valuing brands and brand equity condensed

8/2/2019 Valuing Brands and Brand Equity Condensed

1/29

VALUING BRANDS AND BRAND EQUITY :PITFALLS AND PROCESSES

By

Geoffrey BickSenior Lecturer in Marketing

Graduate School of Business AdministrationUniversity of the Witwatersrand

Johannesburg

And

Russell AbrattThe FNB Professor of Marketing

Graduate School of Business AdministrationUniversity of the Witwatersrand

JohannesburgP O Box 98

Wits 2050South Africa Tel: 27 11 717 3539Fax: 27 11 616 3538E-Mail: [email protected]

Category: Marketing Management
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/29

ABSTRACTWhile there has been much research on Branding and Brand Equity in recentyears, relatively little has been published on Brand Valuation. This paper reviewsthe Branding literature. It highlights Brand Valuation research, the obstacles toBrand Valuation and valuation approaches. The various models available for

Brand valuation are discussed. Important but neglected issues such as thediscount rate, growth rate and useful life are highlighted in the context of valuingbrands. Conceptual checks are provided for managers and a process for valuingbrands is suggested.

2


3/29

Brand equity as a concept has been developed over the last decade (Aaker1991; Keller 1998). One of the main issues still to be resolved is how to valuebrands. Summarising the primary thrust of articles published in the Journal ofMarketing Research during 1987-1997, Malhotra et al concluded that in the areaof brand evaluation and choice, future research should focus on further

measurements of the brand equity construct (Malhotra et al 1999). Theyproposed that a generally accepted measure could further the overallunderstanding of the strategic role of brand equity in extending the brand and infinancially benefiting the firm. While there are a number of methods and modelsavailable to managers, it is still uncertain which approach is best, and the issuesaround the discount rate, growth rate and useful life have to be resolved(Kapferer 1994). The objectives of this article are : to review the variousapproaches and methods used to value brands; to discuss the issues managersneed to consider when evaluating valuation methods; and to provide guidelinesto managers when valuing brands.

As capital becomes less of a constraint on businesses there will be far greateremphasis on how this capital is used to creatively differentiate the organisation.The abundance of capital means that physical assets can be replicated with ease(Drucker 1998). The point of differentiation (and the source of shareholder value)will flow from intangible assets. Two main trends are driving the need for agreater understanding of the techniques used to measure brand equity. The firstis the growing need to evaluate the productivity of marketing spend (Sheth andSisoda 2000); and the second is the accounting requirement that purchasedbrands are capitalised and amortised.

The benefit of ascertaining the correct brand value will ensure that resources areappropriately channeled to where they will deliver the greatest value to theorganization, particularly in optimizing a brand portfolio. Decisions regarding thecorrect level of marketing spend, the evaluation of brand manager performance,and the initial decision whether to build a strong brand will be simplified. Anotherpotential use is ensuring that the correct value is determined for mergers andacquisition purposes. Furthermore, an accurate brand equity valuation ensuresthat brand-licensing fees correctly reflect the benefits received (Keller 1998).

LITERATURE REVIEWThere has been much branding research over the last decade. Studies that relateto brand personality and image have been conducted by Dawar and Parker(1994), Aaker (1997), Ferrand and Pages (1999), Meenaghan and Shipley(1999) and Hogg, Cox and Kelling (2000). All these studies highlight theimportance of brand personality and its effect on consumers. Consumerattitudes and behaviour are influenced by branding. Studies by Simonin andRuth (1998), Senguptagavan and Fitzsimons (2000), Areni, Duhan and Kiecker(1999), Webster (2000), Alpert, Kamins and Graham (1992), Pavia and Costa(1993), Alpert and Kamins (1995), Alpert and Kamins (1994), Gupta and

3


4/29

Chintagunta (1996), Hutchinson, Raman, Mantrala (1994), Verbeke, Farris andThurik (1989), Nijssen (1999) and dAstous and Gargouri (2001) all relate toconsumer responses to branding in some way.

There have been a number of studies that deal with communication and

branding. Studies by Mac Innis, Moorman and Jaworski (1991), Machliet, Allenand Madden (1993), Kent and Allen (1994), DSouza and Rao (1995), Keller,Heckler and Houston (1989), Alden, Steenkamp and Batra (1999), Hite, Hite andMinar (1991), Knowles, Grove and Burroughs (1993), Kamins and Marks (1991),Melta and Gupta (1997), Derbaix (1995), Papatla and Krishnamurthis (1996),Deighton, Henderson and Neslin (1994), Eagle and Kitchen (2000), and Nichols,Roslow and Dublish (1999), all deal with the issues relating to advertising,sponsorship or other elements of promotion with brands.

Branding and retailing has been studied by a number of researchers. Theseinclude Corstjen and Lal (2000), Richardson, Dick and Ian (1994), Burt (2000)

and Moore, Fernie and Burg (2000). These studies dealt with store branding,private label products and other retail brand issues.

Much work has also been done on brand extensions. Research by Gurhan-Canliand Maheswaren (1989), Morrin (1999), Aaker and Keller (1990), Loken andJohn (1993) and Park, Jun and Shocker (1996) studied brand extensionstrategies and how they influence brand equity, consumer memory andconsumer attitudes and brand extension success and failures.Brand research relating to price has been conducted by Raghubir and Corfman(1999), Sethuraman (1996), Sivakumar and Raj (1997) and Brucks, Zeithaml andNaylor (2000). These studies looked at price promotions effect on brandevaluations, high versus low price brand effects models and price qualityeffects on brands.

Segmentation and Branding has been researched by Bucklin, Gupta and Han(1995) and Hammond (1996). Other studies have dealt with brand names(Sullivan 1998), umbrella branding (Erdem 1998), brand-quality associations(Janiszewski and Van Osselaer 2000), brand switching (Wedel, Kamakura,Desarbo and Ter Hofstede 1995), and new product features (Nowlis and Simson1996).

Recent research has been focused on brand equity. Buchanan, Simmons andBickart (1999) found that consistency amongst the various elements of amarketing programme is essential in building and maintaining brand equity.Berry (2000) discussed the importance of brand equity in services, and Yov,Donthu and Lee (2000) examined the marketing mix and brand equity. Na,Marshall and Keller (1999) validated a model for optimising brand equity whichcan be used as a practical managerial tool. Trust and brand equity wasdiscussed by Amler (1999) and Leuthessar and Kohli (1995) used data fromresearch on the halo effect to present a methodology for measuring brand equity.

