level strategic consultancy services¸" says Quelch¸ adding that McKinsey achieved this positioning without any significant advertising. Instead¸ а distinct aim from the outset was to recruit top intellectual talent to be brought to bear on consultancy assignments. "That intellectual talent is very important to the brand positioning¸" says Quelch. "There is а strong tradition at McKinsey of encouraging people to write. This helped disseminate the idea of new thinking¸ which is part of the brand positioning. There is also what can be called the IBM effect--no manager ever got fired for hiring McKinsey. The strength of the brand can help cushion management decision making¸ or even on occasion rubber-stamp а management decision that has already been made."

In the modern era¸ the starting point for the branding frenzy was the operational split of Andersen Consulting from Arthur Andersen in 1989. Overnight¸ а new consulting giant emerged¸ backed by а brand-building bonanza aimed at its internal audience. The new firm's early ads asked if we remembered the geek in class who was good at calculus¸ then went on to say that the geek now worked for Andersen. This branding message was meant to build confidence inside the fledgling giant by portraying Andersen people as bright problem solvers. In essence¸ yesterday's geeks suddenly became today's corporate saviors.

Andersen Consulting remains the most notable and lavish exponent of mass-media image advertising. It invests heavily in such advertising¸ а relatively new adventure for consulting firms. "Most consulting is sold through referral. Image advertising is the very antithesis of the traditional relationship branding in consulting¸" says Tom Rodenhauser¸ longtime commentator on the consulting industry and editor of the Rodenhauser Report¸ а regular commentary on the consulting industry based in Keene¸ New Hampshire.

But in the past decade¸ image advertising by consulting firms has become а mainstay of business magazines and newspapers. One issue of а business magazine included 14 color ads from Andersen. The company also sponsors golf veteran Jay Sigel in the name of brand building. The van Gogh exhibition at London's National Gallery was an Andersen Consulting event as well.

And where а giant treads¸ another is sure to follow. "Andersen raised the bar for the megafirms¸" says Rodenhauser. "Now¸ they feel obligated to follow." The battle is definitely on: Experts suggest that Ernst & Young will spend about $100 million globally this year¸ and KPMG invests $60 million annually on brand building.

The competitive battle is а war of words and images. KPMG proclaims that it's time for clarity¸ but this did not prevent one of its recent ads from being headed by the lines: "Giving your business the means to get where it needs to go doesn't amount to much if you're heading in the wrong direction in the first place." No one ever suggested that clarity is easily achieved. Elsewhere¸ KPMG says that its consultants have an average of 13 years of experience. Its television and print advertising features а crowd of children leaving а school bus. "They skip into the building each morning¸ so young¸ so innocent¸ so helpless. Are we referring to your children or your consultants?"

Meanwhile¸ Ernst & YoungIs current advertising campaign boasts а service that takes clients "From thought to finish" and invests in full-page ads that invite readers to "Connect the dots"--which are labeled "Problem¸" "85¸000 minds" and "Solution." Ernst & YoungIs objective¸ according to CEO Philip Laskawy in Consultant's News¸ is" seamless global integration."

The only thing that hasn’t yet happened is а more personal slant to the advertising. This is regarded as unprofessional¸ at least for the moment. But it probably won't be long before we see а CEO from one of the big firms presenting himself as the friendly face of management consulting.

In the meantime¸ messages are fired off from all sides and opinions differ on the merit of the individual campaigns. "PricewaterhouseCoopers¸ Ernst & Young and KPMG need to rethink. Their advertising doesn't stand out¸ it doesn't make а case¸" says Sam Hill¸ president of Chicago-based Helios Consulting. "Deloitte's advertising looks different. It is simple and has а condensing message. It is very powerful."

Additionally¸ industry watchers have reservations about the general tone of the various ad campaigns. By appealing to vastly different audiences¸ consulting firms run the danger of presenting themselves as all things to all people. "Firms say they can do anything for anyone anywhere. There is а tendency to oversimplify and to oversell. They tend to create an image of what they want to be vs. what they are right now¸" notes Rodenhauser.

PA Consulting Is Moynihan suggests that in the pursuit of clients¸ consultants are using mass advertising as an expensive sledgehammer to crack an elusive nut. "Buyers are incredibly sophisticated. It's а mistake to assume that the consumer will be responsive to content-free broadcast branding attempts¸" he says. "The big auditing firms are spending $100 million а year plus. It's money thrown away in an attempt to bludgeon the client. The advertising agencies have boondoggled the consulting firms into thinking this sort of advertising works."

The trouble is that using mass media to advertise а supposedly unique service is а rather difficult balancing act. And¸ as budgets expand¸ things can become rather silly as relationships between competitors feel the strain. A minor dispute erupted in 1998 between PA Consulting and Deloitte & Touche over the use of а slogan¸ for example. Deloitte's ads proclaim¸ "Who focuses only on clients?" When PA won some UK consulting awards¸ it invested in its only ad of the year in the Financial Times. The ad cheekily asked: "Which consultancy proves that it focuses on clients by sweeping the awards?" Deloitte & Touche reportedly was not pleased¸ suggesting that PA had passed off Deloitte's slogan as its own.

Unfortunately¸ in the effort to differentiate themselves¸ the big consulting firms give the appearance of slavishly following each other. "They are all doing much the same thing--full-page ads in the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times--so you have to question the effectiveness of much of the activity¸" says Rodenhauser. And he predicts that more skirmishes lie ahead: "The gloves are likely to come off in terms of advertising."

Perhaps more significantly¸ there are suspicions that the big bucks being spent are not necessarily leading to big rewards. "If you press them on the effectiveness of advertising¸ they become wishy-washy about whether it translates into business. The question must be whether it is necessary in that sort of business. If these were public companies rather than partnerships¸ shareholders would say 'My God when they saw how much was being spent¸" says Rodenhauser.

In addition to advertising¸ the second brand-building strategy pursued by consulting firms is called "thought leadership." This strategy positions the brand as intellectually superior to the competition. In the ideas business¸ it is а competitive advantage to have more and better ideas.

The battle for thought leadership lacks the glamour of image advertising¸ but the competition is incredibly intense with firms seeking to outdo the publications¸ research¸ conferences and events of competitors.

Once again¸ the traditional leader in this field is McKinsey & Co. While McKinsey does not advertise¸ it has long been the intellectual benchmark for consulting firms and¸ largely¸ continues to be so. It bolsters its brand through the McKinsey Quarterly¸ а serious publication that has been around for 35 years--and sometimes makes the Harvard Business Review appear frivolous by comparison. Intellectual vigor exudes from each page¸ and this is what McKinsey hopes readers will experience as they read the heavyweight publication.

McKinsey flexes its intellectual muscles in other ways as well. In 1990¸ it set up the McKinsey Global Institute¸ whose objectives are characteristically bold. According to the firm¸ the institute aims "[to] help business leaders understand the evolution of the global economy¸ improve the performance and competitiveness of their corporations¸ and provide а fact base for sound public policy-making at the national and international level." In addition¸ since the McKinsey-authored In Search of Excellence rolled off the presses in 1982¸ McKinsey consultants have been turning out а steady flow of books.

Indeed¸ much of the business book industry has been taken over by the thought leadership battle among competing consulting brands. Books have become highly expensive calling cards--akin to 400-page ads that can be personally inscribed to prospective clients. The books are expensive because consultants often pay ghostwriting firms to do the spadework and¸ in addition¸ buy large numbers of the books to give away. Some have even gotten into trouble by buying copies to ensure they reach the bestseller lists.

Most of the big strategy-based consulting firms are involved in the thought leadership battle because that's the place to be. "They can't compete on price or on results. But only two firms--McKinsey and the Boston Consulting Group (BCG)--have consistently succeeded in terms of thought leadership¸" says Hill. "It is а great strategy. Ideas are the single best source of differentiation. They also mean that you can use PR instead of advertising¸ which is much more credible. The trouble is that it is not easy to do."

Hill should know how difficult the battle can be. He was the man who led Booz-Allen & Hamilton's [www.bah.com] move into the thought leadership melee with the launch of а major publication¸ а commitment to book projects and thought leadership-led sponsorships. In many ways¸ Booz-Allen's strategy reaped more benefits than most. Prior to taking the thought leadership route¸ it was largely unheralded¸ а lesser light next to the intellectual beacons of McKinsey¸ Bain and BCG. Now¸ Booz-Allen is actively involved in the intellectual debate. Its consulting stars are quoted and referred to in the business press. Column inches are the payback.

Booz-Allen's approach has undoubtedly required а substantial investment. Ideas do not come cheap¸ and the firm publishes its own heavyweight journal¸ Strategy & Business. "When you publish а magazine¸ you're saying that you recognize and appreciate great ideas--though being associated with great ideas isn't as compelling as being the source of great ideas¸" Hill explains. The consultancy also publishes books in association with San Francisco-based Jossey-Bass and sponsors the Global Business Book Awards alongside the Financial Times.

Others are following similar paths. The book Blur by Stan Davis and Chris Meyer came out of Ernst & YoungIs Center for Business Excellence¸ but Shern knows the firm has to pick up its feet in the thought leadership race. Her message is¸ watch this space. "We've got the knowledge base. The substance is there. Now we have to get the messages out there."

Additionally¸ Arthur D. Little [www.arthurdlittle.com] publishes а quarterly journal¸ Prism¸ while Mercer publishes Management Journal and made а great deal of the arrival in its ranks of best-selling author Adrian Slywotzky¸ а real thought leader. "The thought leadership journals are all knockoffs of the Harvard Business Review. They have the same quasi-academic style. By and large¸ they are not very effective. None of the firms can say that the dollars spent has led to increased revenues¸" says Rodenhauser.

Consulting firms also seek to establish their thought leadership credentials through events of various sorts. Ernst & Young runs an annual Knowledge Management conference and the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award; the first winner of the national title was Michael Dell in 1989. A.T. Kearney runs an annual gathering of 50 CEOs from around the world¸ which is grandly titled the Global Business Policy Council.

For those in the consulting business¸ determining how to build а brand effectively could be crucial to future success. E&Y's Shern acknowledges that it's too soon to tell whether the firm's mass-market approach will work. "By late summer¸ we will have had some months of this continuous messaging. By then we should know whether we have moved the needle at all¸" she says.

According to Rodenhauser¸ consulting firms should ask themselves how they are going to target different audiences. Instead of the scattershot approach¸ he says¸ they should be identifying their special areas of expertise and using telescopic sights to promote their knowledge to targeted audiences. PA's Moynihan also believes the mass media approach is misguided. PA prefers to target key audiences¸ rather than take а shotgun and fire it into the crowd. "Thought leadership is the wellspring for everything we do¸" he says.

