dimensions of

7/31/2019 Dimensions Of

1/21

Dimensions of brand knowledgeTurkish university students consumption of

international fashion brandsNazli Alimen

Graduate School of Social Sciences, Izmir University of Economics,Izmir, Turkey, and

A. Guldem CeritMaritime Faculty, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey

Abstract

Purpose Previous research has suggested that brand knowledge could be affected by companiesand consumer characteristics such as consumer personality. The purpose of this study is to analysethe impacts of gender, field of education, and having consumed the brand, on consumers brandknowledge.

Design/methodology/approach An exploratory study is designed to reveal the impacts ofgender, field of education, and usage of a brand by evaluating Turkish university students knowledgeof nine international fashion brands. The survey is conducted by using convenience sampling methodto reach a heterogeneous group of different departments, gender, and usage frequencies that wouldreveal whether these variables have an effect on brand knowledge or not. The students are also askedto describe each brand by two or three words.

Findings Significant differences are found with respect to usage, gender, and departments.Students belonging to the departments more related to fashion and female students have moreknowledge about these nine brands. Furthermore, the findings demonstrate that consumption of abrand increases both brand awareness and brand image.

Research limitations/implications Future studies could analyse brands by grouping them inaccordance with their target segments and product types in order to compare them more strictly. It isalso purposeful to compare the brand knowledge of the same brands in different samples and differentcountries.

Practical implications Since brand associations are used in positioning, the results of theopen-ended questions advise firms operating marketing activities whether to strengthen or to alterthese associations.

Originality/value The study could be beneficial for academicians and business practitioners, sinceit reveals the effects of gender, field of education, and usage on brand knowledge.

Keywords Brand awareness, Students, Fashion, International marketing, Turkey

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionFashion generally refers to clothing and it is described as a process which determinesparticular design, products or social behaviours for a specific period of time and

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0398.htm

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the European and Mediterranean Conference onInformation Systems (EMCIS) 2009, Izmir, Turkey, 13-14 July 2009.

The authors would like to thank the reviewers of this article for their insightful andstimulating comments.

JEIM23,4

538

Received January 2009Revised April 2009December 2009Accepted January 2010

Journal of Enterprise I nformation

Management

Vol. 23 No. 4, 2010

pp. 538-558

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1741-0398

DOI 10.1108/17410391011061799


2/21

replaces them regularly with new ones (Saviolo, 2002, p. 4). It has three components:style, acceptance and timing (Frings, 1982; Packard et al., 1983; Wolfe, 2003). However,fashion is a sector presenting a dream world to consumers, for which brand is essential.Therefore, it should be considered as a fourth component. One of the factors leading

international fashion products to success is to have a strong brand, which is achievedthrough a greater level of brand knowledge (Guedes and da Costa Soares, 2005).

Brand awareness and brand image are two components of brand knowledge, whichare the consumer sides of the brand, therefore they could be controlled by the company(Rajh, 2002) so that all over the world international brands present the same image offashion supported by franchising chains and marketing communication activities. Onthe other hand, it is necessary to clarify the impact of personal or environmentaldeterminants on brand knowledge that consumers characteristics might affect theirbrand knowledge. Previous research showed the influence of consumer personality onbrand knowledge. However, there are other factors that could affect brand knowledge:gender, field of education and having consumed a brand. The purpose of this paper isto ascertain these possible effects by comparing the brand knowledge of Turkishstudents. The paper starts by reviewing the related literature on brand knowledge andits measurement. It is followed by methodology, findings, and conclusion sections.

2. Brand knowledgeBrand helps to differentiate products or services from the others (Kotler and Keller,2009) and embodies every undertaking of the company and represents it to the worldas a hologram, plays a part in the formation of relationships, and expresses andcontributes group affiliation (Sherry, 2005, p. 46). Brands are markers of offerings forcompanies, and a sign of quality, and an indicator of risk or trust for consumers (Kellerand Lehmann, 2005). An overall value of a brand demonstrates its equity (Kaplan,2007). Brand equity is a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name,

and its symbol that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or a serviceto a firm and/or to that firms customers (Aaker, 1991, p. 15). Brand equity is studiedregarding two aspects. The first one is financial that estimates the value of a brand foraccounting purposes (Keller, 1993, p. 1), and the second is customer oriented thatevaluates consumer perceptions of the brand (Elliot and Percy, 2007, p. 82).Customer-oriented approach is called the customer-based brand equity and describedas the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketingof the brand (Keller, 1993, p. 2).

Brand knowledge is defined by descriptive and evaluative brand-relatedinformation that it is individualistic inference about a brand stored in consumermemory. It comprises brand related notions, brand awareness, and brand image thatcorrelating diverse information such as awareness, attributes, benefits, images,

thoughts, feelings, attitudes and experiences to a brand constitutes brand knowledgeand directly affect consumer responses (Keller, 1993, 2003). It is also indicated thatbrand knowledge is based on a constant communication with consumers that elicitsreal comprehension of the product or service (Richards et al., 1998).Therefore brandknowledge could comprehend both explicit and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge isobjective and theoretical and can be asserted through many forms of media documents, audiovisual equipment, computerised records, etc. while implicitknowledge is mostly subjective, practical, and personal (Sharif, 2004). Brand

Dimensions ofbrand knowledge

539


3/21

knowledge is found to have a positive and direct effect on internet retailing by loweringthe level of perceived risk (Chen and He, 2003) and brand extensions (Pitta andKatsanis, 1995).