4


5/29

In a special issue of the Journal of Marketing Research on brand management,Shocker, Srivastava and Reukert (1994) discussed the challenges andopportunities facing brand management.

There is relatively little research on how to measure brand equity or to valuebrands.

Brand ValuationInitial research into the valuation of brands originated from two areas : marketingmeasurement of brand equity, and the financial treatment of brands. The firstwas pioneered by Keller (1993), and included subsequent studies by Lasar et al(1995) on the measure of brand strength, by Park and Srinivasan (1994) onevaluating the equity of brand extension, Kamakura and Russell (1993) onsingle-source scanner panel data to estimate brand equity, and Aaker (1996) andMontameni and Shahrokhi (1998) on the issue of valuing brand equity across

local and global markets.

The financial treatment of brands has traditionally stemmed from the recognitionof brands on the balance sheet (Barwise et.al. 1989, Oldroyd, 1994, 1998), whichpresents problems to the accounting profession due to the uncertainty of dealingwith the future nature of the benefits associated with brands, and hence thereliability of the information presented. Tollington (1989) has debated thedistinction between goodwill and intangible brand assets. Further studiesinvestigated the impact on the stock price of customer perceptions of perceivedquality, a component of brand equity (Aaker and Jacobson 1994), and on thelinkage between shareholder value and the financial value of a companysbrands (Kerin and Sethuraman, 1998).

Simon and Sullivan (1993) developed a technique for measuring brand equity,based on the financial market estimates of profits attributable to brands. The co-dependency of the marketing and accounting professions in providing jointassessments of the valuation of brands has been recognised by Calderon et al(1997) and Cravens and Guilding (1999). They provide useful alternatives to thetraditional marketing perspectives of brands (Aaker, 1991; Kapferer, 1997; Keller,1998; Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000).

The debate over the appropriate method of valuation continues in the literature(Perrier 1997) and in the commercial world. The commercial valuation of brandshas been led by Interbrand, a UK-based firm specialising in valuing brands,Financial World, a magazine which has provided annual estimates of brandequity since 1992, and Brand Finance Limited, a British consulting organisation.These organisations utilise formulae approaches, and highlight the importance ofbrand valuation in the business environment.

5


6/29

OBSTACLES TO BRAND VALUATION

In a study conducted by Robbin (1991), the number one concern was the widerange of alternative valuation methods which will yield significantly different

results (Robbin 1991, p 56). A second concern was the difficulty in assessingthe brands useful life. There are several other obstacles to brand valuation.There is a lack of an active market for brands. This means that estimates ofmodel accuracy cannot be tested empirically nor can one gain some sort ofassurance of testing the value by putting the brand on the market. Manypractitioners are unwilling to publish their models and open them up to academicdebate. In addition, the large number of models cause confusion amongstmarketers and they are difficult to conceptualise. Another important obstacle isthat it is difficult to separate brand equity from other intangibles like goodwill.Barwise, Higson, Likierman and Marsh (1989 p7) suggest that at present, thereis no general agreement on valuation methods. Nor can existing methods be

regarded as either totally theoretically valid nor empirically verifiable.

It is important to recognise that only after careful consideration of all theenterprises intangible assets will the valuer be able to determine the importanceof the brand in the organisations current market position. Reilly and Schweihs(1999) list many possible intangible assets. These include marketing relatedassets such as trademarks, logos and brand names, and corporate identity.Customer related intangible assets include customer lists and customerrelationships. A further problem arises in the process of valuing an intangibleasset such as a brand which, often requires estimation and subjectivity.

BRANDS ON THE BALANCE SHEET

Robbin (1991) highlighted reasons why an organisation should recognise brandsas an asset. These include the fact that it decreases the firms gearing ratio as aresult of the larger asset base. It is also an internally generated asset and thusincreases shareholder equity. In addition, a large premium for mergers andacquisitions can be justified.

However, Robbin (1991) also highlights reasons for keeping brands off thebalance sheet. It decreases the return on assets as the firm now has a largercapital base. Companies that have adopted Economic Value Added (EVA)would have to raise a capital charge against the asset. The issue of brand valueor measurement also is a negative until acceptable methods can be found.

6


7/29

VALUATION APPROACHES

The concept of value is one of the most difficult concepts to grasp. Value hasdifferent meanings to different people and thus is not an objective concept. Thevaluation approach used is effectively the objective of the valuation. The

objective of the valuation is determined by its use. Some of the more commonvaluation approaches can be classified into five categories:

1. Cost-based approaches2. Market-based approaches3. Economic use or income-based approaches4. Formulary approaches5. Special situation approaches

Cost-based approaches consider the costs associated with creating the brand orreplacing the brand, including research and development of the product concept,

market testing, promotion, and product improvement. The accumulated costapproach will determine the value of the brand as the sum of accumulated costsexpended on the brand to date. This method is the easiest to perform, as all thedata should be readily available. Unfortunately, this historic valuation does notbear any resemblance to the economic value (Aaker 1991; Keller 1998).

The replacement cost approach determines the cost that would be incurred toreplace the asset if it is destroyed (Aaker 1991; Keller 1998). An advantage ofthis method is that it provides a better reflection of the true value of the brand. Adisadvantage of this approach is that the value does not bear a relation to theopen market value. One could over-capitalise, by over investing in that assetwhich may not be recouped if the asset was sold.

Market-based approaches are based on the amount for which a brand can besold. The open market valuation is the highest value that a willing buyer andwilling seller is prepared to pay for the asset. This would exclude a strategicbuyer who may have other objectives (Reilly and Schweihs 1999). This valuationbasis should be used when one wishes to sell the brand. Barwise et al (1989)suggest that the market value of an asset should reflect the possible alternativeuses; the value of future options as well as its value in existing activities; andrealism rather than conservatism. Modern financial theory states that one shouldsell off assets if the value that a buyer is willing to pay exceeds the discountedbenefits of the brand (Brealey and Meyers 1991).