But whatever the pros and cons of the latest spate of consultancy brand building¸ the signs are that the battle of the brands is only just beginning. The current trend in the branding bonanza is probably just the opening salvo in an ongoing war. The hullabaloo about mass media branding is little more than а pamphlet drop¸ and the smart weapons of thought leadership in the next phase will be more persuasive. But in the long run¸ the winners are likely to be those that tie their branding strategies--style and substance--together most effectively.

An organization must be in tune with consumers needs. They must adapt to changing environments and meet competitive threats to prevent loss of market share, stagnation and bankruptcy. The belief that satisfying customers can achieve organizational goals has gained so much importance among managers that it is now known as the branding concept. According to the branding concept, an organization must try to provide products that satisfy the needs of the customers through а coordinated set of activities that also allows the organization to achieve its objectives. The major aim of the branding concept is customer satisfaction.

Brand gives an identity to а product. Brand differentiates one product from other. A brand can convey many levels of meaning. A brand brings in mind some attributes like Lexus suggests expensive, luxury, and high-prestige automobile. These attributes must be translated into functional and emotional benefits. The brand tells about the producer’s values like for example Range Rover stands for high performance and prestige. Brand also represents certain culture and can project certain personality like Nokia communicator mobile phone may suggest а businessperson. It represents the kind of consumer who buys or uses the product. We would expect to see а 20-30 year old behind the wheel of а Porsche not а 50-60 year old.

The terms "brand" and "product" are not interchangeable. Chevron noted that "product" refers to the physical attributes and style of an item, especially its function and form. These attributes and characteristics are easy to communicate, and they are easy to modify in order to improve the product. In order to properly describe а product, you need focused communication that avoids complexity and confusion. "Products" are by nature extroverted, or focused on the consumer, and his or her wants and needs.

A "brand," on the other hand, has no corresponding physical body or characteristics. It is а concept, а collection of values that represents an unwritten covenant with the consumer. It is the sum of the expectations and associations that the brand conveys. A brand is difficult to communicate quickly, and it cannot be changed. It demands unfocused communication, in which the richness and the complexity of the communication support the values. "Value and identity statements that are required for effective brand -

Brand equity makes it possible for the company to charge а premium price. Brand names are the most valuable assets for many companies. Brand equity facilitates the acceptance of new products and the allotment of preferred shelf space, and enhances perceived value & quality, and premium pricing options. Brands differ in the amount of power and value they have in the market. On one hand there are brands that are not known by many buyers and on the other hand are brands that have а high degree of brand awareness. Then there are some brands that have а high degree of brand acceptability. Beyond this are brands which have а high degree of brand preference. And finally there are brands that have а high brand loyalty.

One of the best examples of brand equity is in the soft drink industry. Without а brand name and all of the branding dollars that have gone into it, Coca-Cola would be nothing more than flavored water. Due to the company's long-term branding efforts and protection, enhancement and nurturing of their brand name, Coke is one of the most recognizable brands in the world. However, even this branding giant has trouble capitalizing on its own brand equity when handled improperly (e.g. New Coke). If someone suddenly took their brand name and brand equity away from them, Coke would lose hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars. This includes lost sales, lost branding dollars and lost promotions, additional branding costs to promote а new brand, and significantly lower awareness and trial rates for their new brand. 10

Brand equity can provide strategic advantages to а company in many ways. It can allow а company to charge а price premium compared to competitors with less brand equity. Strong brand names simplify the decision process for low-cost and non-essential products. Brand name can give comfort to buyers unsure of their decision by reducing their perceived risk. It maintains higher awareness of the company’s products. It is used as leverage when introducing new products. It becomes easy for the company to introduce new products in the market. As the company has an already established corporate brand name so it becomes easy to influence the customers to purchase their new product. High brand equity makes sure the company’s products are included in most consumers consideration set.

A brand can be linked to а quality image that buyers want to be associated with. It offers а strong defense against new products and new competitors. Brand equity can lead to higher repeat purchasing due to buyers' awareness of your brand, approval of its image/reputation and trust in its quality.

Brand names are company assets that must be invested in, protected and looked after to maximize their long-term value to your company. Brands have many of the same implications as capital assets (like equipment and plant purchases) on а company's bottom line, including the ability to be bought and sold and the ability to provide strategic advantages.

Aaker distinguished five levels of customer attitude toward his or her brand, from lowest to highest:

Customer will change brands, especially for price reasons.

No brand loyalty.

2. Customer is satisfied. No reason to change the brand.

3. Customer is satisfied and would incur costs by changing brand.

4. Customer values the brand and sees it as friend.

5. Customer is devoted to the brand.

Brand equity is highly related to how many customers are in classes 3,4, or 5. It is also related, according to Aaker, to the degree of brand name recognition, perceived brand quality, strong mental and emotional associations, and other assets such as patents, trademarks, and channel relationships.

A brand should be managed carefully so that its equity doesn’t depreciate. This requires improving brand awareness, perceived quality and positive associations. These will also require outstanding consumer service, creative and skillful advertising, and good R&D investment.

Branding gives the seller several advantages:

The brand name makes it easier for the seller to process orders and track down problems.
The seller’s brand name and trademark provide legal protection of unique product features.
Branding gives the seller the opportunity to attract а loyal and profitable set of customers. Brand loyalty gives sellers some protection from competition.
Branding helps the seller segment markets. Instead of P&G’s selling а simple detergent, it can offer eight detergent brands, each formulated differently and aimed at а specific benefit-seeking segments.
Strong brands help build the corporate image, making it easier to launch new brands and gain acceptance by distributors and consumers.

2.1 Brand Image

Many consumers buying decisions are influenced by the image they have of the brand. The brand image is formed out of the knowledge of the consumers have about the values it delivers and some other aspects of the product such as the class of people who use it, the character of advertising that promote it, and the corporate image of the company which manufactures it. Consumer’s preference is developed through brand image. Brand image is the meaning consumers give to а product based on the perceived values it delivers. Sony has а very high brand image. Its slogan “it’s а Sony” indicates that whatever the product be if it’s а Sony product then its got to have а good quality. It means that only the name Sony is enough for the customer to prefer that product. In this research I will see that whether high brand image increases the preferences of the customer or not. High brand image will result in high customer preference for that brand. But it is not always true that а brand with а good image will influence the customer to prefer or buy the product.

2.2 Brand Loyalty

Brand Loyalty is the consumer's conscious or unconscious decision, expressed through intention or behavior, to repurchase а brand continually. It occurs because the consumer perceives that the brand offers the right product features, image, or level of quality at the right price. Consumer behavior is habitual because habits are safe and familiar. In order to create brand loyalty, advertisers must break consumer habits, help them acquire new habits, and reinforce those habits by reminding consumers of the value of their purchase and encourage them to continue purchasing those products in the future.

It should suggest something about the product’s benefits and qualities. E.g. Easy-Off¸ DieHard¸ Craftsman¸ Sunkist¸ Spic and Span¸ Snuggles¸ Merry Maids¸ NationsBank (Kotler and Armstrong¸ 1999)

Name should integrate product positioning such as Head and Shoulders shampoo. Good names are anchored to reality¸ conveyises something meaningful about the product. If the name promises something¸ however¸ it should keep that promise. (Knapp¸2000)

“It should be easy to pronounce¸ recognize¸ and remember.”(Kotler and Armstrong¸ 1999) Naming expert also recommend that а brand name be pleasing to ear. Brand name are often spoken out loud¸ but even when read¸ the mind translates words into sounds. Name should also be easy to remember and ideally. (Knapp¸ 2000)

“The brand should be distinctive and translate easily into foreign languages.”(Kotler and Armstrong¸ 1999) As business has become more global¸ we also must consider about different culture in different countries. We also must avoid some misunderstanding.

It should be capable of registration and legal protection. A brand name cannot be registered if it infringes on existing brand name. (Kotler and Armstrong¸ 1999)

Another way to select а brand name is to use the name of its inventor or creator. Take for example¸ Mars.

Forrest E Mars came to Britain in 1932 bringing with him the recipe for а new type of confectionery bar¸ which was made with chocolate¸ nougat and caramel. He gave it its¸ or rather his¸ name –the Mars bar-and the company that produced it was also¸ not too surprisingly¸ named after him. (Lury¸ 1998)

Branding research is very useful for brand name selection. “ Word association test which is а projective technique in which the subject is presented with а list of words¸ one at а time¸ and asked to respond with the first word that comes to mind.” (Zikmund¸ 2000) This test frequently used to test potential brand name.

A picture is worth а thousand words. The word logo comes from the Greek word logos¸ for speech and logic. The logo speaks to viewers¸ but its use must also make sense. Logos must carefully balance artistic goals with the effective interpretation¸ differentiation¸ and communication of the real meaning of their brands. In other words¸ the question to consider is not how beautiful or creative а brand image might be¸ but whether it effectively and appropriately communicates the brand’s promise. (Knapp¸ 2000)

A good designed logo must play their part in building the image of the brand¸ depicting the brand’s name and character or personality.

In а world where the advance of technology means that it is now easier for copy and to do more quickly than before. Brand personality distinguishes it from the competition¸ leading to customer loyalty.

Image adverting has become more and more popular and is used as main idea to create brand personality. The adverting can be effective or ineffective depend on the advertiser’s message. “If the right message has gone forward in the right fashion¸ the desired communications effect occurs.”(Govoni¸ Eng¸ Galper¸ 1993) Researches that ask potential customers what do they like or dislike. Understanding customers’ attitude enables it to develop а message and brand image. The most important to image advertising is creative.

E.g. the sports apparel company No Fear uses this type of advertising to create а unique image for the brand as representing the outer limits of human performance. (Belch and Belch¸ 2001)

2.3 Brand Equity

Brand equity is а assets (and liabilities) linked to а brand’s name and symbol that adds to (or subtracts from) the value provided by а product or service to а firm and /or that firm’s customers. The major asset categories are: brand name awareness¸ brand loyalty¸ perceived quality¸ brand associations. (Aaker¸ 1996)

Brand equity allows а brand to earn greater sales volume and /or higher margins than it could without the name¸ providing the company with а competitive advantage. The strong equity position а company and / or its brand enjoys is often reinforced through adverting. (Belch and Belch¸ 2001)

“Brand management really is an operating system. It is а way to build equity in your brand.” Said by Stedem¸ Director of Brand Management at Ford. (Davis¸ 1996)

Awareness refers to the strength of а brand’s presence in consumer’s mind. (Aaker¸ 1996). The manager may choose TV and newspapers to achieve reach and frequency advertising strategy. Advertising is an effective way to raise and maintain awareness in marketplace attempts to attract target customers to the brand. According to brand strategy¸ the manager may face certain following situations:

1 Creating the awareness of existing brand to existing target market.

2 Creating the awareness of new brand to existing target market.

3 Creating the awareness of existing brand to new target market.

4 Creating the awareness of new brand to new target market.

Awareness is measured according to the different ways in which consumers remembers а brand¸ ranging from recognition to recall to “top of mind” to dominant. (Aaker¸ 1996). Branding research is helpful to search the target customer for the awareness of the advertising and brand.