2.1 Brand awarenessBrand awareness is a potential buyers ability to recognise or recall that shows abrands being a member of a certain product category (Aaker, 1991). It is associated tothe strength of brand clew in memory that enables consumers to ascertain the brandunder dissimilar conditions (Rossiter and Percy, 1987). Experience-inducedantecedents have an impact on brand awareness that it is the strength of a brandspresence in the mind of the consumer (Ross, 2006). It could enable consumers to learnand form information about a brand. Emotional associations could have an impact onbrand awareness that results in formation of brand preferences and brand loyalty.Firms, on the other hand, could gain a significant competitive advantage throughbrand awareness (Elliot and Percy, 2007).

Keller (1993) classifies brand awareness into brand recognition and brand recall.Brand recognition is consumers ability to confirm prior exposure to the brand whengiven the brand as a cue. Brand recall, on the other hand, is consumers ability toretrieve the brand when the product category is given, the needs fulfilled by thecategory, or some other type of probe as a cue (Keller, 1993). The higher level of brandawareness leads to a higher level of perceived quality (Macdonald and Sharp, 2003) andcustomer-based brand equity. In consumer decision making, brand awareness has acrucial role that it increases the likelihood of a brands being included in theconsideration set, affects consumers decisions even though there is no other brandassociation, and influences the formation and strength of brand associations.Furthermore, consumers cannot form a brand image unless having brand awareness(Macdonald and Sharp, 2003; Keller, 2008).

2.2 Brand imageScholars variously described brand image as the perceptions and beliefs held byconsumers, as reflected in the associations held in consumer memory (Kotler andKeller, 2009, p. 783), a set of associations, usually organized in some meaningful way(Aaker, 1991, p. 109) and the external form and observable characteristics of themarkets offering (Sherry, 2005, p. 48). It could be concluded that brand image is ameaning associated to the brand by consumers (Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990; Aaker, 1991;Keller, 1998; Del Rio et al., 2001; Nandan, 2005) which provides the brand to accomplishand remain resonant and adequate in consumers minds (Sherry, 2005).

Brand image is regarded as a consumer-constructed concept, due to consumerscreating a personal or image related to the brand with regard to their knowledge and

perceptions (Nandan, 2005). These associations, which are linkages of a brand inmemory (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993, 1998) and differ among consumers (Hung, 2008),enable marketers to differentiate, position, and extend brands (Low and Lamb, 2000)and consumers to process, organize, and retrieve information in making purchasedecisions (Aaker, 1991, pp. 109-13). Brand image is a result of consumers decoding ofall the signals delivered by the brand such as brand name, visual signs, products,sponsoring, and advertising (Kapferer, 1994). Danesi (2006) proposes that the use ofbrand name enables consumers not only to recognise certain goods and distinguish

JEIM23,4

540


4/21

them from others, but also to associate connotative meanings to them. Therefore, itallows consumers to decode brand image.

Communicating brand image clearly to target consumers is an important part ofmarketing activity (Gardner and Levy, 1955; Grubb and Grathwol, 1967; Moran, 1973;

Roth, 1995) since it allows consumers a need satisfaction by the brand (Park et al., 1986;Gocek et al., 2007) and differentiates the brand from those of the competitors (DiMingo,1988). Roth (1995) suggests that the impact of brand image strategies on productperformance and the management of brand images should be considered whileanalysing brand image strategies. Gocek et al. (2007) evaluated customer satisfaction intextile industry with respect to genders and revealed the relation between brand imageand customer satisfaction. They concluded that there is no difference in brand imageperception with respect to gender.

3. Measuring brand knowledge: brand image and brand awarenessBrand awareness is evaluated in two ways that are brand recognition and brand recall.

Brand recognition is assessed through requesting consumers to distinguish the brand:whether it has been previously seen or heard, or not. Brand recall, on the other hand, isasking consumers to retrieve brands in a given product category (Keller, 2008). Sincebrand image is perceptions of brand associations held in the consumers minds arecalled as brand image (Keller, 2003), it is measured by evaluating these brandassociations. There are several ways to measure brand image as applying or adaptingan existing list of brand associations, e.g. the brand personality list of Aaker, ordeveloping a new scale by revealing brand associations and then measuring thestrength of brand associations (Chandon, 2003).

Brand image, which is enrooted in both tangible and intangible associations linked tothe attributes of the product, is assessed through various approaches (Kaplan, 2007).These approaches could be divided into two main categories: scaling and sorting (Joyce,

1963 cited in Driesener and Romaniuk, 2006, p. 681). Whether a brand and attribute arerelated or not and the strength of an existent relationship are determined through scalingtechniques whereas only corporeity of attribute is detected through sorting techniques(Driesener and Romaniuk, 2006). In addition, scaling and ranking measures enable todistinguish brands, as pick-any measure asks for yes or no for each brand (Driesener andRomaniuk, 2001). Several scholars pointed the distinct patterns in brand image datawhile applying pick-any technique (Barnard and Ehrenberg, 1990). Comparison of threebrand image measurement techniques, sorting a pick-any , scaling Likert rating ,and ranking, showed that all these three techniques equivalent results.

4. Methodology4.1 ObjectiveShank and Langmeyer (1994) revealed the effect of consumer personality on brandimage. Other consumer characteristics that might influence brand knowledge couldbe gender, having studied in fashion or having consumed a brand. The purpose ofthis study is to reveal the impact of these characteristics on brand knowledge ofTurkish university students, among whom fashion brands are highly consumed. Forthe purpose of this study, we decided to assess the fashion brands preferred by them.Conversations with the students of Izmir University of Economics, showed that sevenbrands, Tommy Hilfiger, GAP, Lacoste, Diesel, Zara, Mango, and Mavi, are largely


541


5/21

consumed fashion brands. Furthermore, four of them, Tommy Hilfiger, GAP, Lacoste,and Diesel, are conspicuously consumed by the students. Considering both theproducts and market positions of these seven brands, and our observations of thestudents, we added two more brands, Guess and Koton, which were not mentioned by

the students but these brands were also consumed by them. Therefore, the totalnumber of nine brands were chosen. Seven of these brands were international foreignfashion brands, Tommy Hilfiger, GAP, Lacoste, Diesel, Zara, Guess, and Mango whilethe other two were Turkish international fashion brands, Koton and Mavi. We aimedto understand whether having studied in the field of fashion affected the knowledgeabout fashion brands or not. In addition, we proposed that gender and havingconsumed a brand could also be effective on the brand knowledge. Therefore, thesevariables were considered in the analyses. The research model is given in Figure 1.