Economic use approaches, also referred to as in-use or income-basedapproaches, consider the valuation of future net earnings directly attributable tothe brand to determine the value of the brand in its current use (Keller 1998;Reilly and Schweihs 1999; Cravens and Guilding 1999). This basis is oftenappropriate when valuing an asset that is unlikely to be sold as a flanking brandthat is being used for strategic reasons. This method reflects the future potential

7


8/29

of a brand that the owner currently enjoys. This value is useful when comparedto the open market valuation as the owner can determine the benefit foregone bypursuing the current course of action.

Formulary approaches consider multiple criteria to determine the value of a

brand. While similar in certain respects to income-based or economic useapproaches, they are included as a separate category due to their extensivecommercial usage by consulting and other organizations.

Special situation approaches recognize that brand valuation can be related toparticular circumstances that are not necessarily consistent with external orinternal valuations. A strategic buyer is often willing to pay a premium abovethe market value (Bradley and Viswanathan 2000). This may be a result ofsynergies that they are able to develop which other buyers may not be able toachieve. When an asset is valued, in the absence of a written offer from thestrategic buyer, it cannot be assumed that a buyer will appear and be prepared to

pay a premium price. Each case has to be evaluated on individual merit, basedon how much value the strategic buyer can extract from the market as a result ofthis purchase, and how much of this value the seller will be able to obtain fromthis strategic buyer.

The liquidation value is the value that the asset would fetch in a distress sale.The value under a liquidation sale is normally substantially lower than in a willingbuyer and seller arrangement. The costs of liquidating the asset should normallybe deducted in determining the value of the asset.

When valuing an asset for special purposes, for example, income tax, themethod that the assessing authority requires should be used. The advantage ofthis approach is that one is assured that all requirements are met. Thedrawback of the above approach is that the value may bear little relevance toeconomic reality or serve another useful purpose.

MODELS AVAILABLE FOR BRAND VALUATION

Reilly and Schweihs (1999) identified the attributes that affect the value ofbrands, but there are five main aspects that need to be considered whencalculating a brands value. These are: what additional price premium theproduct can command over a generic; how much additional market share can begained; what cost savings can result from an ability to exercise increased controlover the channel; what additional revenue can be gained through licensing andbrand extensions; and the additional marketing costs that need to be incurred inproviding the point of differentiation as a competitive strategy.

The models available for brand valuation can be grouped into the five majorcategories as illustrated in Figure 1:

8


9/29

(Insert figure 1 here)Some of the more common valuation models will now be discussed.

COST-BASED APPROACHES

1.1 Brand Equity based on Accumulated CostsThe basis of this model is that it aggregates all the historical marketingcosts as the value (Keller 1998). The real difficulty here is determining thecorrect classification as to what constitutes a marketing cost and whatdoes not. By way of an example, if an accountant spends two days amonth preparing reports for the marketing department, is that a cost thatcan be capitalised to the brand? Even if the classification difficulty wereovercome the next problem would be how to amortise the marketing cost,as a percentage of sales over the brands expected life?

The only advantage of the model is that the brand manager knows theactual amount that has been spent. Alternate models have beenproposed, but they all suffer from the same problems. An alternativemodel that has been suggested is to adjust the actual cost of launchingthe brand by inflation every year. This inflation adjusted launch cost wouldbe the brands value. (Reilly and Schweihs 1999).Algebraically this is determined as

Brand Value = Cash Incurred to date Less Amortization

1.2 Replacement cost based on launching a New BrandThis is one of the most difficult valuation bases to calculate. Aaker (1991)

proposes that the cost of launching a new brand is divided by itsprobability of success. The advantage of this approach is that it is easy tocalculate. One problem with this approach is that it neglects to take intoaccount the success of established brands. A brand may be worth a $100million. However the cost of launching a brand may be $5 million with a10% success rate and it therefore has a value of $50 million.

A company in this situation is in a very weak strategic position if acompetitor would enter this market. This model also does not take thebenefit of first entry into account. The first brand in the category has anatural advantage over other brands as they do not have to overcome theclutter. With each new attempt the probability of success diminishes.Algebraically this is determined asBrand Value = Cost of launching a brand probability of success

1.3 Using Conversion ModelsA possible alternative model to replacement cost would be to estimate theamount of awareness that needs to be generated in order to achieve thecurrent level of sales. This model would be based on conversion models,

9


10/29

ie taking the level of awareness, that induces trial, that induces regularrepurchase (Aaker 1991). The output may be used for two purposes: oneis to determine the cost of acquiring new customers and the other wouldbe the replacement cost of brand equity.Algebraically this is determined as

Brand Value = Awareness Level required to generate the sales x Cost ofthe awareness

From this an estimate for the value of existing awareness can be made.This can be done if an estimate of the rate that the awareness decreasesis taken and one values the additional margin from the brand at eachinterval is valued. The sum of the profit will equal the value of the existingawareness. An assumption needs to be made that no new investment inmarketing will take place, and an estimate of the useful life of the currentawareness needs to be made.

A major shortcoming of this approach is that the differential in thepurchase patterns of a generic and a branded product is needed. Anotherproblem is that the conversion ratio between awareness and purchase ishigher for an unbranded generic than the branded product. This mayindicate that awareness is not a key driver of sales and that the marketingmix is incorrect.

Although customers may be aware of a product this does not mean thatthey understand what the brand stands for. In the Young & RubicamBrand Asset Valuator (Aaker 1991) a distinction is made between vitality,a factor of differentiation and relevance, and stature, based on esteemand knowledge. One needs to be strong on all four aspects in order tohave a strong brand. Awareness is only one of many factors.

1.4 Brand based on customer preferenceAaker (1991) proposed that the value of the brand can be calculated byobserving the increase in awareness and comparing it to thecorresponding increase in the market share. Aaker (1991) identified theproblem as being how much of the increased market share is attributableto the brands awareness increase and how much to other factors. Afurther issue is that one would not expect a linear function betweenawareness and market share.Algebraically this is determined asMarket share attributable to awareness = Ratio of Change in MarketShare/Change in Awareness x Current level of awarenessBrand Value (replacement) = Market share attributable to awareness xCost of Awareness

orBrand Value (in use) = Market share attributable to awareness x Margin perMarket Share Point

10


11/29

MARKET-BASED APPROACHES

2.1 Comparable ApproachThis model takes the premium (or some other measure) that has been

paid for similar brands and applies this to brands that the company owns,eg a company pays two times sales for a similar brand. This multiple isthen applied to brands that the company owns (Reilly and Schweihs1999).