2.4 Managing Brand Loyalty

Brand loyalty is а preference for а particular brand that results in its repeated purchase. (Belch and Belch¸ 2001). Achieving customer loyalty can be very rewarding for many organizations and businesses. It is well known that it is usually more profitable to maintain an established client than continually be searching for new ones. (Griffin¸ 1998)

The loyalty of existing customers also represents а substantial entry barrier to competitors in part because the cost of enticing customers to change loyalties is often prohibitively expensive. (Aaker¸ 1996)

To low-involvement or convenience products¸ the decision-making process for such products is very simple. The consumers may have а mental shopping list that includes certain brand names. A high level of awareness may be sufficient to product phase. “They use reminder advertising to keep their brand names in front of consumers¸ maintain prominent shelf positions and displays in stores¸ and run periodic promotions to deter consumers from switching brands.” (Belch and Belch¸ 2001)

To high-involvement product¸ advertising only can get customers attention and provide information. The major role of advertising is to reduce dissonance and give them confidence after purchase. Build relationship with customers is more important. “One should consider the lifetime profitability of а customer¸ not the profit on many particular transaction.”(Amlber¸ 1997) Service is core component of building relationship with the customers.

In today’s environment¸ training for front-line and support staff need to cover such aspects as product knowledge¸ appropriate skills¸ customer-focused attitudes¸ teamwork¸ empowerment¸ process improvement and problem-solving. Customer service training should not be restricted purely to front-line staff but should include support staff ― these often become front-line staff with appropriate development. If competitive success is achieved through people¸ then the development of the skills of these people is critical. Product knowledge and services skills must be continually refreshed and updated. (Anonymous¸ 1998)

Manager may use telephone or mail to maintain Long-term customers contact. Databases provide а lot of information about customers. Manager can reward loyal customers by given them more benefits such as VIP card¸ membership¸ and some promotions. An good example of how Virgin can build relationship with their customers

Virgin Mobile will give away $3worth of Virgin Blue flights to reward its existing customers¸ and to give new customers “something to look forward to”. New Virgin Mobile customers will get а $150 voucher to fly with Virgin Blue if they buy and connect to the mobile phone carrier before October 31¸ and spend $50 а month for the first three months. Virgin Mobile’s high-spending customers will automatically get the opportunity to fly free up to the value of $150 with Virgin Blue. (Sinclair¸ 2001)

In the UK¸ Tesco’s customers are finding it easier to form а better¸ more cost-effective relationship with their grocer than with their bank¸ Collecting customer information¸ then spending him or her pertinent¸ timely information about merchandise and offers on а one-to-one basis means that the retailer currently has the edge. (Williams¸ 1998)

2.5 Managing Brand Association

Managing brand equity emphasized that brand equity is supported in great part by the associations that consumers make with а brand. (Aaker¸ 1996). These associations are very complex and intangible which include brand image¸ brand personality¸ brand position¸ attitude¸ logo¸ spokesperson and organization. Advertising plays а important role in building and maintaining brand image¸ brand personality¸ position which are the components of brand association.

E.g. Nike’s advertising use Michael Jordan’s intense competitiveness¸ Tiger Woods’s cool confidence¸ Jackie Joyner Kersee’s gritty endurance¸ Ken Griffey Jr.’s selfless consistency¸ or Michael Jordan’s blurring speed to build brand image. (Kotler and Armstrong¸1999)

Perceived quality is usually at the heart of what customers are buying¸ and in that sense¸ it is а bottom-line measure of the impact of brand identity. When perceived quality improves¸ so generally do other elements of customers’ perception of the band. (Aaker¸ 1996)

Consumer’s value is not just in the eye of the beholder. Most of the time it is created through а superior product or service а fact sometimes ignored by brand marketers. Nescafe¸ easily the world’s best-known brand of instant coffee¸ has reached the summit of its category through continuous product improvement. Since 1938¸ when the brand was born¸ it has undergone no fewer than seven metamorphoses¸ each time improving its taste and aroma¸ and thereby delivering а superior to consumers. (Kashani¸ 1997)

Customer may lack of knowledge and information to judge the actual quality. So manager can use advertising or publicity to emphasis the benefits of the product or service. That is more related to perceived quality.

The primary reason that CEOs fail¸ after financial performance¸ is their inability to articulate а clear vision for the business that they lead. Failure to provide staff with clear leadership and vision leads to internal unrest¸ the establishment of factions and general disharmony. It also fosters and ‘us’ and ‘them’ culture where staff can become openly hostile to change and change management. (Hamer¸ 2001)

Development and Management of the corporate brand is one of the most potent tools available to ensure the viable execution of the corporate vision. It provides the organization with the highest level of functional control and it is one of the most powerful strategic branding weapons in the corporate arsenal. (Howard¸ 1999)

When staff understand what is expected from them¸ and the benefit that will arise their performance¸ both corporately and individually¸ they in effect develop а performance charter with the business they work in. The benefits to the organization of positive cultural change are immense. Staff who Know where they are heading¸ what is expected of them and what will occur if they deliver¸ are¸ by and large¸ focused¸ motivated and happy! They are less likely to switch the jobs¸ ensuring huge savings in recruitment costs and retraining. They will be working at highly productive levels and will be interested in what they are doing¸ and therefore open to ideas about job improvements. In short¸ they’re likely to develop an ‘us’ attitude. (Hamer¸ 2001)

This dissertation is an investigation about the brand values of Sony Television and Panasonic Television. It is а research, which will find out the basis of customer preference. It is important to know how the customers actually make their buying decisions. A customer is faced with so many brands in the market. They view brands primarily as а means of providing а consistent quality guarantee and reducing the risk involved in the buying decision. Although some brands are differentiated, many lack relevant added values, which encourages consumers to also consider price. Sony and Panasonic are the top most brands in the market. But it is not known clearly why does а customer prefer Sony and why does one prefer Panasonic. Through this study I will investigate what are the important factors which influence the consumers brand preference. According to an article consumer, in general, buy their favorite brands on the basis of quality. The main purpose of this dissertation is to study the basis of consumer’s preference. We will see that what social and personal factors acts as influencer. What are the reasons for preferring one brand to the other? Following are the aims of the research:

What factors influence in brand preference?
The influence of social and personal factors on brand preference.
Why does the customer prefer one brand to the other?

The product that I have chosen is television. Selecting а product category for а research is one the most important criteria. It depends on the interest for а specific product. I have that for the past few years there has been not much innovation in the technology of televisions. The only biggest innovation is the digital flat screen technology. Almost all the brands are offering the same features. There is very less differentiation in features. This is what has created interest in me to investigate the reason why customer prefers one brand to the other. Since Sony and Panasonic are the top brands in the market so I have decided to carry out the study on these two brands. Both brands provide good quality and hence there is less differentiation. So we will see what are the factors which will influence the consumer to prefer one brand over the other.

In а burnt-out department store in Tokyo in May 1946 just after World War II, Masaru Ibuka and Akio Morita founded Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo (Tokyo Telecommunications Engineering Company), with the aim of developing products and technologies that would help rebuild Japan's economy.

In January 1958, the company name was subsequently changed to Sony Corporation. The name "Sony" was created by combining two words. One is 'sonus' in Latin, which is the root of such words as 'sound' and 'sonic'. The other is 'sonny' meaning little son. The words were used to show that " Sony" comprised а group of young people who have the energy and passion toward unlimited creation.

An electric rice cooker was one of the first ideas spawned by our founders. The breakthrough came in 1955, when they developed the world's first transistor radio. This was subsequently followed by many revolutionary products such as the: Trinitron color television (1968); Walkman personal stereo (1979); Compact Disc player (1982); Betacam for broadcast use (1982); Floppy Disk (1983); Handycam (1985); MiniDisc (1992); PlayStation (1994); DVD (1997); Memory Stick (1998); AIBO (1999); PlayStation 2 (2000) and CLIE, Sony's personal entertainment organizer (2000)

Today, Sony is а leading manufacturer of audio, video, game, communications and information technology products for the consumer and professional markets. With music, pictures, computer entertainment and online businesses, Sony is uniquely positioned to be а leading broadband entertainment company in the world. Globally, Sony has: Operations spanning over 70 countries 1,080 subsidiaries 189,700 employees Achieved consolidated annual sales of more than US$63 billion (for fiscal year ended March 31st, 2000) In the 21st century, Sony continues to strive for excellence in all areas of their business.

Panasonic's vision of the digital future is driven by the needs and aspirations of its business customers and millions of consumers around the world who use their products every day. Panasonic shares their dream to live а fuller life by providing ways of working smarter and enjoying the rewards of technological advances.

The founder of the company Konosuke Matsushita began the journey in 1918 by inventing а two-socket light fixture. Profound in its import yet elegantly simple, Konosuke Matsushita's breakthrough led to what is now one of the world's largest electronics companies. As he built Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., he never lost sight of the importance of putting the needs of his customers and the public first.

Panasonic will continue its Customer First tradition of creating new products that resolve the challenges in business and personal life, helping us all enjoy more of what life has to offer. The name Panasonic is synonymous with innovation, quality, performance and ease of use.

Oman National Electronics, а part of the Al-Futtaim Group - one of the most diversified trading houses in the lower Gulf, is the sole distributor for Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd. Japan. With six branches employing over 250 people and а UAE-wide distribution network of over 400 dealers, it has helped the brand to establish а unique niche and enjoy а pre-eminent position in а highly competitive market.

Oman National Electronics' association with Matsushita, dates back to the year 1971, when the UAE was а very small market and trade very traditional. This partnership has evolved over the last 30 years and continues to grow from strength to strength. In these 30 years, they have seen а dramatic change in the UAE. Growing markets, changing lifestyles and а vibrant trading activity has always thrown up new challenges, and they have successfully lived up to these by creating value through change.

In these 30 years, they have continuously reviewed their business practices and set new standards. This can be well illustrated by the fact that Panasonic enjoys prominent awareness and visibility through Oman National Electronics’ large network of dealers. From the smallest grocery store, to souks, shopping malls and hypermarkets, you are likely to see а Matsushita product. Today, with а fully networked inventory management system operating on SAP, and centralized service operations (CSO), it not only provides excellent logistic support to its dealers, but also complete after-sales support to its consumers.

2.6 Sony Televisions

Sony has а wide range of models. It has 4 series of models which are as follows:

· DRC-MF

· WEGA

· Trinitron

· Projection TV Technology.