4.2 HypothesesStudents knowledge of international fashion brands is evaluated with respect to theirgender, field of education, and usage of these brands. Comparing brand knowledge ofstudents from the fine arts departments, especially those in the fields of fashion designand fashion business, with the other students from diverse departments such asengineering and business administration, could reveal the influence of education onbrand knowledge. Furthermore, gender and having consumed a product of the brandcould have an effect on their brand knowledge. Therefore, in order to test the impact ofthese characteristics, three main hypotheses were developed:

H1. Brand awareness differs with respect to demographic variables and usage fordifferent fashion brands.

H2. Cognitive brand image differs with respect to demographic variables andusage of different fashion brands.

H3. Emotional brand image differs with respect to demographic variables andusage of different fashion brands.

These three hypotheses had 16 sub-hypotheses in total: three for H1, eight for H2andfive forH3. Each one of these 16 hypotheses was analysed with respect to departments,gender, and usage.

4.3 QuestionnaireThe brand awareness was evaluated by applying the approach of Aaker (1996) by thestatements, I am generally aware of this brand, I am aware of this brand and I am

Figure 1.Research model

JEIM23,4

542


6/21

familiar of this brand, which assess consumers ability to recognise a brand, and wereused in the previous study (Lehmann et al., 2008) to evaluate brands awareness scoresin a single product category as in our study. The brand awareness statements weretranslated into Turkish and formed into a five-point Likert-scale construct

(1 strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree).For brand image, the scale of Kaplan (2007), which includes 13 items evaluated on a

five-point Likert-scale (1 strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree), was used. Firsteight items of this scale are cognitive brand associations, which evaluate theassociations attached to the physical features and functions of each brands products,and the remaining five items are emotional brand associations, which measureattributions that each individual himself or herself attaches to a brand (Table I). Sinceproduct appearance is crucial for both marketing a product and consumers decisionmaking (Kaplan, 2007) and visual attractiveness is a key element for fashion brands,the brand image scale of Kaplan, of which purpose is to evaluate consumersperceptions of product appearance on cognitive and emotional brand associations, was

appropriate for this study.Both scales, brand awareness and brand image, were pre-tested to check whetherthe statements were comprehensible and distinguishable from each other. In thepre-test phase, 11 students evaluated the statements and accordingly the translation ofbrand awareness statements was reviewed since the students could not distinguish thedifference between the translation of the two statements, I am generally aware of thisbrand and I am aware of this brand. Therefore, they were adapted into the Turkishmeanings that is what was intended to be gathered from respondents via thesestatements instead of the literal translation. After the pre-test and review of the scales,the questionnaire form including three parts was obtained. In the first part of thequestionnaire, the demographic variables, which include age, gender, department,grade, if they had ever shopped or frequently shop from the brands listed, were asked.

The second part contained open-ended questions and the participants were asked todescribe each brand by two or three words that come in to mind. The brand awarenessand brand image statements were inquired in the third part.

Products of this brand

Cognitive brand associations 1. Perform as expected2. Offer value for price3. Are reliable4. Are functional5. Are usable6. Are durable

7. Have technical sophistication8. Are expensive

Emotional brand associations 1. Make a person feel good2. Target high-income level3. Increase the respectability of its user4. Are admired by my friends and relatives5. Express my personality

Note: Kaplan (2007)Table I.

Brand image scale items


543


7/21

4.4 SampleThe survey was conducted at Izmir University of Economics in January 2009.Convenience sampling method was used in order to reach a heterogeneous group and atotal number of 247 undergraduate students participated to the study. In order to

achieve validity in our study, we excluded some departments since the number ofstudents participated from those departments was very low that was not enough tocompare with the other departments. Therefore, 201 undergraduate students from tendifferent departments were included in the analyses. These ten departments wereBusiness Administration, Interior Design, Fashion Business, Translation andInterpretation Studies, Public Relations, Industrial Design, Fashion Design,Communication Design, Architecture and Logistics Management, of Izmir Universityof Economics.

4.5 AnalysisThe data were analysed by using SPSS 11. The hypotheses based on multiple-choice

questions are analysed by frequencies and t-test. The Cronbach Alpha of the brandknowledge scale was 0.96 (brand awareness 0.96 and brand image 0.94). The answersto the open-ended questions were analysed and counted manually.

5. Findings5.1 Profile of the respondentsThe questionnaires were responded in January 2009 by 201 undergraduate studentsfrom ten different departments of Izmir University of Economics. In total, 63.7 per centof the students were female and 36.3 per cent were male. A total of 3 per cent, sixstudents, were aged 18, 9 per cent, 18 students, were aged 19, 13.4 per cent, 27 students,were aged 20, and 22.4 per cent, 45 students, were aged 21. The majority, 52.2 per centof the sample, was 22 years old and over, there were 105 students, shown in Table II. Ofthe students, 33, 16.4 per cent, were freshmen, 68, 33.8 per cent, sophomore, 49, 24.4 percent, junior, and 51, 25.4 per cent, at the senior (Table III).