The advantage of this model is that it is based on what third parties areactually willing to pay and it is easy to calculate. The shortcomings of thismodel are that there is a lack of detailed information on the purchase priceof brands and that two brands are seldom alike.Algebraically this is determined asBrand Value = Comparable Measure x Own Companys Base

2.2 Brand Equity based on Equity EvaluationSimon and Sullivan (1993) presented a paper on using the financialmarket value to estimate the value of brand equity. This model hasnumerous advantages in that it recognises that it is based on empiricalevidence. The shortcomings of this model are that it assumes a verystrong state of the efficient market hypothesis (EMH), and that allinformation is included in the share price. It is well documented that this isnot the case (Bodie, Kane and Marcus 1999). Depending on the stockmarket, it is merely a debate on the level of efficiency.The model works as follows:1. The value of the intangibles are calculated by subtracting the

replacement cost of the tangible assets from the market value(market capitalisation plus the market value of debt and othersecurities) of the firm.

2. The value of the intangible assets are broken down into threecomponents, namely brand equity, value of non brand factors thatreduce the firm costs such as R&D and patents, and finally industrywide factors that permit super normal profits (eg regulations).

3. The brand equity component is further broken down into twocomponents, namely a demand-enhancing component and acomponent that caters for diminished marketing spend due to thebrand being established.

4. The demand-enhancing component is calculated using increasedmarket share. Market share is broken down into two components,one for the brand and the other for non-brand factors. The non-brand market share is the factor of companys share of patents andresearch and development (R&D) share. The market shareattributable to the brand is a function of the order of entry and therelative advertising share.

11


12/29

5. The reduced marketing costs are a factor of order of market entryand the brands advertising expenditure relative to that of itscompetitors.

Algebraically this is determined asValue of the Brand = B0 + B1 Advertising expenditure + B2Age of the brand

+ Additional market share due to the brandAdditional market share due to brand = B0 + B1*Advertising expenditurerelative to competitors this period + B2order of entry

2.3 The use of Real Options in Brand ValuationThe use of real options has been proposed for the valuation of brandassets (Damodaran 1996). In order to value an option the followingvariables need to be calculated: the risk free interest rate; the impliedvolatility (variance) of the underlying asset; the current exercise price; thevalue of the underlying asset; and the time to expiration of the option. Thevalue of the brand is the value of the underlying asset, and the cost of

developing the brand is the exercise price.

This method may be useful in calculating the potential value of lineextensions. However the assumptions inherent in this model make anypractical application very difficult.

2.4 The Residual MethodKeller (1998) has proposed that the residual value, when the marketcapitalisation is subtracted from the net asset value, is equal to the valueof the intangibles one of which is the brand. Furthermore this is theupper limit that certain procedures will value a brand at (eg Interbrand).There are two assumptions inherent in this approach. The first is that themarket is efficient in the strong state (ie that ALL information is includedinto the share price) and the second, is that the assets are being used totheir full potential.

It is widely recognised that market efficiency is a myth and the only debatethat rages on now is the degree of inefficiency. Shares often trade atbelow their net asset value. Shares of companies who trade at below theirnet asset value (NAV) by implication have a negative brand equity. If thebrand had been capitalised into the balance sheet, a worthless balancesheet would have been produced.Algebraically this is determined asBrand Value = Market Capitalisation (or Equity Valuation) Less Tangibleassets and other identified intangible assets

12


13/29

ECONOMIC-USE APPROACHES

3.1 Royalty Relief MethodThe Royalty Relief method is the most popular in practice. It is premisedon the royalty that a company would have to pay for the use of the

trademark if they had to license it in (Aaker 1991). The methodology is asfollows:

1. Determine the underlining base for the calculation (percentage of turnover,net sales or another base, or number of units)

2. Determine the appropriate royalty rate3. Determine a growth rate, expected life and discount rate for the brand

This appears to be very easy. However the real skill is determining whatthe appropriate royalty rate is. Two rules of thumb have emerged, the25% rule and the 5% rule. The 25% rule proposes that the royalty

should be 25% of the net profit. The 5% rule proposes that the royaltyshould be 5% of turnover. Both these rules have their base in thepharmaceutical industry.

Professional valuers spend a considerable amount of time and effortdetermining the appropriate royalty rate. They rely on databases thatpublish international royalty rates for the specific industry and the product.This investigation will provide a range of appropriate royalty rates. Thefinal royalty rate is decided upon after looking at the qualitative aspectsaround the brand, such as the strength of the brand team andmanagement as well as many other factors.

The advantages of this model are that the valuation is industry specificand has been accepted by many tax authorities as an acceptable model.The disadvantage of this model is that very few brands are trulycomparable and usually the royalty rate encompasses more than just thebrand. Licenses are normally for a limited time period and cover somesort of technical know-how payments (Barwise et al 1989).Algebraically this is determined as

Brand Value = Royalty Rate x Base x Implied Multiplier1Where implied multiplier = (1 + growth rate) / (Discount rate the growthrate)

3.2 Price PremiumThe premise of the price premium approach is that a branded productshould sell for a premium over a generic product (Aaker 1991). The valueof the brand is therefore the discounted future sales premium. The majoradvantage of this approach is that it is transparent and easy tounderstand. The relationship between brand equity and price is easily

13


14/29


15/29

rate affects the implied multiplier). The advantages of this model are thatit is easy to explain, the information is readily available, and the calculationis easy to do.Algebraically this is determined asBrand Value = Difference in Return on Assets x Asset Base x Multiplier

3.5 The use of Price to Sales RatiosIncreasingly investors are beginning to use the price to sales multiple (inconjunction with the price earnings and the price to book ratio) in order toevaluate investment decisions (Damodaran 1996). The value of the brandname is the difference between the price to sales ratio of a branded firm tothat of a generic firm.