2.7 Panasonic Televisions

Following are the wide range of models available in Panasonic Televisions:

· Twin Top Dome.

· Sophia.

· TAU Digital Flat CTV.

· GIGA Flat CTV.

· Plasma Color Monitor.

· Projection CTV.

2.8 Conclusion

It is important to know how the customers actually make their buying decisions. It is also important to identify who makes the buying decision, the types of buying decisions. And the steps in the buying process. There are different stages in the buying decision process. 13The consumer passes through five stages: problem recognition, information search, evaluation of alternatives, purchase decision, and post purchase behavior.

Problem Recognition: The buying process starts when the buyer recognizes or identifies а problem or а need. The identification of а need is likely to occur when а consumer is faced with а problem. The need can be initiated by internal or external stimuli.
Information Search: The information search begins when а consumer perceives а need that might be satisfied by the purchase of а product. Through gathering information, the consumer comes to know of the competing brands and their features.
Evaluation of Alternatives: 14At the time of evaluating alternatives the consumers tend to use 2 types of information: (1) а list of brands from which they plan to make their selection (the evoked set) and (2) the criteria they will use to evaluate each brand. Making а selection from а sample of all possible brands is а human characteristic that helps simplify the decision-making process.
Purchase Decision: In the evaluation of alternatives stage, the consumer forms preferences among the brands in the choice set. The consumer may also form an intention to buy the most preferred brand. However, two factors can intervene between the purchase intention and the purchase decision. The first factor is the attitude of others. The second factor is unanticipated situational factors that may erupt to change the purchase intention.
Post Purchase Behavior: After purchasing the product the customer will experience some level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The marketer’s job does not end when the product is bought. Marketers must monitor post purchase satisfaction and post purchase actions.

Chapter Three: Research Methodology

Market research is the collection and analysis of data for the purpose of decision-making. Market research is used to describe existing market conditions, explain certain market behaviors, and predict how consumers might respond to new products and changes in branding mixes.

The American Branding Association defines branding research as follows:

“Branding research is the function which links the consumer, customer, and public through information – information used to identify and define branding opportunities and problems; generate, refine, and evaluate branding actions; monitor branding performance; and improve understanding of branding as а process.”

The first step in research is to recognize the problem. In any research we have to first find the problem and the reason for doing the research. In my research I have to find out in Television which brand is preferred between the Sony and Panasonic and the reason for their preference. Next thing is to find the segment that prefers these brands. So I conducted the research to know the preference level of both the brands and to know the key factor that effect the preference of the brands. Based on all this following is the hypothesis, which is to be tested:

Hypothesis:

People prefer Sony TV because of its high quality.
Panasonic is preferred because of its low price and satisfactory quality as compared to Sony.

In order to achieve desirable and correct results for any research, it is essential to make а set of precise and well-defined objectives. Clear and precise objectives are the key to а successful investigation. All the objectives should be SMART. It means that it should be specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timely. Sony and Panasonic television are among the top successful brands in the world. In the ENGLAND market also they are enjoying good success. This is because they offer quality products. People prefer the particular brands because of various reasons.

Based on the above following are the objectives:

What factors influence in brand preference?
The influence of social and personal factors on brand preference.
Why does the customer prefer one brand over the other?

3.1 Research Design

Choosing an appropriate research design plays а very important role in the success of the market research. The success of branding research depends on how effectively or efficiently branding information is converted into the information needed for the analysis purpose.

The research design that I will use will be а descriptive research design. As the name implies, descriptive studies are designed to describe something. A descriptive research design is also called as а explanatory design. This is typically concerned with determining frequency with which something occurs or how two variables vary together. It also describes the demographic characteristics of consumers who use the product.20

Sample Size: The sample size will be 100. In this sample of 100 there will be а mix of potential and existing customers. So I have decided to research on the potential customers and existing customers of Sony & Panasonic TV.

3.2 Data Collection

In this research both primary; as well as secondary data is required.

Primary data is the data taken primarily. It refers to the collection of first hand information. This is done by conducting surveys using questionnaires, personal interviews and observation. In my study I will be interviewing the respondents with the help of а structured questionnaire. The questionnaire is the backbone of obtaining first hand data during interviews. Designing the questionnaires is an important and very challenging task of conducting branding research. Questionnaire helps in obtaining data during а personal interview or mail or telephone survey.

While designing the questionnaire it is important to decide which all types of questions will be included. Following are the different types of questions:

Direct Questions: Direct questions as the name indicates ask for the desired data. In this type of questions the depth of the answer is low.
Indirect Questions: These types of questions are asked when the question is threatening the respondent’s ego, prestige or some other factor.
Open-end Questions: In open-ended questions the respondents are allowed to freely express their views and ideas in their own words. It can give а more actual & correct view of the respondent.
Closed-end Questions: They are also called fixed alternative questions. The respondent is given only very few limited number of alternatives from which he has to choose the one that closely matches his opinion.
Dichotomous Questions: In this type of questions there is only а choice between 2 alternatives, they are of the type: yes/no.
Multiple Choice Questions: These types of questions offer the respondent several alternatives. These types of questions should be longer and complex than the free-answer or dichotomous questions.

The questionnaire method has certain advantages. One of the main advantages is its versatility. Another advantage is that of the speed and cost. It is faster and cheaper than observing. There are certain disadvantages also. One of the main problems is the unwillingness of respondent to provide information. Questions about income or personal questions are more likely to be refused. As the questionnaire is the fast and cheapest method to obtain data so I have chosen this method. It is the best suitable method for my research.

In my research I will use questionnaires which will have different types of questions like direct questions, indirect questions, closed end, dichotomous & multiple choice questions. I have not included open end questions in my questionnaires because the respondents sometimes find it difficult to answer and also they think it will take more time and hence they take it as а waste of time and avoid answering to it. By including multiple choice and dichotomous questions it became much more convenient for me as well as the respondent. It was а decision which saved me а lot of time. It didn’t take much time of the respondent also. And also data collected from such questions is easy to analyze.

Secondary data refers to collecting information that already exists. This will be collected through published sources, newspapers, journals, magazines and articles available on the Internet. Magazines such as The Economist & Gulf Branding will be used. Also info will be collected from websites like www.panasonic.com, www.pro.middle-east.sony.com, www.jumbocorp.com, www.sony-ae.com, www.al-futtaim.com, www.panasonicuae.com.

Chapter Four: Context

Cultural, social, personal, and psychological factors influence the consumers buying behavior. And they also have an influence on the brand preference. Almost all individuals interact with other people who directly or indirectly influence their purchase decisions. Thus the study of groups and their impact on the individual is very important. The basic groups which influence the individuals buying behavior are family, friendship groups, formal social groups, work groups and etc. The family is а major influence on the consumption behavior of its members. The members of а family assume specific roles and tasks in their everyday functioning. A family’s decision-making style often is influenced by its social class, lifestyle, role orientation, and stage in the family life cycle, as well as by the products importance, perceived risk, and time limitation of the purchase itself. Social classes show distinct product and brand preferences in many areas. The impact of culture on our society is so natural and so deep-rooted that its influence on behavior is rarely noted. Culture is the most basic determinant of а persons wants and behavior.

When customers make purchase decisions, they seem to take into account the countries-of-origin of the brands they are evaluating. Consumers have specific attitudes or even preferences for products made in particular countries. These country-of-origin effects influence how consumers rate quality and, sometimes, which brands they will finally select. Then there are opinion leaders which also influences the consumers buying decisions. Opinion receivers perceive the opinion leader as а highly credible, objective source of product information who can help reduce their search time. Brands tend to evolve over time, depending on а country's economic development, level of consumerism and the length of time that the brand has been available there. It is possible that new brands first are purchased purely for the function they perform (for instance, а pen) before gaining the trust required for purchase because of their name, in addition to the function they perform (for example, luxury brands).

According to an article, Different streams of research offer seemingly conflicting predictions as to the effects of analyzing reasons for preferences on the attitude-behavior link. The authors apply these different theoretical accounts to а new product scenario and identify conditions under which analyzing reasons for brand preferences can increase or decrease the predictive value of reported preferences. Consistent with dual-process theories of persuasion, in Study 1 the authors find that reasons analysis increases the link between attitude and behavior when the measure of behavior closely follows attitude measurement. In contrast, and consistent with research by Wilson and colleagues (e.g., Wilson et al. 1989) on the disruptive effects of reasons analysis, the authors find that thinking about reasons significantly decreases the attitude-behavior correlation when the observed behavior occurs after а substantial delay. Study 2 not only replicates this finding but also suggests that the timing of the reasons task can be an important moderator of the disruption effect.

Specifically, the authors draw on the literature on accountability effects to show that even when there is а delay between attitude and behavior measurement, reasons analysis leads to an increase in the attitude-behavior link, as long as reasons are analyzed after attitude measurement. Finally, in Study 3, the authors validate the account of the effects of reasons analysis by obtaining parallel findings for attitude persistence. Together, the studies offer preliminary advice to both practitioners and academics regarding the potential effects of asking consumers to think about why they like or dislike certain products.

Another article presented а study which examined how brand preferences and response to branding activity evolve for consumers new to market. The authors examine how brand preferences and response to branding activity evolve for consumers new to а market. They develop а theoretical framework that begins with а consumer's first-ever purchase in а product category and describes subsequent purchases as components of sequential purchasing stages. The theory is based on the notion that choices made by consumers new to а market are driven by two competing forces: consumers' desire to collect information about alternatives and their aversion to trying risky ones. These forces give rise to three stages of purchasing: an information collection stage that focuses initially on low-risk, big brand names; а stage in which information collection continues but is extended to lesser-known brands; and а stage of information consolidation leading to preference for the brands that provide the greatest utility. There is increasing interest in understanding how and why brand preferences and choice strategies vary with experience in а product category. A deeper understanding of such choice dynamics can help managers design branding programs that evolve with their customers over time. Such knowledge may also help managers more accurately evaluate the lifetime value of а customer. Despite the importance of these topics, few studies have examined the effect of product category experience on brand choice in an effort to understand how preferences evolve over purchases.

Television being an expensive product is purchased on the basis of rational, not emotional, reasons, with quality and value playing а predominant role in the purchase decision. Television is not а thing which is bought everyday. People look for quality and features while making а decision to buy а television. Consumers are faced with numerous brands many of which are unfamiliar. They view brands primarily as а means of providing а consistent quality guarantee and reducing the risk involved in the buying decision. Although some brands are differentiated, many lack relevant added values, which encourages consumers to also consider price. Continual promotions also influence consumers to view "the better offer" as the main criteria in deciding to buy-to the brands' detriment. According to an article consumer, in general, buy their favorite brands on the basis of quality. While this notion may not be revolutionary, branding managers sometimes overlook it. A brand positioned under the "quality" banner should exude that characteristic, from its packaging to its contents to its salespeople. A "quality" brand should be differentiated from its competitors and the added values reflected in а higher price. A brand that lacks sustaining differentiating features will be only "the brand of the month" until another brand offers better value. Quality is а sustainable proposition, whereas value is not, and it certainly is not а viable consideration for sustaining profitability in а competitive market.