The respondents shopped from at least one of the brands listed. The majority of thestudents have bought an item from Zara, Mavi, Koton, and Mango, respectively. Thenumber of consumers for Lacoste and Diesel were the same. The students often shopfrom Zara, Mango, Mavi and Koton. The least preferred ones for habitual shopping are

I have shoppedfrom

I have nevershopped from I often shop from

Brands n (%) n (%) n (%)

Zara 151 75.1 50 24.9 118 58.7Mavi 150 74.6 51 25.4 85 42.3Koton 145 72.1 56 27.9 80 39.8Mango 131 65.2 70 34.8 106 52.7Tommy Hilfiger 112 55.7 89 44.3 30 14.9Diesel 107 53.2 94 46.8 48 23.9Lacoste 107 53.2 94 46.8 37 18.4GAP 95 47.3 106 52.7 42 20.9Guess 59 29.4 142 70.6 17 8.5

Table II.Usage frequencies(number of students andpercentages)

JEIM23,4

544


8/21

Gender

Age

Grade

Departments

Male

Female

18

19

20

21

22andover

1

2

3

4

T

otal(n

201(100percent))

BusinessAdministration

n

19

16

4

5

9

17

1

6

22

6

35

%

54.3

45.7

11.4

14.3

25.7

48.6

2.9

17.1

62.9

17.1

17.4

InteriorDesign

n

5

6

1

3

4

3

1

8

1

1

11

%

45.5

54.5

9

27.3

36.4

27.3

9.1

72.7

9.1

9.1

5.5

FashionBusiness

n

13

20

4

29

9

5

19

33

%

39.4

60.6

12

88

27.3

15.2

57.5

16.4

TranslationandInterpretationStudies

n

3

15

4

5

3

2

4

13

1

2

2

18

%

16.7

83.3

22

28

17

11

22

72.2

5.6

11.1

11.1

9

PublicRelations

n

16

16

1

2

1

6

22

2

8

3

19

32

%

50

50

3.1

6.2

3.1

18.8

68.8

6.2

25

9.4

59.4

15.9

IndustrialDesign

n

3

6

1

3

5

1

1

5

2

9

%

33

67

11.1

33.3

55.6

11.1

11.1

55.6

22.2

4.5

FashionDesign

n

5

35

1

2

9

10

18

11

19

9

1

40

%

12.5

87.5

2.5

5

22.5

25

45

27.5

47.5

22.5

2.5

19.9

CommunicationDesign

n

3

3

1

1

4

2

3

1

6

%

50

50

16.7

16.7

66.6

33.3

50

16.7

3

Architecture

n

2

5

3

1

3

7

7

%

28.6

71.4

43

14

43

100

3.5

LogisticsManagement

4

6

3

4

3

2

6

1

1

10

40

60

30

40

30

20

60

10

10

5

Total(n

201(100perc

ent))

n

73

128

6

18

27

45

85

33

68

49

51

%

36.3

63.7

3

9

13.4

22.4

42.3

16.4

33.8

24.4

25.4

Table III.Demographic variables

(number of students andpercentages)


545


9/21

Tommy Hilfiger, Diesel, Lacoste, GAP, and Guess. For both of the questions, GAP andGuess were on the bottom line (Table II).

5.2 Results of the hypotheses testsH1 aimed to reveal that there is a difference in brand awareness for different fashionbrands with respect to the demographic variables, which are departments and gender,and with usage frequency. For that t-test was run and according to the results, p valueslower than 0.05 showed that there was a significant difference. H11 was supportedwithin Public Relations and Fashion Design departments for the brands Zara andMango, and within Public Relations and Fashion Business departments for Zara thatthe students of these departments are more aware of these brands than the studentsfrom the other departments. It was also supported among male and female students forthe brands Zara, Guess, Mango and Koton (shown in Table IV). H12 was supportedbetween gender for Zara, Guess, Mango, Koton, and Mavi that female students aremore aware of these brands than male students. H13 was supported within Business

Administration-Fashion Design for GAP, Diesel, Zara, Mango, Guess and Koton,Public Relations-Fashion Design for Mango and Koton, and Fashion Business-FashionDesign departments for Koton and Mavi that Fashion Design students are morefamiliar with those brands than the students from Business Administration, PublicRelations and Fashion Business departments. Additionally Fashion Business studentswere more familiar with GAP, Lacoste, Diesel and Guess than Business Administrationstudents that H13 was supported also between those departments. All thesub-hypotheses of H1 were supported for all brands due to consumption of thebrands that a student, who has consumed a brand, is more aware of it than others.Thus, having consumed a brand increases the brand awareness.

The cognitive brand image among the demographic variables and usage washypothesised as H2. Except H24 among departments and H26among genders, it was

supported (Table V). Therefore, no difference was found according to departments,genders and usage for the brands reliability. In addition, there is no difference inperception of the brands functionality among the students from different departmentsand due to gender, there is no difference in the students evaluation of the brands asdurable. It proposes that the male and female students equally perceive durability of abrand.

The sub-hypotheses ofH3, which aimed to evaluate the difference in the emotionalbrand image among the demographic variables, supported that emotional brand imagediffers with respect to the departments, gender and usage except H332that there wasno significant difference between genders for augmentation of respectability of its user.The supported sub-hypotheses of H3 are shown in Table VI.