The advantages of this model are that the information is readily availableand it is easy to conceptualise. The drawbacks are that few firms are trulycomparable and it makes no distinction between the brand and other

intangible assets such as good customer relationships.Algebraically this is determined asPrice to sales ratio = (profit margin x payout ratio)/(Cost of equity Growthrates of the dividends)Value of the brand = (Price to sales Ratio Branded firm the price to salesratio Unbranded firm) x Sales

3.6 Brand Value based on Future EarningsIn this model the valuer attempts to determine the earnings that arise fromthe brand. They would attempt to forecast the brand profit and discount itback at an appropriate discount rate (Reilly and Schweihs 1999). At theend of the forecast period, if it has been determined that the brands usefullife will exceed the period of the forecast, a perpetuity value will becalculated. The main drawback is trying to determine what part of theprofits are attributable to brand equity and not other intangible factors. Italso fails to take any balance sheet implications into consideration such asincreased working capital.Algebraically this is determined as

Brand Value = Discounted Brand Profit

3.7 Brand Equity based on Discounted Cash FlowThis method suffers from the same problems that are faced when trying todetermine the cash flows (profit) attributable to the brand. From a purefinance perspective it is better to use Free Cash Flows as this is notaffected by accounting anomalies; cash flow is ultimately the key variablein determining the value of any asset (Reilly and Schweihs 1999).Furthermore Discounted Cash Flow do not adequately consider assetsthat do not produce cash flows currently (an option pricing approach willneed to be followed) (Damodaran 1996). The advantage of this model is

15


16/29

that it takes increased working capital and fixed asset investments intoaccount.Algebraically this is determined asBrand Value =Discounted Cash Flows attributable to the brand

FORMULARY APPROACHES

4.1 Interbrand ApproachThe Interbrand approach is a variation on the Brand Earnings approach.Interbrand determines the earnings from the brand and capitalises themafter making suitable adjustments (Keller 1998).

Interbrand takes the forecast profit and deducts a capital charge in orderto determine the economic profit (EVA). Interbrand then attempts todetermine the brands earnings by using the brand index. The brand

index is based on seven factors. The factors as well as their weights are:

1. Market (10%) Whether the market is stable, growing and hasstrong barriers to entry

2. Stability (15%) Brands that have been established for a long timethat constantly command customer loyalty

3. Leadership (25%) A brand that leads the sector that it competesin

4. Trend (10%) Gives an indication where the brand is moving5. Support (10%) The support that the brand has received6. Internationalisation/Geography (25%) The strength of the brand in

the international arena7. Protection (5%) The ability of the company to protect the brand

The advantages of this approach is that it is widely accepted and it takesall aspects of branding into account; by using the economic profit figure alladditional costs and all marketing spend have been accounted for. Themajor shortcoming of the model is that it compares apples with oranges.The international component should not be applied over the local brandearnings. If a company wants to bring the international aspect into play itmust include potential international profits. Here two valuation bases aremuddled. On the one hand there is an in use basis and on the otherhand, there is an open market valuation.The appropriate discount rate is very difficult to determine as parts of therisks usually included in the discount rate have been factored into theBrand Index score. Even the appropriate rate for the capital charge isdifficult to ascertain.

Aaker (1996a pg 314) reveals that the Interbrand system does notconsider the potential of the brand to support extensions into other product

16


17/29

classes. Brand support may be ineffective; spending money onadvertising does not necessarily indicate effective brand building.Trademark protection, although necessary, does not of itself create brandvalue.Algebraically this is determined as

Brand Value = (Profit Per the Income Statement - Capital Charge) xBranding Index x Implied Multiplier

4.2 Financial World MethodThe Financial World magazine method utilizes the Interbrand Brand Strengthmultiplier or brand index, comprising the same seven factors and weightings.The premium profit attributable to the brand is calculated differently, however;this premium is determined by estimating the operating profit attributable to abrand, and then deducting from this the earnings of a comparable unbrandedproduct. This latter value could be determined, for example, by assuming that ageneric version of the product would generate a 5% net return on capital

employed (Keller, 1998). The resulting premium profit is adjusted for taxes, andmultiplied by the brand strength multiplier.Algebraically, this can be expressed as follows:Premium brand profit = (Brand operating profit generic product operating profit)Brand Value = Premium brand profit x Brand Strength Multiplier

4.3 Brand Equity TenAakers Brand Equity Ten utilizes five categories of measures to assess brandequity (Aaker, 1996a):

Loyalty Measures1. Price premium2. Customer satisfaction or loyalty

Perceived Quality or Leadership Measures3. Perceived quality4. Leadership or popularity

Other customer-oriented associations or differentiation measures5. Perceived value6. Brand personality7. Organisational associations

Awareness measures8. Brand awareness

Market behaviour measures9. Market share10. Market price and distribution coverage

These measures represent the customer loyalty dimension of brand equity. Theycan be utilized to develop a brand equity measurement instrument, depending onthe type of product or market, and the purpose of the instrument.

17


18/29

4.4 Brand Finance MethodAnother commercial approach to brand valuation has been developed by BrandFinance Limited, a UK consulting organization. This method comprises fourelements (David Haigh in Jones, 1999):

-Total market modeling : to identify the position of thebrand in the context of a competitive marketplace

- Specific branded business forecasting : to identifytotal business earnings from the brand

- Business drivers research: to determine the addedvalue of total earnings attributed specifically to thebrand

- Brand risk review: to assess the earnings or Betarisk factor associated with the earnings

Brand valuation is determined by assessing the brand added value after tax, and

discounting this at a rate that reflects the risk profile of the brand.

DISCOUNT RATE, GROWTH RATE AND USEFUL LIFE

The discount rate, growth rate and the useful life of the brand are often the mostneglected issues in brand valuation, yet they play an important role in theeventual valuation of the brand. Managers need to ask brand valuers pertinentquestions regarding the assumptions made in determining these key variables.Most models make use of the discount rate and the growth rate in order todetermine an appropriate multiplier that needs to be applied to the estimatedannual value of brand earnings.

The perpetuity formula that is the basis for all these calculations is stated as:Implied Multiplier = (1+ growth rate)/(Discount rate growth rate)

The discount rate is one of the most difficult variables to determine. In mostDiscounted Cash Flow analysis (DCF) the discount rate used is the firmsweighted average cost of capital (WACC) (Breally and Meyers 1996). This isshown as:

WACC = After tax cost of debt x target debt to total assets ratio + cost of equity xtarget equity to total assets ratioUsing a firm specific WACC raises certain issues. The first issue is that WACC isa factor of the firms gearing ratio. It therefore seems illogical that an assetsvalue can change based on the leverage of the firm. It would be far moreappropriate if the WACC represented the gearing that a financial institution wouldextend to this firm or the standard industry wide gearing ratio.