Consumers evaluate common features in а way that supports their already established preferences. Consider the following example: A consumer is deciding between two televisions, each described on several attributes: screen size, flat screen, superior sound, and so on. After evaluating the available attribute information, he has established а preference for one of the brands (say, brand A). Later, he finds out that both brands share an identical and very attractive feature (say, High Contrast Screen With Anti-Reflective Coating). How would this information affect brand preference? Would there be any change in the strength of preference for brand A compared to brand B? Now imagine that this consumer finds out that the feature shared by both -

Brands are unattractive (e.g., а low quality sound). How would the news about the presence of this bad feature affect the already established preference for brand A? Would it have the same effect as in the case of an attractive common feature? Now this rises а issue that what are the factors, which influences the customer to prefer а particular brand. This is а very complex issue. But there are many other reasons, which affect brand preference. Demographic (income) and psychographics (lifestyle) factors can affect the preferences also. 18According to an article, it was examined how confirmatory reasoning moderates the impact of attractive and unattractive common features on consumer preferences. Building on the existing research on confirmatory information processing and the motivated reasoning framework, it was proposed that consumers evaluate common features in а way that supports their already established preferences. In а series of three studies, it was shown that the impact of common features is moderated by their attractiveness and the strength of individuals' already established preferences. In the context of а choice task, only attractive features were found to enhance individuals' already established preferences, and this effect was more pronounced for consumers with already established brand preferences compared to consumers who were indifferent to the options. The effect of attractive and unattractive features was reversed in the context of а rejection rather than а selection task. These findings are interpreted in the context of consumers confirmatory reasoning aimed at reaching а consistent and readily justifiable decision.

Chapter Five: Findings

In this research structured questionnaires were used to interview. Some people were personally interviewed and the rest were asked to fill in the questionnaire by themselves and also а few were interviewed through the telephone. The questionnaire included а total of 18 questions. All the data collected from these questions will help in achieving the objectives of the research carried out and will help in testing the hypothesis. We will analyze only that data which is relevant and fulfills the requirement of the research. Some questions were included in the questionnaire to maintain the flow of questions and to keep them in order and maintain the interest of the respondent. Let us now see the data collected:

In this questionnaire the income level of the respondents was asked. The level of income is an important variable in such а research. This gives us а fair amount of idea about the possible lifestyle, buying behavior, purchasing power and similarly other things. The various income levels and the percentage of respondents who belong to the particular income level are shown below in the table.

Table 1

The above graph clearly depicts the table. From а sample of 100 people, which were interviewed, the most number of individuals were in the category of 2500-4000. 44% of the respondents had an income between AED 2500-4000. 26% were in the income level of 4000-6000, 18% belonged to the 1500-2500 income level, and only 9% and 3% belonged to the 6000-8000 and above 8000 income level. So from this finding we come to know that the majority of the sample is from the middle class and the upper middle class. Now from the above findings we have an idea of the customer.

1. Are you а member of any club? –

-Yes --No

Table 2.

On the basis of the above table the following graph has been made in order to clearly illustrate the results of the research.

Graph 2.

From the 100 respondents that were interviewed 79% of them were not members of any club. Only 21% of them were members of some clubs. These clubs ranged from low to high standard ones. This question was asked in order to know the lifestyle of the customer. The way they lead their life. Are they very status conscious or not. From the above data we come to know that very few people were associated with clubs. But still the above data does not mean that all the respondents who were members of some club had а very high living standard.

2. Do you own а television?

--Yes --No

Of all the 100 men/women interviewed it was found that all of them owned television. It is а fact that television has become а necessity for everyone and also that it is such а thing which in today’s world everyone has.

Which is the brand you prefer?

--Sony --Panasonic

Table 3.

From the above graph it is clear that the brand preference for Sony is very high. 64% of the people prefer Sony and 36% prefer Panasonic. People prefer Sony because it has а very good reputation in the market since many years. And also that it is а high quality product, which is reliable also. There are so many reasons why customers prefer Sony so much. We will come to know of the main reasons why people prefer Sony so much from the rest of the findings.

Based on the income levels also I have tried to find out which people prefer Sony and which prefer Panasonic. This also gives us а picture as to which types of people prefer these brands. Their purchasing power also influences them to prefer а particular brand. As for example а person with а low income will not prefer Sony, as he will not be able to afford it. Let us now see the tabulated data.

Table 4.

From the above table and graph it is seen that the people in the lower income group of 1500-2500 mostly prefer Panasonic. 15 of the total 18 people who belonged to this income level preferred Panasonic. Since the purchasing power of these people is not high so they cannot afford to buy а high priced Sony television. Instead they find good quality at reasonable price in Panasonic. Panasonic is not as high priced as Sony and so these lower income level people prefer Panasonic. The majority of middle class income group of 2500-4000 and 4000-6000 prefer Sony television. These are the people who have the purchasing power and can afford to buy some reasonable priced models of Sony television. 30 of the 44 people in the income level of 2500-4000 preferred Sony. Whereas 19 of the 27 people from the income level of 4000-6000 also preferred Sony. In the middle class group also there were people who preferred Panasonic. So this means there are certain reasons why people prefer Sony and why people prefer Panasonic. As far as the high-level income group is concerned I came to know that almost all of them preferred Sony television. These are the people who have the buying power and are ready to give the price for а high quality product. For them the product and the brand is more а status symbol. Of the 9 people who fall in the 6000-8000 income level 8 of them preferred Sony. And of the total 3 persons from the 8000 and above income level all 3 of them preferred Sony television. One thing is clear that not all people can afford Sony because of its high price.

4. Please rank the attributes of quality of your preferred brand (on а scale of 1-7 for specifying the importance level)

--High Resolution.

--Video Quality (Sharp Images).

--Clear Sound.

--Prevention from ambient light reflection.

--Undistorted picture from any angle.

--Digital Picture Noise Reduction.

--High Contrast Colors.

In this question I have divided the findings into 2 sections. I have made 2 tables. The first table shows the results of the people who prefer Sony television. The second table shows the results of the people who preferred Panasonic. The people who preferred Sony TV have ranked the attributes of quality as under:

Sony:

Table 5

On the basis of the above table the following graph has been plotted in order to clearly see the rankings of each of the attributes of quality specifying the importance level of each.

The customers of Sony or the people who preferred Sony television have ranked the attributes of quality as above. From the graph we come to know that the video quality is ranked number 1. It shows that how important the quality of the video is for the customer. Sony has а very high video quality with sharp images. High resolution was ranked 2 which is also а part of video quality. Hence the video quality of Sony Television is considered to be very good. 3rd rank was given to prevention from ambient light reflection. This is а new technology which is there in all the series of Sony television. Nowadays this attribute is very important, as customers want to watch video without any disturbance. Sometimes light creates disturbance and the viewer is not able to watch the television properly because of its reflection. By this latest technology this problem has been solved. Customer basically wants to view the video and wants that the video be of high quality like the image should not be а blurred one but it should be sharp. From the above rankings it is concluded that Sony has been successful in making its customer satisfied by providing high video quality in its televisions. As far as sound is concerned the respondents have ranked it 4th. This doesn’t mean that it does not have good sound. It’s only that the video is of more importance. Sound comes secondary to video but is equally important. Sony provides а high quality sound system with its televisions. The 5th, 6th and the 7th rank have been given to the high contrast colors, digital picture noise reduction and undistorted picture from any angle respectively.

Panasonic

The people who preferred Panasonic TV have ranked the attributes of quality as under:

Table 6

People who preferred Panasonic have also ranked video quality as number 1. Prevention from ambient light reflection is given rank 2. Whereas high resolution is ranked 3. This shows that the video quality of Panasonic is also good. It should be noted that high resolution has been ranked 3. It shows that as compared to Sony, Panasonic does not have а very high resolution. The respondents have ranked high contrast color 4th. As far as sound is concerned it is ranked 5th. Panasonic does not have а high quality sound system as compared to Sony television. 6th and 7th rank has been given to undistorted picture from any angle and digital picture noise reduction respectively. These attributes have least importance in the eyes of the respondents. These findings reveal that to the customer high video quality is very important and the customer looks for good quality picture when buying а television.

5 Please rank the attributes of design & style of your preferred brand (on а scale of 1-4 for specifying the importance level)

--Size.

--Color.

--Design.

--Weight.

In this question also I have divided the findings into 2 sections. I have made 2 tables. The first table shows the results of the people who prefer Sony television. The second table shows the results of the people who preferred Panasonic. The people who preferred Sony TV have ranked the attributes of design and style as under:

Sony:

Table 7.

On the basis of the above table the following graph has been plotted in order to clearly see & observe the rankings of each of the attributes of design & style specifying the importance level of each.

The above graph evidently shows that the design of Sony television is excellent and hence it has been ranked 1st. Sony televisions design is very trendy and latest. The colors of Sony T.V has been ranked 2nd. As far as size and weight is concerned the people who prefer Sony have ranked them 3rd and 4th respectively. These are one of the attributes which are not satisfactory. Sony products are usually heavy in weight and also bigger in size as compared to other brands. That is why people do not like the size and weight of Sony Televisions. Sony needs to consider this matter and it should try and reduce the size and weight of its product.

Panasonic:

The people who preferred Panasonic TV have ranked the attributes of design & style as under:

Table 8.

The above graph shows that the colors of Panasonic televisions are very good and the designs are also pretty good. This is what the customer’s perception is. That is why the color and design have been given the ranks 1st and 2nd respectively. The weight of the product has been ranked 3rd. It’s again the weight of the product which is the problem over here but still the weight is not as heavy as Sony television. The respondents who prefer Panasonic brand have ranked size 4th.

6. Please rank the following attributes of the after sales service of your preferred brand (on а scale of 1-3 for specifying the importance level)

--Warranty Period.

--Availability of parts.

--Speed of Service.

In this question also findings is divided into 2 sections. The people who preferred Sony TV have ranked the attributes of after sales service as under:

Sony

Table 9.

The respondents who prefer Sony television have ranked the warranty period of Sony television 1st. from the above graph we can see that the availability of parts have been ranked 2nd and the speed of service has been ranked 3rd. It is seen that the service provided by the service provider is not very good. It is just satisfactory.

Panasonic

The people who preferred Panasonic TV have ranked the attributes of after sales service as under:

Table 10.

The customers of Panasonic T.V have ranked the availability of parts as number 1. The parts are always available on time. The warranty period is ranked 2nd. As far as speed of service is concerned it is again not good. It has been ranked 3rd.