5.3 Results of the open-ended questionsMost of the respondents described the brands by their own words, brand associations,which are grouped and listed in accordance with each statements frequency (shown inTable VII). The most repeated brand associations were being an expensive brand oran inexpensive brand. For all brands, the most often repeated associations werequality, sportive, expensive and inexpensive. The brands and the frequency ofmentioning these associations are shown on Figure 2. The students considered thebrands Tommy Hilfiger, GAP, Lacoste, Diesel, Zara, Guess and Mavi as being

JEIM23,4

546


10/21

Supported sub-hypotheses (method of analyses: t-test) t-value p

H11. I am generally aware of this brand

H111: DepartmentsPublic Relations-Fashion DesignZara 22,247 ,0.05

Mango 22,057 ,0.05

Fashion Business-Public Relations

Zara 2,163 ,0.05

H112: GenderZara 3,886 ,0.05

Guess 2,094 ,0.05

Mango 4,818 ,0.05

Koton 2,274 ,0.05

H113: UsageTommy Hilfiger

GAP

Lacoste

Diesel

Zara

Guess 2,683 ,0.05

Mango 4,317 ,0.05

Koton 4,277 ,0.05

Mavi 4,680 ,0.05

H12: I am aware of this brandH122: Gender

Zara 2,019 ,0.05

Guess 2,747 ,0.05

Mango 3,914 ,0.05

Koton 2,581 ,0.05

Mavi 2,403 ,0.05H123: Usage

Tommy Hilfiger 2,708 ,0.05

GAP 3,241 ,0.05

Lacoste 2,098 ,0.05

Diesel 2,715 ,0.05

Zara 3,850 ,0.05

Guess 3,033 ,0.05

Mango 3,308 ,0.05

Koton 3,203 ,0.05

Mavi 2,659 ,0.05

H13: I am familiar with this brandH131: Departments

Business Administration-Fashion DesignGAP 22,511 ,0.05

Diesel 22,087 ,0.05

Zara 22,020 ,0.05

Guess 22,630 ,0.05

Mango 22,484 ,0.05

Koton 22,049 ,0.05

(continued)

Table IV.The comparative

analyses of brandawareness with respect to

the demographicvariables and usage


547


11/21

expensive and having high quality. There were also students claimed Zara as aninexpensive brand. The other two inexpensive brands for the students were Mangoand Koton. Tommy Hilfiger, GAP, Diesel and Mavi were also sportive according to thestudents description.

The descriptions given by the respondents reveal prominence of these brands; howconsumers correlate them. Since brand associations are used in positioning (Aaker,1991), the results of the open-ended questions could provide the firms to operatemarketing activities whether to strengthen or to alter these associations.

6. ConclusionConsumer demands are rapidly changing and getting similar to each other not only in asingle country but also internationally. In order to be successful internationally, it isimportant to have a strong brand. In this study, brand knowledge, which consists ofbrand awareness and brand image, of nine international fashion brands was evaluatedamong the Turkish university students. This study contributes to the findings ofprevious studies held on customer based brand equity that consumer characteristics ofgender, field of education, and having consumed the brand have an influence on brandknowledge. Females, Fashion Design and Fashion Business departments students,


Business Administration-Fashion Business

GAP 22,864 ,0.05

Lacoste 22,347 ,0.05

Diesel 22,277 ,0.05

Guess 22,252 ,0.05

Public Relations-Fashion Design

Mango 22,012 ,0.05

Koton 22,042 ,0.05

Fashion Business-Fashion Design

Koton 22,708 ,0.05

Mavi 22,270 ,0.05

H132: GenderGAP 3,137 ,0.05

Zara 4,313 ,0.05

Guess 3,253 ,0.05

Mango 9,187 ,0.05

Koton 5,177 ,0.05

Mavi 2,647 ,0.05

H133: UsageTommy Hilfiger 6,945 ,0.05

GAP 4,365 ,0.05

Lacoste 3,896 ,0.05

Diesel 5,267 ,0.05

Zara 6,220 ,0.05

Guess 4,827 ,0.05

Mango 8,613 ,0.05

Koton 6,550 ,0.05

Mavi 4,695 ,0.05Table IV.

JEIM23,4

548


12/21


H2: Cognitive brand image differs with respect to demographicvariables and usage of different fashion brands

H21: Perform as expected.H211: Departments

Fashion Business-Public RelationsDiesel 3,103 ,0.05Zara 2,211 ,0.05Mango 3,008 ,0.05

Business Administration-Fashion BusinessDiesel 2,496 ,0.05

Fashion Design-Public RelationsGAP 3,575 ,0.05Diesel 2,575 ,0.05

Business Administration-Fashion DesignGAP 2,700 ,0.05Diesel 1,999 ,0.05

Fashion Design-Fashion BusinessGAP 2,700 ,0.05

H212: GenderGAP 2,531 ,0.05Zara 2,021 ,0.05Guess 3,344 ,0.05Mango 2,116 ,0.05Koton 2,122 ,0.05

H213: UsageTommy Hilfiger 6,106 ,0.05GAP 2,667 ,0.05Lacoste 3,955 ,0.05Diesel 5,202 ,0.05Zara 5,408 ,0.05Guess 4,494 ,0.05Mango 3,435 ,0.05Koton 5,295 ,0.05Mavi 4,965 ,0.05

H22: Offer value for price.H221: Departments

Business Administration-Fashion DesignDiesel 2,488 ,0.05

Fashion Design-Fashion BusinessTommy Hilfiger 2,180 ,0.05

H222: GenderGAP 2,863 ,0.05Guess 3,301 ,0.05

H223: UsageTommy Hilfiger 5,099 ,0.05GAP 2,819 ,0.05Lacoste 4,534 ,0.05Diesel 4,618 ,0.05Zara 5,232 ,0.05Koton 3,828 ,0.05Mavi 3,993 ,0.05

(continued)

Table V.The comparative

analyses of cognitivebrand image with respect

to the demographicvariables


549


13/21


H24: Are functional.H242: Gender

Mango 2,347 ,0.05H243: Usage

Tommy Hilfiger 3,168 ,0.05GAP 3,157 ,0.05Lacoste 2,711 ,0.05Diesel 3,829 ,0.05Zara 3,852 ,0.05Mango 2,935 ,0.05Koton 2,299 ,0.05Mavi 2,612 ,0.05

H25: Are usableH251: Departments

Business Administration-Fashion DesignLacoste 22,074 ,0.05

Diesel 22,075 ,0.05Mango 22,261 ,0.05

Business Administration-Fashion BusinessTommy Hilfiger 2,148 ,0.05Mango 2,073 ,0.05