18


19/29

The second issue is how does a firm determine the correct cost of equity. Themost commonly used method is the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). Thismodel determines the risk of the company relative to the market by regressingthe share price movements against the market movements (Damodaran 1996).The problems with CAPM are well documented (Bodie, Kane and Marcus 1999).

These problems include the appropriate rate for a non listed company. Proxybetas can be used, but assumptions need to be made with regard to the capitalstructure and operating similarities of different firms.

The last issue is whether using a firm specific WACC in the first place is thecorrect measure. One of the major benefits of branding is that the earnings areless volatile. By using the firms WACC one may be undervaluing the brand.Less volatile earnings result in a lower Beta and consequently a lower cost ofequity.

This is a classic case of double counting. Some alternatives to using a firmspecific WACC include an industry WACC; using a debt: equity ratio based onwhat a financial institution would extend to the company in order to purchase thisasset; and determining the discount rate from economic principles.

The growth rate is another area where there is considerable debate. According toDamodaran (1996) there are a number of measures used to determine thegrowth rate. These include historical trends; forecast growth; an estimate offuture real growth in the economy; and the inflation rate plus a real growthadjustment. Numerous factors should be considered when determining theappropriate growth rate. These factors include the industry size and prospectsas well as the company's ability to satisfy the market demands in terms of thegrowth rate (Damodaran 1996).

Determining the useful life of a brand is another area that requires a considerableamount of thought. Many of the worlds leading brands have been around forover 50 years. Most brand managers hold the belief that their brands will have asimilar life. However managers need to be realistic and consider a brand interms of its lifecycle and what plans are being made to keep their brandcontemporary.

CONCEPTUAL CHECKS

There are a number of issues that need to be discussed when considering themodel or models managers want to use to value their brands.

The first is the portfolio effect. Some companies have developed a portfolio ofbrands for strategic reasons. The value of the brands individually do not equalthe value of the brands as a whole. A method of valuing a portfolio of brands

19


20/29

would be to value the brand in its current use as well as add on the effect of thatbrand not entering into the single brand optimum space.

Secondly, umbrella brands or co-brands infer benefits due to the associationswith the company (Aaker 1996a). The difficulty here is to determine how much of

the benefits are due to the products brand name and how much is due to theumbrella or corporate brand.

Thirdly, media inflation plays a role. It makes it more difficult for companies torecreate the brand, and the cost of maintaining the brand increases. Somestrength of a brand is related to awareness levels, due partly at least to themedia inflation. A generic competitor does not have this pressure on their costs.

Fourthly, when a competitor enters the market, a decline in market share couldresult. In most models, this would be seen as a reduction in brand equity.However, it can be argued that the customers that remain loyal are now worth

more, resulting in an increase in brand equity.

Fifthly, Aaker (1991) goes into detail about the effect of sales promotions onbrand equity and the temptation to milk the brand. Most of the models usecurrent sales. Mathematically the temptation is to raise brand equity bydiscounting the brand and thereby raising revenue. However, there is apossibility that this could destroy brand equity.

Sixthly, models that rely on marketing research need to ensure that themethodology used in the research conform to the scientific standards.Inappropriate sample sizes, bias, and other errors could occur, thus influencingthe calculations.

Lastly, there are a number of practical issues that need to be considered withrespect to brand valuation. These include the legal, accounting and taximplications. While these factors differ from country to country, managers mustunderstand that no brand valuation will be complete without dealing with theserequirements in their country.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

It is relatively easy to manipulate the results of measuring brand equity in order todeliver any value that management wishes. The only way to prevent this abuseis to understand the objective of the valuation and to use the appropriateassumptions in order to derive a fair value.

No single model will give all the answers to a correct valuation. The startingpoint is to understand the purpose of the valuation and what benefits the branddelivers. Due to a lack of transparency of the workings and the underlying

20


21/29

assumptions, some managers are not prepared to accept brand equityvaluations. Provided that information on the assumptions are made available tomanagers, they can make their own judgements on what the correct value shouldbe. Valuation is neither the science that some of its proponents make it out tobe nor the objective search for true value that idealists would like it to become.

The models that we use in valuation may be quantitative, but there is a greatreliance on subjective inputs and judgements. Thus the final value that weobtain from these models is coloured by the bias that we bring into the process(Damodaran 1996, p2).

When management is embarking on an exercise to value their organisationsbrands, it is recommended that they follow a process as described in figure 2.(Insert figure 2 about here)Management must firstly understand the nature of their firms intangible assets.If one of the organisations intangible assets is marketing related, they mustdetermine on what attribute the brand derives its benefit. The purpose of the

valuation must then be determined. A method must then be chosen that meetsmanagements needs in terms of the attribute it measures, the informationrequirements and the models shortcomings. Management must also ensure thatan appropriate discount rate, growth rate and useful life are used. They mustensure that the model used is robust enough to deal with the peculiarities of theorganisation. A key issue is to check and question the underlying assumptions.Lastly, management should ensure that the mathematical calculations have beendone correctly.

21


22/29

REFERENCES

Aaker, D.A. 1991. Managing Brand Value: Capitalizing on the Value of a BrandName, New York: The Free Press.

Aaker, D.A. 1996a. Building Strong Brands, New York: The Free Press.Aaker, D.A. 1996b. Measuring Brand Equity across products and markets.California Management Review 38, 3, : 102-20.

Aaker, D.A., Jacobson, R. 1994. The Financial Information Content ofPerceived Quality. Journal of Marketing Research 31, 2, : 191-202.

Aaker, D.A. Joachimsthaler, F. 2000. Brand Leadership : Building Assets in theInformation Society. New York: The Free Press.

Aaker, D.A. and Keller, K.L. 1990. Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions.

Journal of Marketing 54 (Jan) : 27-41.

Aaker, J.O. 1997. Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of MarketingResearch 34, 3, : 347-246.

Aldin, D.L., Steenkamp M.B.E.M., and Batra R. 1999. Brand Positioning throughAdvertising in Asia, North America, and Europe : The Role of Global ConsumerCulture. Journal of Marketing 63 (January) : 75.

Alpert, F.H., Kamins, M.A., and Graham, J.L. 1992. An examination of ResellerBuyer Attitudes towards order of Brand Entry. Journal of Marketing 56, 3, : 25-.37.