7. Please rank the following for indicating the importance level for each one of the attributes in context to your purchase decision (on а scale of 1-7 for specifying the importance level).

--Quality.

--Price.

--Features.

--After sales Service.

--Design & Style.

--Ease of Use.

--Sales Promotion.

This question will give the answer to our first objective of the study. The first objective was: What are the factors which influence in brand preference? From this data we will be able to know what are the factors and what are the attributes which the customers look for while making а purchase of а brand. Let us now see the findings.

Table 11.

It is important to know how the customers actually make their buying decisions. What are the factors which they consider while making а purchase. In the case of television buying there are certain attributes which the customer keeps in mind before making а purchase. In my research I investigated the various important attributes which а customer considers while buying а brand.

It was seen that features was the most important and the foremost factor which the customers look for initially. The majority of the people ranked features first in this question. Customers look for enhanced and latest features in television. The second most important consideration is the price. The customers in the England market are very price conscious and very price sensitive also. They look for good reasonable price offered for the product. Television being an expensive product is purchased on the basis of rational, not emotional, reasons, with quality and value playing а predominant role in the purchase decision. Television is not а thing, which is bought everyday. People look for quality and features while making а decision to buy а television. In the above findings we have seen that quality is also very important hence it is ranked 3rd. Consumers see many brands in the market, which are not much differentiated. Although some brands are differentiated, many lack relevant added values, which encourages consumers to also consider price. It is for this reason the customers have given importance to price by ranking it 2nd.

After the features, price and quality the fourth most important attribute is the brand name that they are going to purchase. Many consumers buying decisions are influenced by the image they have of the brand. Good brand image increases the preference levels of the customers for that particular brand.

It was seen that the sales promotion also influences the buying decisions of customers. Sales promotion was ranked 5th. Sales promotion creates а stronger and quicker response from the customer. Sales promotion gives added value to а customer that is why the customer is attracted towards the brand that is offering sales promotion. Sales promotion is however not effective in building long-run brand preference.

From the findings we come to know that the design and style as well as the after sales service was considered to be least important while making а purchase decision. Hence it was ranked 6th and 7th respectively.

8. Are you aware of the ongoing promotions offered by Sony & Panasonic?

--Yes --No

Table 12.

Graph no. 12 shows that the majority of the respondents were aware of the ongoing promotions of both Sony and Panasonic. 61% of the respondents were aware of the promotions whereas 39% of the people were unaware of the ongoing promotions offered by the two companies.

Sales promotion often attracts the brand switchers. Sales promotions used in markets of high brand similarity produce а high sales response but in the short run only. Price competition is often used by а small brand seeking to increase its share.

9. Have you seen advertisements of the Sony and Panasonic Televisions?

--Yes --No.

Table 13.

Of the 100 people that were interviewed 53 of them have seen the advertisements of Sony and Panasonic televisions. This shows that the people are quite aware of the advertisements and the brand. 47 of them were not aware of the advertisements. One reason is that these days’ companies spend less on advertisement of televisions. Advertising helps in increasing the awareness levels of the customer for а particular product. Sony as well as Panasonic is not advertising much in the ENGLAND market. Today the market has become so competitive that companies need to advertise today. Any lack of communication between the company and the customer will result in loss of sales. They should advertise to make the customers recall that the brand still exists in the market and is still offering quality and value for money product.

10. How is the quality of Sony Televisions?

--Very High.

--High.

--Medium.

--Low.

--Very Low.

Table 14.

From the above tabulated data and graph the first hypothesis is proved that Sony T.V is preferred because of its high quality. According to my findings of the 100 respondents, 57 of them voted for high quality. They said that the quality of Sony televisions is very high. 32 of them said that the quality was high. One thing is clear from the findings that Sony has very high quality. It is only 11% of the total respondents who thought that the quality of Sony is medium. It is to be noted that no one said that the quality was low or very low. Hence the hypothesis that people because of its high quality prefer Sony T.V is true.

11. How is the quality of Panasonic Televisions?

--Very High.

--High.

--Medium.

--Low.

--Very Low.

Table 15.

From the above data and the graph the second hypothesis is partly proved that Panasonic television is preferred because of its satisfactory quality as compared to Sony. From these findings we come to know that the television of Panasonic is of medium quality. From the survey conducted 41% people said that the quality of Panasonic T.V was medium. 30% people said that it had high quality. But only 19% said that it had very high quality. 10% said that it had low quality. The majority voted for medium quality. Hence the quality of Panasonic is satisfactory.

12. Which of the following would you associate Sony with?

--High Quality.

--High Price.

--Value for Money.

--Status Symbol.

--Latest High Technology.

--Excellent Enhanced Features.

Table 16.

From the survey conducted I came to know that majority of the people associate Sony with high quality. 39% people perceived Sony television to be of high quality. 23% people said value for money. This shows that Sony T.V has а very strong brand image. One more hypothesis is proved over here that Sony has а very strong brand image as compared to Panasonic. This will be further proved in the analysis of the findings of next question which is dealing with Panasonic. In the above graph it is seen that 15% people associated Sony with high price also. 11% associated it with status symbol whereas the rest associated it with high technology and enhanced features.

13. Which of the following would you associate Panasonic with?

--High Quality.

--High Price.

--Affordable Low Price.

--Value for Money.

--Status Symbol.

--Latest High Technology.

--Excellent Enhanced Features.

Table 17.

According to the above results of the survey it can be concluded that Panasonic T.V is considered to be value for money. 35% people associated Panasonic with value for money. 21% associated it with affordable low price. This proves our one more hypothesis that Panasonic is preferred because of its low price and satisfactory quality. Only 17% associated it with high quality. 7% said that it was high priced, 7% considered it as status symbol, 10% said high technology whereas only 3% associated with excellent enhanced feature.

14. Which of the following reasons influenced you to buy the brand.

--Friends Recommendation.

--Suggestion from Office Colleague.

--Relatives.

--Family Decision.

--Husband/Wife Recommendation.

--Children’s recommendation.

--Sales Person Recommendation.

Table 18.

Cultural, social, personal, and psychological factors influence the consumers buying behavior and they also have an influence on the brand preference. Almost all individuals interact with other people who directly or indirectly influence their purchase decisions. Family, friendship groups, formal social groups, work groups and etc influence the individuals buying behavior. The family is а major influence on the consumption behavior of its members. The members of а family assume specific roles and tasks in their everyday functioning.

From graph 18 we can see that the major factor which influenced the decision of buying is family decision. The family plays а vital role in our day-to-day lives. As television is а product which is used by each and every member of the house so it becomes important that а brand or а product be chosen which all the members of the family like. From the survey conducted 31% people said that family decision was the reason which influenced them to buy the particular brand. It is the culture which affects the buying behavior. People living in the England are from а culture in which an individual gives а lot of value to his or her family. Hence for him it is very important to consider the views and suggestions of his family.

22% people bought the product on friend’s recommendation. Friends are also one of the strong influencers. 21% were influenced by the husband/wife decision. This is also similar to family decision. In today’s world the teenagers are well aware of the different products available in the market. Nowadays the children are also influencing the buying decisions of the adults. Today the adults also consult their children when buying а product. In this survey 10% people were influenced by children’s recommendation. 6% of the total respondents were influenced by the recommendation of their office colleagues, 6% were influenced by sales person recommendation and the rest 4% by their relative’s recommendation.

15. Which of the following strongly influences your purchase decision.

--Reliability.

--Durability.

--Low Price.

--Easy to use.

--Easy to purchase.

--Trusted Brand Name.

--Latest Technology.

--Latest Style.

--Many options/features.

Table 19.

From the above findings it is seen that the most important factor which influences а consumer is durability. 24 people said that they look for durability in the product or brand when they are going to make а purchase. 19 of the respondents said that а trusted brand name plays an important role in their purchase decision-making. The third thing which people look for is the latest technology in television. Today the digital flat screen is the latest technology in television which is very popular. So the brand offering the latest technology will be preferred by people. 13 people said that reliability is also an important factor. 11% consider price as the most important factor to consider while making а brand choice. The customer today is faced with so many brands today. And there is so much of price competition in the market. If а customer is getting all the features, which he wants in а cheaper brand, he might go for that brand. But still he will look for quality first. If the product or brand is offering him the required good quality then he may have preference for that brand. For latest style 9 people said that it is important. 6 people considered features of the branded product to be important whereas only 3% people wanted the product to be user friendly. Nowadays all products are user friendly only and hence people do not bother about such things these days.

So from the above graph we come to know that quality is the fundamental factor which influences the customers brand preference. Television is а product which is very important in а persons life. It is а source of entertainment for the person. So people want it to be the best one. It is а product which not bought everyday. A customer wants to make а purchase once and wants to buy the best. But still price will play an important role, as everyone cannot afford to buy the high priced high quality products. Depending on the purchasing power the customer compromises on the quality. He will buy а reasonably good product with medium quality but at reasonable price.

Chapter Six: Discussion and Analysis

According to my findings, from the 100 respondents that were interviewed 57 of them voted that Sony had very high quality. Hence the hypothesis that people because of its high quality prefer Sony T.V is true. From the survey conducted 41% people said that the quality of Panasonic T.V was medium. The hypothesis that Panasonic is preferred because of its satisfactory quality and low price as compared to Sony is proved. 39% people perceived Sony television to be of high quality. 23% people said value for money. This shows that Sony T.V has а very strong brand image. One more hypothesis is proved over here that Sony has а very strong brand image as compared to Panasonic. 35% people associated Panasonic with value for money. 21% associated it with affordable low price. This proves the hypothesis that Panasonic is preferred because of its low price and satisfactory quality.

Cultural, social, personal, and psychological factors influence the consumers buying behavior and they also have an influence on the brand preference. From graph 18 we can see that the major factor which influenced the decision of buying is family decision. 22% people bought the product on friend’s recommendation. 21% were influenced by the husband/wife decision. From the findings we also come to know that durability, trusted brand name and price are the main factors, which influence the customer’s brand preference and buying decision.

Chapter Seven: Conclusion

The results from this study reveal that Sony is the brand which the majority prefers. People prefer Sony because it has а very good reputation in the market since many years. And also that it is а high quality product that is reliable also. There are so many reasons why customers prefer Sony so much. 64% of the respondents preferred Sony T.V whereas only 36% preferred Panasonic T.V. Based on the income levels also I found out which people prefer Sony and which prefer Panasonic. People in the lower income group of 1500-2500 mostly preferred Panasonic. The majority of middle class income group of 2500-4000 and 4000-6000 prefer Sony television. As far as the high-level income group is concerned I came to know that almost all of them preferred Sony television. These are the people who have the buying power and are ready to give the price for а high quality product. One thing is clear that not all people can afford Sony because of its high price.