Business Administration-Public RelationsTommy Hilfiger 2,261 ,0.05Mango 2,754 ,0.05

H252: GenderMango 2,438 ,0.05Koton 2,630 ,0.05Mavi 2,078 ,0.05

H253: UsageTommy Hilfiger 5,245 ,0.05GAP 5,350 ,0.05Lacoste 4,051 ,0.05Diesel 2,614 ,0.05Zara 4,483 ,0.05Guess 2,261 ,0.05Mango 3,468 ,0.05Koton 4,139 ,0.05Mavi 2,928 ,0.05

H26: Are not durableH261: Departments

Business Administration-Public RelationsZara 22,068 ,0.05

Fashion Design-Public Relations

Tommy Hilfiger2

2,103,

0.05Business Administration-Fashion BusinessZara 22,294 ,0.05Mango 23,139 ,0.05Koton 22,081 ,0.05

Business Administration-Fashion DesignZara 2,196 ,0.05Mango 2,106 ,0.05

(continued)Table V.

JEIM23,4

550


14/21

and those who had already consumed a product of the brands listed, had moreknowledge on these nine international fashion brands.

The students, who were studying in Fashion Design and Fashion Businessdepartments, had a little more knowledge of these brands than the others. This slightdifference could be as a result of advertising and communication activities. Not onlypeople in the fashion business, but also others get some information about fashionbrands willingly or not through promotions. Magazines, shopping centres and otherconsumers around could also provide such knowledge. This could also be anexplanation for the knowledge about GAP, which recently entered into the Turkishmarket that had almost the same values as the other brands. The students might have

accumulated information about GAP via television, magazines, travels and so on.Hung (2008) found that positive PR perceptions have a positive effect on brand imagethat would influence consumer loyalty. Also the results of our study points out theimportance of marketing communication activities such as PR and advertising.Therefore, it is important to consider these factors while creating a successful fashionbrand or entering into a new market.

Comparison of the brand knowledge among genders revealed that the femalestudents had more knowledge of the listed brands than the males. As mentioned


H263: UsageKoton 23,310 ,0.05

H27: Have technical sophisticationH271: Departments

Fashion Design-Public RelationsTommy Hilfiger 2,408 ,0.05

Business Administration-Fashion BusinessMango 2,649 ,0.05Koton 2,540 ,0.05

H272: GenderGuess 2,426 ,0.05

H273: UsageTommy Hilfiger 4,887 ,0.05GAP 4,263 ,0.05Lacoste 2,301 ,0.05Diesel 2,975 ,0.05

Guess 4,189 ,0.05Mavi 3,230 ,0.05

H28: Are expensiveH281: Departments

Fashion Business-Public RelationsZara 22,744 ,0.05Koton 22,329 ,0.05

Business Administration-Fashion BusinessZara 3,564 ,0.05

H282: GenderKoton 22,008 ,0.05

H283: UsageZara 22,947 ,0.05 Table V.


551


15/21


H3: Emotional brand image differs with respect to demographic variables fordifferent fashion brands

H31: Make a person feel goodH311: Departments

Fashion Business-Public RelationsMango 1,998 ,0.05

Fashion Design-Public RelationsZara 2,188 ,0.05

H312: GenderZara 2,087 ,0.05Guess 2,013 ,0.05Mango 3,395 ,0.05

H313: UsageTommy Hilfiger 6,384 ,0.05GAP 4,586 ,0.05Lacoste 5,16 ,0.05

Diesel 4,467,

0.05Zara 6,384 ,0.05Guess 3,507 ,0.05Mango 4,620 ,0.05Koton 3,858 ,0.05Mavi 4,729 ,0.05

H32: Target low-income levelH321: Departments

Fashion Design-Public RelationsMango 2,886 ,0.05

Business Administration-Fashion DesignKoton 2,094 ,0.05Mavi 2,300 ,0.05

Business Administration-Fashion BusinessGAP 22,262 ,0.05

Diesel 22,081 ,0.05Mavi 22,971 ,0.05

H322: GenderDiesel 21,930 ,0.05Mango 2,545 ,0.05

H323: UsageZara 2,821 ,0.05Mango 2,738 ,0.05

H33: Increase the respectability of its userH331: Departments

Fashion Business-Public RelationsMango 2,143 ,0.05

Business Administration-Public RelationsMango 2,080 ,0.05

H333: UsageTommy Hilfiger 5,376 ,0.05GAP 5,174 ,0.05Lacoste 2,475 ,0.05Diesel 3,421 ,0.05Guess 3,374 ,0.05Koton 2,077 ,0.05Mavi 2,636 ,0.05

(continued)

Table VI.The comparativeanalyses of emotionalbrand image with respectto the demographicvariables

JEIM23,4

552


16/21


H34: Are admired by my friends and relativesH341: Departments

Fashion Business-Public RelationsKoton 22,188 ,0.05Mavi 23,558 ,0.05

Business Administration-Fashion BusinessKoton 3,139 ,0.05Mavi 2,400 ,0.05

Fashion Design-Fashion BusinessTommy Hilfiger 2,294 ,0.05GAP 2,163 ,0.05Guess 2,031 ,0.05Koton 2,575 ,0.05Mavi 2,168 ,0.05

H342: GenderZara 2,111 ,0.05

Mango 3,272 ,0.05H343: Usage

Tommy Hilfiger 2,795 ,0.05GAP 2,130 ,0.05Mango 4,269 ,0.05Koton 4,025 ,0.05Mavi 4,599 ,0.05

H35: Express my personalityH351: Departments

Fashion Business-Public RelationsGAP 2,343 ,0.05Diesel 2,617 ,0.05

Fashion Design-Public RelationsTommy Hilfiger 2,126 ,0.05

Zara 2,464,

0.05Mango 2,506 ,0.05Koton 2,626 ,0.05

Business Administration-Fashion BusinessDiesel 23,292 ,0.05

H352: GenderGAP 2,074 ,0.05Diesel 2,912 ,0.05Zara 3,076 ,0.05Guess 2,463 ,0.05Mango 6,577 ,0.05Koton 2,321 ,0.05Mavi 2,985 ,0.05

H353: UsageTommy Hilfiger 6,971 ,0.05Gap 6,786 ,0.05Lacoste 5,415 ,0.05Diesel 7,451 ,0.05Zara 5,927 ,0.05Guess 4,470 ,0.05Mango 6,683 ,0.05Koton 4,987 ,0.05Mavi 5,262 ,0.05 Table VI.