Alpert, F.H., and Kamins, M.A. 1995. An Empirical Investigation of ConsumerMemory, Attitude and Perceptions toward Pioneer and Follower Brands. Journalof Marketing 59, 4 : 34-45.

Alpert F.H., and Kamins, M.A. 1994. Pioneer Brand Advantage and ConsumerBehaviour: A Conceptual Framework and Propositional Inventory. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science 22, 3 : 244-253.

Ambler, T. 1997. How much of Brand Equity is Explained by Trust?.Management Decision 35, 4 : 283-292.

Areni, C.S., Duhan, D.F. and Kiecker, P. 1999. Point-of- Purchase Displays,Product Organization and Brand Purchase Likelihoods. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science 27, 4 : 428-441.

Barwise, P., Higson, C., Likierman, and A., Marsh, P. 1989. Accounting forBrands, London: The London Business School and The Institute of CharteredAccountants in England and Wales.

22


23/29

Berry, L.L. 2000. Cultivating Service Brand Equity. Journal of The Academy ofMarketing Science 28, 1 : 128-137.

Bodie, Z. Kane, A. and Marcus, A.J., 1999. Investments, 4th edition, Singapore:McGraw Hill.

Bradley, M. Viswanathan, S., 2000. Unpublished lecture notes, CorporateRestructuring, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, North Carolina.

Breally, R.A., and Meyers S.C., 1991 Principles of Corporate Finance. FourthEdition, New York: McGraw Hill.

Brucks, M., Zeithaml, V.A., and Naylor, G. 2000. Price and Brand Name asIndicators of Quality Dimensions for Consumer Durables. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science 28, 3 : 359-374.

Brucklin, R.E., Gupta, S and Han, S. 1995. A Brands Eye View of Response

Segmentation in Consumer Brand Choice Behaviour. Journal of MarketingResearch 32 (February) : 66-74.

Buchanan, L., Simmons, C.J., and Bickart, B.A. 1999. Brand Equity Dilution :Retailer Display and Context Brand Effects. Journal of Marketing Research 36(Aug) : 345 - 355

Burt, S. 2000. The Strategic Role of Retail Brands in British Grocery Retailing.International Journal of Operations and Production Management 34, 8

Caldern, H., Cervera, A., and Moll, A. 1997. Brand Assessment : A KeyElement of Marketing Strategy. Journal of Product & Brand Management 6, 5,: 293-304.

Corstjen, M. and Lal, R. 2000. Building Store Loyalty through Store Brands.Journal of Marketing Research 37 (August) : 281-291.

Cravens, K.S., and Guilding, C. 1999. Strategic Brand Valuation : A Cross-Functional Perspective Business Horizons (July-August) : 53-62.

dAstons, A., and Gargouri, E. 2001. Consumer Evaluations of BrandImitations. European Journal of Marketing 35, 1 / 2 .

Damodaran, A., 1996. Investment Valuation: Tools and Techniques fordetermining the value of any asset. New York : John Wiley & Son.

Dawar, N., and Parker, P. 1994. Marketing Universals: Consumers use ofBrand Name, Price, Physical Appearance and Retailer Reputation as Signals ofProduct Quality. Journal of Marketing 58 (April) : 81-95.

23


24/29

Deighton, J., Henderson C.M., and Neslin, S.A. 1994. The effects of advertisingor brand switching and repeat purchasing. Journal of Marketing Research 31(Feb) : 28-43.

Derbaix, C.M. 1995. The Impact of Affective Reactions on Attitudes toward the

Advertisement and the Brand : a Step toward Ecological Validity. Journal ofMarketing Research 32 (November) : 470-479.

Drucker, P. 1998. The Coming of the New Organisation. In Harvard BusinessReview on Knowledge Management, Boston, Harvard Business School Press.

DSouze, G., and Rao, R.C. 1995. Can Repeating an Advertisement moreFrequently than the Competition affect Brand Preference in a Mature Market?.Journal of Marketing 59, 2 : 32-42.

Eagle, L., and Kitchen, P.J. 2000. IMC Brand Communications and CorporateCultures Client/Advertising Agency Co-Ordination and Cohesion. European

Journal of Marketing 34, 5/6 : 667-686.

Erdern, T. 1998. An Empirical Analysis of Umbrella Branding, Journal ofMarketing Research 35, 3 : 339-351.

Ferrand, A. and Pager, M. 1999. Image Management in Sport Organisations:The Creation of Value. European Journal of Marketing 33, 3 / 4 : 387-401.

Gupta, S., and Chintagunta, P. 1996. Do Household Scanner Data ProvideRepresentative Inferences from Brand Choices: A Comparison with Store Data.Journal of Marketing Research 33, 4, : 383-398.

Gurhan-Canli , Z., and Mahewsaran, D. 1998. The Effects of Extensions onBrand Name Dilution and Enhancement. Journal of Marketing Research 35(Nov) : 464-473.

Hammond, K. 1996. Market Segmentation for Competitive Brands. EuropeanJournal of Marketing, 30, 12 : 39-49.

Hite, C.F., Hite, R.E., and Minar, T. 1991. Quality Uncertainty, Brand Reliance,and Dissipative Advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 19, 2: 115-121.

Hog, M.K., Cox, A.J., and Keeling, K. 2000. The Impact of Self-Monitoring onImage Congruence And Product Brand Evaluation European Journal ofMarketing 34, 5/6 : 641-666.

Hutchinson, J.W., Raman, K., and Montrala, M.K. 1994. Finding ChoiceAlternatives in Memory : Probability Models of Brand Name Recall Journal ofMarketing Research 31 : 441-61.

24


25/29

Janiszewski, C., and Van Osselaer, M.J. 2000. A Connectionist Model of Brand-Quality Associations. Journal of Marketing Research 37, 3 : 331-350.

Jones, J.P. (Ed), 1999. How to use Advertising to Build Strong Brands,Thousand Oaks, California : Sage Publications

Kamakura, W.A., and Russell, G.J., 1993. Measuring Brand Value with ScannerData. International Journal of Research in Marketing 10 (March) : 9-22.

Kamins, M.A., and Marks, L.J. 1991. The Perception of Kosher as a Third PartyCertification Claim in Advertising for Familiar and Unfamiliar Brands. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science 10, 3 : 177-185.