From the rankings of quality attributes of Sony television it was seen that the video quality of Sony was very high. People who preferred Panasonic have also ranked video quality as number 1. Prevention from ambient light reflection is given rank 2. Whereas high resolution is ranked 3. This shows that the video quality of Panasonic is also good. It should be noted that high resolution has been ranked 3. It shows that as compared to Sony, Panasonic does not have а very high resolution. The design of Sony television is excellent and hence it has been ranked 1st. Sony televisions design is very trendy and latest. People do not like the size and weight of Sony Televisions. Sony needs to consider this matter and it should try and reduce the size and weight of its product. It was also seen that the after sales service provided by both Sony and Panasonic was not satisfactory.

It is important to know how the customers actually make their buying decisions. What are the factors, which they consider while making а purchase. It was seen that features was the most important and the foremost factor, which the customers look for initially. The second most important consideration is the price. The customers in the England market are very price conscious and very price sensitive also. They look for good reasonable price offered for the product. After the features, price and quality the fourth most important attribute is the brand name that they are going to purchase. Many consumers buying decisions are influenced by the image they have of the brand. Good brand image increases the preference levels of the customers for that particular brand.

Brands vary on the amount of power and value they have in the marketplace. We have brands that are not known more by the people and on the other hand we have brand that are known to the people and has а very high degree of brand awareness. Sony is one of the highly recognized brands in the world. Brand equity makes it possible for the company to charge а premium price. Many consumers buying decisions are influenced by the image they have of the brand. Consumer’s preference is developed through brand image. High brand image will result in high customer preference for that brand. We have seen that Sony has а very strong brand image. But it is not always true that а brand with а good image will influence the customer to prefer or buy the product. We have seen the factors which influence brand preference. Brand image was only one of the many factors which influence.

References

Bainbridge¸ J. (2003)¸ "How can brands win support of parents?"¸ Marketing¸ Vol. 30 October.

Brassington¸ F.¸ Pettitt¸ S. (2003)¸ Principles of Marketing¸ 3rd ed.¸ Financial Times Prentice-Hall¸ Harlow.

Bunting¸ M. (2005)¸ "Trouble in store: our rampant consumer culture is nurturing consumer dissatisfaction and cynicism in Britain's poorest children"¸ The Guardian¸ Vol. 1 August.

Carlson¸ L.¸ Grossbart¸ S.¸ Stuenkel¸ J.K. (1992)¸ "The role of parental socialization types on differential family communication patterns regarding consumption"¸ Journal of Consumer Psychology¸ Vol. 1 No.1¸ pp.31-52.

Chisnall¸ P.M. (1995)¸ Consumer Behaviour¸ 5th ed.¸ McGraw-Hill¸ London.

Cowell¸ P. (2001)¸ "Marketing to children: a guide for students and practitioners – part 2"¸ The Marketing Review¸ Vol. 2 pp.71-87.

de Chernatony¸ L.¸ McDonald¸ M. (2003)¸ Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer¸ Service and Industrial Markets¸ Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann¸ Oxford.

Dotson¸ M.J.¸ Hyatt¸ E.M. (2005)¸ "Major influence factors in children's consumer socialisation"¸ Journal of Consumer Marketing¸ Vol. 22 No.1¸ pp.35-42.

Engel¸ J.F.¸ Blackwell¸ R.D.¸ Miniard¸ P.W. (1995)¸ Consumer Behavior¸ 8th ed.¸ Dryden Press¸ Fort Worth¸ TX.

Feltham¸ T.S. (1998)¸ "Leaving home: brand purchase influences on young adults"¸ Journal of Consumer Marketing¸ Vol. 15 No.4¸ pp.372-85.

Foxall¸ G.R.¸ Goldsmith¸ R.E. (1995)¸ Consumer Psychology for Marketing¸ Routledge¸ London.

Freeland¸ J. (2005)¸ "The onslaught: half of all children aged four don't know their own names – but two-thirds of three-year-olds can recognise the McDonald's golden arches"¸ The Independent¸ Vol. 25 October.

Grossbart¸ S.L.¸ Crosby¸ L.A. (1984)¸ "Understanding the bases of parental concern and reaction to children's food advertising"¸ Journal of Marketing¸ Vol. 48 pp.79-82.

Harper¸ S.J.A.¸ Dewar¸ P.¸ Diack¸ B.A. (2003)¸ "The purchase of children's clothing – who has the upper hand?"¸ Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management¸ Vol. 7 No.2¸ pp.196-206.

Hilgard¸ E.R.¸ Atkinson¸ R.C.¸ Atkinson¸ R.L. (1975)¸ Introduction to Psychology¸ 6th ed.¸ Harcourt Brace Jovanovich¸ New York¸ NY.

Hill¸ C. (2005)¸ "Most kids tell their mums what they want to wear now"¸ The Western Mail¸ Vol. 22 March.

Jackson¸ J. (2006)¸ "Little shopping horrors"¸ The Times¸ Vol. 20 March.

Kamp¸ C. (2005)¸ "We have come for your children"¸ The Independent¸ Vol. 28 May.

Keller¸ K. (1998)¸ Strategic Brand Management¸ Prentice-Hall¸ Upper Saddle River¸ NJ.

Lindstrom¸ M. (2004)¸ "Branding is no longer child's play!"¸ Journal of Consumer Marketing¸ Vol. 21 No.3¸ pp.175-82.

Matthews¸ V. (1999)¸ "Yielding to the pressure of pester power"¸ Financial Times¸ Vol. 17 August.

Mintel (2003)¸ Selling to and Profiting from Families – UK Special Report¸ Mintel¸ London¸ July.

Mintel (2004)¸ Marketing to Children Aged 7-10¸ Mintel¸ London¸ April.

Novakovich¸ M. (1999)¸ "The playground pound"¸ The Guardian¸ Vol. 3 November.

OFSTED (2000)¸ Summary of the Inspection Report – Wolviston School¸ OFSTED¸ London.

Poulter¸ S. (2005)¸ "More youngsters recognize the Nike logo than Jesus"¸ The Daily Mail¸ Vol. 8 July.

Puth¸ G. (2000)¸ "Marketing communications"¸ in Blois¸ K. (Eds)¸Oxford Textbook of Marketing¸ Oxford University Press¸ Oxford.

Ross¸ J.¸ Harradine¸ R. (2004)¸ "I'm not wearing that! Branding and young children"¸ Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management¸ Vol. 8 No.1¸ pp.11-26.

Shepherd¸ J. (2004)¸ "Tween rock and a hard place"¸ Birmingham Post¸ Vol. 8 December.

Solomon¸ M.R. (2002)¸ Consumer Behaviour¸ 2nd ed.¸ Financial Times Prentice-Hall¸ Harlow.

Strong¸ E.K. (1925)¸ The Psychology of Selling¸ McGraw-Hill¸ New York¸ NY.

Ward¸ S. (1974)¸ "Consumer socialization"¸ Journal of Consumer Research¸ Vol. 1 No.September¸ pp.1-13.

Wiener¸ N. (2004)¸ "How to engage with today's kids"¸ Young Consumers¸ Vol. Quarter 3 pp.46-52.

Aaker¸ D.A.¸ Kumar¸ V.¸ Day¸ G.S. (2001)¸ Marketing Research¸ 7th ed.¸ John Wiley & Sons¸ New York¸ NY.

Art¸ M.M. (2003)¸ "Consumer online: the role of the internet in the purchase process"¸ LIMRA's Market Facts Quarterly¸ Vol. 22 No.4¸ Fall¸ pp.84.

Bahmanziari¸ T.¸ Pearson¸ J.M.¸ Crosby¸ L. (2003)¸ "Is trust important in technology adoption? A policy capturing approach"¸ The Journal of Computer Information Systems¸ Vol. 43 No.4¸ pp.46.

Brassington¸ F.¸ Petitt¸ S. (2003)¸ Principles of Marketing¸ 3rd ed.¸ Pearson Education¸ Harlow.

(The) Chartered Institute of Marketing (CIM) (2005)¸ This Way to Future¸ CIM¸ Maidenhead¸ 14 May.

d'Astous¸ A.¸ Ahmed¸ S.A. (1999)¸ "The importance of country images of consumer product perceptions"¸ International Marketing Review¸ Vol. 16 No.2¸ pp.108-25.

Dibb¸ S.¸ Simkin¸ L.¸ Pride¸ W.M.¸ Ferrell¸ O.C. (2000)¸ Marketing: Concepts and Strategies¸ Houghton Mifflin¸ Boston¸ MA.

(The) Economist (2001)¸ "Who is wearing the trousers?"¸ online edition¸ No.6 September.

(The) Economist (2005)¸ "Leaders: brand new¸ consumer electronics"¸ Vol. 374 No.8409¸ 15 January¸ pp.10.

George¸ D.¸ Mallery¸ P. (2003)¸ SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. 11.0 Update¸ Allyn & Bacon¸ Boston¸ MA.

Haughey¸ J. (2004)¸ "Is technology adoption quickening?"¸ Electronic Business¸ Vol. 30 No.8¸ August¸ pp.16.

Hill¸ D. (2003)¸ "Why they buy: what really goes on in the mind of the consumer"¸ Across the Board¸ Vol. 40 No.6¸ November/December¸ pp.27.

Huang¸ W.Y.¸ Schrank¸ H.¸ Dubinsky¸ A.J. (2004)¸ "Effect of brand name on consumers risk perceptions of online shopping"¸ Journal of Consumer Behaviour¸ Vol. 4 No.1¸ October¸ pp.40.

Ind¸ N. (2003)¸ Beyond Branding: How the New Values of Transparency and Integrity Are Changing the World of Brands¸ Biddles¸ Guilford¸ King's Lynn and London.

Jiang¸ P. (2004)¸ "The role of brand name in customization decisions: a search vs experience perspective"¸ Journal of Product & Brand Management¸ Vol. 13 No.2¸ pp.73-83.

Kallaman¸ E.A.¸ Grillo¸ J.P. (1996)¸ Ethical Decision Making and Information Technology: An Introduction with Cases¸ McGraw-Hill¸ Maidenhead.

Kapferer¸ J.N. (2004)¸ The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term¸ 3rd ed.¸ Scotprint¸ London.

Kapur¸ V.¸ Peters¸ J.¸ Berman¸ S. (2003)¸ "High-tech 2005: the horizontal¸ hypercompetitive future"¸ Strategy & Leadership¸ Vol. 31 No.2¸ pp.34-47.

Keller¸ K.L. (2003)¸ Strategic Brand Management: Building¸ Measuring¸ and Managing Brand Equity¸ 2nd ed.¸ Pearson Education¸ London.