553


17/21

Brands Statements n %

Tommy Hilfiger (total number of respondents Expensive 40 28.6 140) High quality 19 13.6

Sportive 15 10.7Colours (red, white, and/or blue) 14 10Products (sweater and T-shirt) 4 2.9Brand 4 2.9

GAP (total number of respondents 128) Sportive 28 21.9Comfortable 18 14Expensive 14 11Products (sweat shirt, polar and T-shirt) 12 9.4Basic 7 5.5High quality 6 4.7

Lacoste (total number of respondents 142) Expensive 27 19High quality 27 19Classic 19 13.4Crocodile 11 7.8

Basic 11 7.8Products (shirt, T-shirt and shoes) 5 3.5Diesel (total number of respondents 143) Expensive 44 30.7

Stylish 38 26.6Products ( jeans and shoes 16 11.2High quality 15 10.5Sportive 8 5.6Young 6 4.2

Zara (total number of respondents 141) Inexpensive 33 23.4Many assortments 19 13.5Stylish 17 12High quality 12 8.5Casual 6 4.3Form 3 2.1

Guess (total number of respondents 117) Expensive 27 23Products (bag, shoes and watch) 20 17Unnecessary 14 12High quality 7 6Exaggeration 6 5.1Stylish 6 5.1

Mango (total number of respondents 131) Inexpensive 44 33.6For women 14 10.7Low quality 12 9.2Bazaar 10 7.6Design 8 6.1Many people have 5 3.8

Koton (total number of respondents 119) Inexpensive 25 21Assortment 10 8.4Low quality 8 6.7

Feminine 7 5.9High quality 6 5Turkish 3 2.5

Mavi (total number of respondents 131) Jeans 32 24.4Turkish 17 13Sportive 13 10High quality 11 8.4Expensive 10 7.6Proper price 9 6.8

Table VII.Description of the brandsby the respondents

JEIM23,4

554


18/21

previously, Gocek et al. (2007) claimed that there was no difference in brand imageperception according to gender. However, the results of our study show that brandimage perception could differ due to gender. Furthermore, having consumed a brandleads to a significant effect on brand knowledge. Moreover, the brands Lacoste,Tommy Hilfiger, Diesel and Guess, which are positioned as luxury items in Turkeyand conspicuously consumed by students, were more likely to be described on anegative way, e.g. unnecessary, for middle-age and low quality, by non-users andpositively, such as high quality and comfortable by users.

The study presents interesting outcomes regarding the perceptions of universitystudents from different departments. The fashion brands targeting young consumersshould consider the impacts of brand knowledge on their target segments. In a

globalised world where local preferences are also playing an important role, brands acteffectively in the development of the market demand. Brand knowledge is a key toevaluate in reaching the consumers and this study has proved the importance ofempirical studies in this respect.

6.1 Limitations and further researchThis study reveals the effects of demographic variables on brand knowledge byevaluating nine international fashion brands. Since the target segments of these brandsare not known, future studies could analyse the brands by grouping them according totheir segmentation and probably product types in order to compare them more strictly.

It is also noticed that the brand awareness statements, although they were notliterally translated into Turkish, were difficult to be understood by the students sincethere was no strict line to describe them in Turkish. Therefore, further studies mightdescribe what is aimed to gather through these statements in the native languageinstead of translating the exact statements. It is also purposeful to compare the brandknowledge of the same brands in different samples and different countries in future

studies. These studies could enable us comprehend and compare the effects of gender,field of education, and usage of brand on brand knowledge in different cultures.

Figure 2.Most repeated brand

associations for all brandsanalysed


555


19/21

References

Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, FreePress, New York, NY.

Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, Free Press, New York, NY.

Barnard, N.R. and Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1990), Robust measures of consumer brand beliefs,

Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27, November, pp. 477-87.

Chandon, P. (2003), Note on measuring brand awareness, brand image, brand equity and brand

value, INSEAD Working Paper Series, March, available at: http://library.nyenrode.nl/

INSEAD/2003/2003-019.pdf (accessed 26 December 2008).

Chen, R. and He, F. (2003), Examination of brand knowledge, perceived risk and consumers

intention to adopt and online retailer, TQM & Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 6,pp. 677-93.

Danesi, M. (2006), Brands, Routledge, London.

Del Rio, A.B., Vazquez, R. and Iglesias, V. (2001), The effects of brand associations on consumer

response, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 410-25.

DiMingo, E. (1988), The fine art of positioning, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 9 No. 2,pp. 34-8.

Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G.M. (1990), In search of brand image: a foundation analysis,

in Goldberg, M.E., Corn, G. and Pollay, R. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17,Association of Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 110-19.

Driesener, C. and Romaniuk, J. (2001), Brand image? Pick a measure, any measure, available at:

http://smib.vuw.ac.nz:8081/WWW/ANZMAC2001/anzmac/AUTHORS/pdfs/Driesener.

pdf (accessed 26 December 2008).

Driesener, C. and Romaniuk, J. (2006), Comparing methods of brand image measurement,

International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 681-98.