Kapferer, J.A., 1997. Strategic Brand Management: Creating and sustainingbrand equity long term. Second Edition, London: Kogan Page.

Keller, K.L. 1993. Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based

Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing 57 (January) : 1-22.

Keller, K.L., 1998. Strategic brand management: building, measuring, andmanaging brand equity. New Jersey : Prentice Hall.

Keller, K.L., Heckler, S.E., and Houston, M.J. 1998. The effects of Brand NameSuggestiveness on Advertising Recall. Journal of Marketing 62, 1 : 48-57.

Kent, R.K., and Allen, C.T. 1994. Competitive Interference Effects in ConsumerMemory for Advertising : Toe Tole of Brand Familiarity. Journal of Marketing58, 3 : 97-105.

Kerin, R.A., and Sethuraman, R. 1998. Exploring the Brand Value-ShareholderValue Nexus for Consumer Goods Companies. Journal of Academy ofMarketing Science 26, 4, : 260-273.

Knowles, P.A., Grove, S.J., and Burroughs, W.J. 1993. An ExperimentalExamination of Mood Effects on Retrieval and Evaluation of Advertisement andBrand Information. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 21, 2, : 135-142.

Lassar, W., Mittal, B., and Sharma, A., 1995. Measuring Customer-BasedBrand Equity. Journal of Consumer Marketing 12, 4 : 11-19.

Leuthesser, L. and Kohli, C.S. 1995. Brand Equity : The Halo Effect MeasureEuropean Journal of Marketing 29, 4 : 57-66.

Loken, B., and John, D.B. 1993. Diluting Brand Beliefs : When do BrandExtensions have a Negative Impact?. Journal of Marketing 57 (July) : 71-84.

25


26/29


27/29

Papatla, P., and Krishnamurthi, L. 1989. Measuring the Dynamica effects ofPromotions on Brand Choice. Journal of Marketing Research 33 (February) :20-35.

Park, C.W., Jun, S.Y., and Shocker, A.D. 1996. Composite Branding Alliances :

An Investigation of Extension and Feedback Effects. Journal of MarketingResearch 22 (Nov) : 453-366.

Park, C.S., and Srinivasan, V. 1994. A Survey-Based Method for Measuringand Understanding Brand Equity and its Extendibility Journal of MarketingResearch 31, 2 : 271-289.

Pavia, T.M., and Costa, J.A. 1993. The Winning Number : ConsumerPerceptions of Alpha-Numeric Brand Names. Journal of Marketing 57, 3 : 85-98.

Perrier, R. (Ed) 1997. Brand Valuation, 3rd Ed, London : Premier Books.

Raghubir, P., and Corfman, K. 1999. When do Price Promotions affect PretrialBrand Evaluations?. Journal of Marketing Research 36 (May) : 211-222.

Reilly, R.F., Schweihs, R.P. 1999. Valuing Intangible Assets, New York: McGrawHill.

Richardson, P.S., Dick A.S., and Ian, A.K. 1994. Extrinsic and Intrinsic CaseEffects on Perceptions of Store Brand Quality. Journal of Marketing 58, 4 : 28-36.

Robbin, A.C., 1991. The Potential Value of Brand Accounting, Unpublished MBAResearch Report, Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.

Roth, M.S. 1995. The Effects of Culture and Socio-economics on thePerformance of Global Brand Image Strategies. Journal of Marketing Research23 (May) : 163-175.

Senguptagavan, J., and Fitzsimons, J. 2000. The Effects of Analyzing Reasonsfor Brand Preferences: Disruption or Reinforcement?. Journal of MarketingResearch 37 (August) : 318-330.

Sethurman, R. 1996. A Model of How Discounting High-Priced Brands affects

the Sales of Low-Priced Brands. Journal of Marketing Research 33 (November): 399-409.

Sheth, J.D., and Sisoda, R.S. 2000. Improving Marketing Productivity StrategicMarketing Management :237.

27


28/29

Shocker, A.D., Srivastava, R.K., and Ruekert, R.W. 1994. Challenges andOpportunities Facing Brand Management : An Introduction to the Special Issue.Journal of Marketing Research 31 (May) :149-158.

Sivakumar, K. and Raj, S.P. 1997. Quality tier Competition : How Price Change

influences Brand Choice and Category Choice. Journal of Marketing 61, 3 :71-84.

Simon, C.J., and Sullivan, M.J., 1993. The measurement and determinants ofBrand Equity: A Financial Approach, Marketing Science 12, 1 : 28-52.

Simonin, B.L., and Ruth, J.A. 1998. Is a Company known by the Company itKeeps? Assessing the Spillover Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer BrandAttitudes. Journal of Marketing Research 35 (Feb) : 30-42.

Sullivan, M.W. 1998. How Brand Names Affect the Demand for TwinAutomobiles?. Journal of Marketing Research 35 (May) : 154-165.

Tollington, T. 1998. Separating the brand asset from the goodwill asset.Journal of Product & Brand Management 7, 4 : 291-304.

Verbeke, W., Farris, P., and Thurik, R. 1998. Consumer Response to thePreferred Brand Out-of-Stock Situation. European Journal of Marketing 32,11/12 : 1008-1028.

Webster, F.E. 2000. Understanding the Relationships among Brands,Consumers, and Resellers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28, 1: 17-23.

Wedel, M., Kamakura, W.A., Desarbo, W.S., and Ter Hofstede, F. 1995Implication for Asymmetry, Nonproportionality And Heterogeneity in BrandSwitching from Piece-wise Exponential Mixture Hazard Models. Journal ofMarketing Research 32 (Nov) : 457-462

Yov, B., Donthu, N., and Lee, S. 2000. An Examination of Selected MarketingMix Elements and Brand Equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,28, 2 : 195-211.

28


29/29

Geoffrey Bick is a Senior lecturer in Marketing at the Graduate School ofBusiness Administration, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. He hasextensive experience as a marketing practitioner in the industrial and officeautomation fields. His interests are in Business-to-Business marketing, theimpact of technology on marketing, and Branding.

Russell Abratt is the FNB Professor of Marketing at the Graduate School ofBusiness, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. He has published inthe European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Management, Journalof Advertising Research and the International Journal of Advertising, amongstothers. His interests are in marketing strategy and marketing communications

valuing brands and brand equity condensed

Documents