Kim¸ C.K.¸ Han¸ D.¸ Park¸ S.B. (2001)¸ "The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty: applying the theory of social identification"¸ Japanese Psychological Research¸ Vol. 43 No.4¸ pp.195-206.

Kinnear¸ P.R.¸ Gray¸ C.D. (2004)¸ SPSS 12 Made Simple¸ Psychology Press¸ New York¸ NY.

Klein¸ N. (2000)¸ No Logo¸ Flamingo¸ London.

Lindstorm¸ M. (2003)¸ Brain Child¸ Kogan Page¸ London.

Lurie¸ N.H. (2004)¸ "Decision making in information-rich environments: the role of information structure"¸ Journal of Consumer Research¸ Vol. 30 No.4¸ March¸ pp.473.

McDaniel¸ C.¸ Gates¸ R. (2002)¸ Marketing Research: The Impact of the Internet¸ 5th ed.¸ John Wiley & Sons¸ New York¸ NY.

McFadden¸ D.¸ Train¸ K.E. (1996)¸ "Consumers' evaluation of new products: learning from self and others"¸ The Journal of Political Economy¸ Vol. 104 No.4¸ August¸ pp.683.

McGivern¸ Y. (2003)¸ The Practice of Market and Social Research: An Introduction¸ Pearson Education¸ Harlow.

Malhotra¸ N.K.¸ Birks¸ D.F. (2000)¸ Marketing Research: An Applied Approach¸ 3rd ed.¸ Prentice-Hall¸ Harlow.

Mintel (2002)¸ Branding Report UK: The Consumer¸ Mintel¸ London.

Prendergast¸ G.P.¸ Marr¸ N.E. (1997)¸ "Generic products: who buys them and how do they perform relative to each other?"¸ European Journal of Marketing¸ Vol. 31 No.2¸ pp.94-109.

Riquelme¸ H. (2001)¸ "Do consumers know what they want?"¸ The Journal of Consumer Marketing¸ Vol. 18 No.4/5¸ pp.437-48.

Romanuik¸ J.¸ Sharp¸ B. (2003)¸ "Measuring brand perceptions: testing quantity and quality"¸ Journal of Targeting¸ Measurement and Analysis for Marketing¸ Vol. 11 No.3¸ pp.218.

Saunders¸ M.¸ Lewis¸ P.¸ Thornhill¸ A. (2003)¸ Research Methods for Business Students¸ 3rd ed.¸ Prentice-Hall¸ Harlow.

Schiffman¸ L.G.¸ Kanuk¸ L.L. (1994)¸ Consumer Behaviour¸ 5th ed.¸ Prentice-Hall¸ London.

Silverhart¸ T.A. (2004)¸ "Technology adoption: what's in it for me?"¸ LIMRA's MarketFacts Quarterly¸ Vol. 23 No.2¸ Spring¸ pp.73.

Snoj¸ B.¸ Korda¸ A.P.¸ Mumel¸ D. (2004)¸ "The relationships among perceived quality¸ perceived risk and perceived product value"¸ Journal of Product & Brand Management¸ Vol. 13 No.3¸ pp.156-67.

Solomon¸ M.¸ Bamossy¸ C.¸ Askegaard¸ S. (2002)¸ Consumer Behaviour: A European Perspective¸ 2nd ed.¸ Pearson Education¸ Harlow.

Temporal¸ P.¸ Lee¸ K.C. (2000)¸ Hi-tech and Hi-touch Branding: Creating Brand Power in the Age of Technology¸ Wiley Eastern¸ New Delhi.

Tomkins¸ R. (2005)¸ "Shop until you stop: the problem of consumer satiety: Richard Tomkins on customer culture"¸ Financial Times¸ No.12 April¸ pp.13.

Tse¸ A.C.B. (2001)¸ "How much more are consumers willing to pay for a higher level of service? A preliminary survey"¸ Journal of Services Marketing¸ Vol. 15 No.1¸ pp.11-17.

Webb¸ J.R. (1992)¸ Market Research – Understanding and Design¸ Academic Press¸ San Diego¸ CA.

Williams¸ T.G. (2002)¸ "Social class influences on purchase evaluation criteria"¸ Journal of Consumer Marketing¸ Vol. 19 No.3¸ pp.249-76.

Winkler¸ A.M. (1999)¸ Warp-speed Branding: The Impact of Technology on Marketing¸ John Wiley & Sons¸ New York¸ NY.

Wit¸ B.D.¸ Meyer¸ R. (2004)¸ Strategy: Process¸ Content¸ Context: An International Perspective¸ 3rd ed.¸ Thomson Learning¸ London.

Yelkur¸ R. (2000)¸ "Consumer perceptions of generic products: a Mexican study"¸ Journal of Product & Brand Management¸ Vol. 9 No.7¸ pp.446-56.

Zajas¸ J.¸ Crowley¸ E. (1995)¸ "Commentary: brand emergence in the marketing of computers and high technology products"¸ Journal of Product & Brand Management¸ Vol. 4 No.1¸ pp.56-63.

Bibliography

Alvin C ¸ Ronald F. Bush (2007) ‘ Marketing Research’ ¸ Pearson Education¸ 5th ed.¸ India

Fill¸ C. (2002)¸ Marketing Communications¸ Contexts¸ Strategies and Applications¸ 3rd ed.¸ Prentice Hall¸ Europe¸ Hemel Hempstead.

Nicosia¸ F.M. (1968)¸ "Advertising management¸ consumer behavior and simulation"¸ Journal of Advertising Research¸ Vol. 8 No.1¸ pp.29-39.

Kotler¸ P. (2003)¸ Marketing Management¸ 11th ed.¸ Prentice-Hall/Pearson Education¸ Englewood Cliff¸ NJ.

Duncan¸ T. (2002)¸ IMC: Using Advertising and Promotion to Build Brands¸ McGraw-Hill¸ New York¸ NY¸ International edition

Bradley¸ Nigel Marketing Research. Tools and Techniques.Oxford University Press¸ Oxford¸ 2007 ISBN-10: 0-19-928196-3 ISBN-13: 978-0-19-928196-1

Engel¸ J.¸ Kollatt¸ D. and Blackwell¸ R. 'Consumer Behavior ' (Dryden Press¸ 1978)

Cochran¸ W G (1977) Sampling Techniques¸ Wiley¸ ISBN 0-471-16240-X

Behind Powerful Brands, by John Philip Jones.

What’s in a Brand? By John Philip Jones.

Brand management. By Y.L.R Moorthi.

Consumer Behaviour. By Schiffman, Kanuk.

Brand Building Advertising, by Parameswaran.

Brand Positioning (Strategies for competitive advantage)- by Subroto Sengupta.

Branding Management. By Boyd, Walker, Larreche.

Branding Research by Dr. D.D Sharma.

Consumer Behaviour & Branding Strategy (4th edition) by J.Paul Peter & Jerry C. Olson.

The art of the Brand. By S.R.Sen Gupta.

Branding Management. (The Millennium Edition) by Philip Kotler.

Branding Management. (An Asian Perspective) by Philip Kotler, Siew Meng Leong, Swee Hoong Ang, Chin Toing Tan

Branding Research (Measurement & Method) 6th Edition. By Donald S Tull, Del I Hawkins

Basic Branding. (Principles & Practices) 3rd Edition. By Tom Canon

Business Branding. (A global perspective) by H. Michael Hawyer, Per. V.Jenster, Nils Erick Aaby.

Branding. By Dr. N Rajan, Sanjith R Nair

Branding. (Principles & Practices) 3rd Edition. By Dennis Adook, Ray Brafield, Al Halborg, Cardine Ross

Branding Management Text and Cases, 6th Edition, Douglas /Leonard J.Parsons

Branding Concepts and Strategies, by Dibb / Simkin / Pride / Ferrell.

Product Management, by S.A.Chunawalla.

Appendix

Questionnaire

1. Are you а member of any club? –

-Yes --No

2. Do you own а television?

--Yes --No

3. Which is the brand you prefer?

--Sony --Panasonic

4. Please rank the attributes of quality of your preferred brand (on а scale of 1-7 for specifying the importance level)

--High Resolution.

--Video Quality (Sharp Images).

--Clear Sound.

--Prevention from ambient light reflection.

--Digital Picture Noise Reduction.

--Undistorted picture from any angle.

--High Contrast Colors.

5 Please rank the attributes of design & style of your preferred brand (on а scale of 1-4 for specifying the importance level)

--Size.

--Color.

--Design.

--Weight.

6. Please rank the following attributes of the after sales service of your preferred brand (on а scale of 1-3 for specifying the importance level)

--Warranty Period.

--Availability of parts.

--Speed of Service.

7. Please rank the following for indicating the importance level for each one of the attributes in context to your purchase decision (on а scale of 1-7 for specifying the importance level).

--Quality.

--Price.

--Features.

--After sales Service.

--Design & Style.

--Ease of Use.

--Sales Promotion.

8. Are you aware of the ongoing promotions offered by Sony & Panasonic?

--Yes --No

9. Have you seen advertisements of the Sony and Panasonic Televisions?

--Yes --No.

10. How is the quality of Sony Televisions?

--Very High.

--High.

--Medium.

--Low.

--Very Low.

11. How is the quality of Panasonic Televisions?

--Very High.

--High.

--Medium.

--Low.

--Very Low.

12. Which of the following would you associate Sony with?

--High Quality.

--High Price.

--Value for Money.

--Status Symbol.

--Latest High Technology.

--Excellent Enhanced Features.

13. Which of the following would you associate Panasonic with?

--High Quality.

--High Price.

--Affordable Low Price.

--Value for Money.

--Status Symbol.

--Latest High Technology.

--Excellent Enhanced Features.

14. Which of the following reasons influenced you to buy the brand.

--Friends Recommendation.

--Suggestion from Office Colleague.

--Relatives.

--Family Decision.

--Husband/Wife Recommendation.

--Children’s recommendation.

--Sales Person Recommendation.

15. Which of the following strongly influences your purchase decision.

--Reliability.

--Durability.

--Low Price.

--Easy to use.

--Easy to purchase.

--Trusted Brand Name.

--Latest Technology.

--Latest Style.

--Many options/features.

Corporate Social Responsibility

Table of Contents

1.3 Overview of the Study

1.5 Background of the Study

1.6 Importance of the study

This is a preview of the whole essay

2.1 Brand Image

2.2 Brand Loyalty

2.3 Brand Equity

2.4 Managing Brand Loyalty

2.5 Managing Brand Association

3.1 Research Design

3.2 Data Collection

Table 3.

Document Details

Related Essays

Corporate Social Responsibilty

In light of globalisation, to what extent is 'social responsibility' a busi...

CORPORATE COMPLAINCE REPORT

Rosewood Hotel and Resort Corporate Branding