Elliot, R. and Percy, L. (2007), Strategic Brand Management, Oxford University Press, New York,

NY.

Frings, G.S. (1982), Fashion from Concept to Consumer, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,NJ.

Gardner, B.B. and Levy, S.J. (1955), The product and the brand, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 33, pp. 33-9.

Gocek, I., Kursun, S. and Beceren, I. (2007), The perception of customer satisfaction in the textile

industry according to gender in Turkey, Proceedings of World Academy of Science,Engineering and Technology, Vol. 24, pp. 79-82.

Grubb, E.L. and Grathwol, H.L. (1967), Consumer self-concept, symbolism, and marketbehaviour: a theoretical approach, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, October,pp. 22-7.

Guedes, G. and da Costa Soares, P. (2005), Branding of fashion products: a communicationprocess, a marketing approach, Proceedings of the Association for BusinessCommunication 7th European Convention, Copenhagen, Denmark, 26-28 May, availableat: www.businesscommunication.org/conventions/Proceedings/2005/PDFs/

25ABCEurope05.pdf (accessed 26 December 2009).

Hung, C. (2008), The effect of brand image on public relations perceptions and customer

loyalty, International Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 237-46.

Kapferer, J. (1994), Strategic Brand Management, Free Press, New York, NY.

JEIM23,4

556


20/21

Kaplan, M.D. (2007), Product appearance and brand knowledge: an analysis of critical

relationships, doctoral dissertation, Izmir University of Economics, Izmir.

Keller, K.L. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity,

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22.

Keller, K.L. (2003), Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 595-600.

Keller, K.L. (2008), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand

Equity, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2005), Brands and branding: research findings and future

priorities, Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 740-59.

Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2009), Marketing Management, 13th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper SaddleRiver, NJ.

Lehmann, D.R., Keller, K.L. and Farley, J.U. (2008), The structure of survey-based brand

metrics, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 29-56.

Low, G.S. and Lamb, C.W. Jr (2000), The measurement and dimensionality of brand

associations, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 350-68.

Macdonald, E. and Sharp, B. (2003), Management perceptions of the importance of brand

awareness as an indication of advertising effectiveness, Marketing Bulletin, Vol. 14 No. 2,pp. 1-11.

Moran, W.R. (1973), Why new products fail, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 13, April,pp. 5-13.

Nandan, S. (2005), An exploration of the brand identity-brand image linkage: a communications

perspective, Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 264-78.

Packard, S., Winters, A.A. and Axelrod, N. (1983), Fashion Buying and Merchandising, 2nd ed.,Fairchild Publications, New York, NY.

Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and MacInnis, D.J. (1986), Strategic brand concept-imagemanagement, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 135-45.

Pitta, D.A. and Katsanis, L.P. (1995), Understanding brand equity for successful brand

extension, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 51-64.

Rajh, E. (2002), Development of a scale for measuring customer-based brand equity,EkonomskiPreglet, Vol. 53 Nos 7-8, pp. 770-81.

Richards, I., Foster, D. and Morgan, R. (1998), Brand knowledge management: growing brand

equity, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 47-54.

Ross, S.D. (2006), A conceptual framework for understanding spectator-based brand equity,

Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 22-38.

Rossiter, J.R. and Percy, L. (1987), Advertising and Promotion Management, McGraw-Hill, New

York, NY.Roth, M.S. (1995), The effects of culture and socioeconomics on the performance of global brand

image strategies, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32, May, pp. 163-75.

Saviolo, S. (2002), Brand and identity management in fashion companies, DIR, Research

Division SDA BOCCONI Working Paper No. 02-66, available at: www.sdabocconi.it/files/

wp66_Z8G3EIAJARH74NLHNCD8DZ1168009541.pdf (accessed 26 December 2008).

Shank, M.D. and Langmeyer, L. (1994), Does personality influence brand image?, Journal of

Psychology, Vol. 128 No. 2, pp. 157-64.


557


21/21

Sherry, J.E. (2005), Brand meaning, in Tybout, A.M. and Calkins, T. (Eds), Kellogg onBranding: The Marketing Faculty of the Kellogg School of Management, John Wiley &Sons, Hoboken, NJ.

Wolfe, M.G. (2003), The World of Fashion Merchandising, The Goodheart-Wilcox Company,

Tinsley Park, IL.

Further reading

Sharif, A.M. (2008), Information, knowledge and the context of interaction, paper presented atEuropean and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (EMCIS), Dubai, 25-26May.

About the authorsNazli Alimen is a PhD Candidate in Marketing at Izmir University of Economics, Izmir, Turkey.She completed her BA degree in 2001 from Gazi University, MA degree in Brand Managementfrom Istituto Marangoni in 2004 and her MBA degree from Izmir University of Economics in2008. Having worked in visual merchandising and public relations departments of several

companies, she started to pursue her PhD degree in September 2008 at Izmir University ofEconomics. Nazli Alimen is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected]

A. Guldem Cerit is a Professor in the Maritime Faculty, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir,Turkey. She received her BSc degree from the Engineering School of the Middle East TechnicalUniversity, Ankara. She worked in the private sector for nine years in various engineering andmarketing positions, all at managerial levels. While in the private industry, she completed theMBA program and the PhD degree in the Marketing discipline of the Business Program at theDokuz Eylul University. She joined Dokuz Eylul University School of Maritime Business andManagement (turned into Maritime Faculty in 2009) in 1993 as an Assistant Professor, being thefirst appointed instructor of the School, founded in 1988 as the leading Turkish higher educationinstitute in the maritime business area, the medium of instruction being English. She has servedas the Director of the School since 1997. She has received her Associate Professor and Professor

degrees in Maritime Transport Business discipline.

JEIM23,4

558

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

dimensions of

Documents