Brand equity in higher education

Marketing Intelligence & Planning Brand equity in higher education Maha Mourad Christine Ennew Wael Kortam

Article information:

Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

To cite this document: Maha Mourad Christine Ennew Wael Kortam, (2011),"Brand equity in higher education", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 29 Iss 4 pp. 403 - 420 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634501111138563 Downloaded on: 19 December 2014, At: 22:08 (PT) References: this document contains references to 71 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4439 times since 2011*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Musa Pinar, Paul Trapp, Tulay Girard, Thomas E. Boyt, (2014),"University brand equity: an empirical investigation of its dimensions", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 28 Iss 6 pp. 616-634 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2013-0051 Lisa Wood, (2000),"Brands and brand equity: definition and management", Management Decision, Vol. 38 Iss 9 pp. 662-669 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740010379100 Musa Pinar, Paul Trapp, Tulay Girard, Thomas E. Boyt, (2011),"Utilizing the brand ecosystem framework in designing branding strategies for higher education", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 25 Iss 7 pp. 724-739 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513541111172126

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 199044 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.htm

Brand equity in higher education Maha Mourad

Brand equity in higher education

Business School, The American University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt

Christine Ennew University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, and

Wael Kortam Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 22:08 19 December 2014 (PT)

Faculty of Business Administration, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

403 Received December 2010 Accepted December 2010

Abstract Purpose – The potential to provide customers with information about experience and credence qualities in advance of purchase has resulted in widespread recognition of the significance of brands in relation to consumer choice in the service sector. Arguably, what is of particular significance in this process is brand equity – the value that the consumer ascribes to the brand. The main objective of this research is to enhance academic understanding of brand equity in the higher education (HE) sector and explore the implications for management practice. Design/methodology/approach – Quantitative data collected via a self-completion survey are used to test a model of brand equity in the context of HE. The empirical setting is Egypt which, following liberalization, has a mixture of public and private provision and an increasingly competitive environment. It provides an example of an emerging market where building brand equity is likely to be an important component of organizational strategy. Findings – The results provide partial support for the proposed conceptual model, with image-related determinants of brand equity being far more significant than awareness-related determinants. Practical implications – For those involved in marketing service brands, the asymmetric impact of various determinants of brand equity provides guidance on how and where to focus marketing efforts. Originality/value – The distinctive contribution of this research arises from the examination of brand equity in the context of an emerging service sector market with a mix of public and private provision. Keywords Brand equity, Higher education, Services marketing, Egypt, Consumer behaviour, Emerging markets Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction It is often suggested that marketing in the service sector is relatively challenging due to the unique characteristics of the service and the dominance of experience and credence qualities. A particular consequence is that perceived risk is generally higher in a service selection decision because consumers find services more difficult to evaluate in advance of purchase (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Laing et al., 2002; Mitchell, 1999). In this situation, the brand can play an important role as a risk reliever, giving consumers greater confidence in their decision making and increasing trust (Erdem and Swait, 1998). In essence, the brand provides a signal or a promise to consumers about the service that will be delivered, thus mitigating some of the problems associated with experience and credence qualities (De Chernatony and McDonald, 1998). As well as a risk reliever, because the brand is a source of information, it can also serve as a tool for differentiation and ease the consumer choice process by creating distinctiveness (Gabbott and Hogg, 1998). Thus, the brand has been increasingly recognized as an important determinant of consumer choice in the service sector (Turley and Moore, 1995).

Marketing Intelligence & Planning Vol. 29 No. 4, 2011 pp. 403-420 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0263-4503 DOI 10.1108/02634501111138563

MIP 29,4


404

Over the past two decades in particular, marketing research and marketing practice have paid increasing attention to the processes associated with building a strong relationship between brand and consumer and it is often argued that the brand is the most valuable asset for any company (Aaker, 1991a, b, 2003; Kapferer, 1997; Blackett, 1993). The concept of brand equity is of particular relevance to consumer choice. In essence, brand equity measures the value of the brand, both to the organization and to the consumer. For the consumer, this added value arises from the brand’s role as an indicator of desirable attributes and as the basis for building an emotional bond (Teas and Grapentine, 1996). Although brand equity has been extensively researched in the context of physical products, rather less attention has been devoted to understanding the concept in relation to a service sector context. The current study works with existing models of brand equity and adapts them for use in the service sector and in the specific context of higher education (HE). The resulting brand equity model is then tested in an emerging market using both current and prospective HE students. HE provides an interesting and important context for the research, since HE institutions across the world have become increasingly “marketing oriented” and students increasingly become “consumers” (Chen, 2008; Mazzarol and Soutar, 2008). The distinctive contribution of this research arises from an integration of the existing brand equity models which results in a conceptual multi-dimensional framework for the determinants of brand equity in service industries. The research makes a novel empirical contribution through testing the proposed conceptual framework in Egypt as an example of an emerging HE market. The paper begins with an overview of relevant literature and then proceeds to outline the proposed model. The methodology used to guide the research is briefly reviewed before presenting results and conclusions. 2. Literature review Aaker (1991a) describes a brand as a logo, name or even a package that differentiates the products or services of different providers. However, Marconi (1993) stressed that the brand is not just a name because the name is created to identify the product whereas the brand is created to add value to the product and give it a personality. Other researchers have articulated similar definitions and stressed that the buyer must perceive a unique image and added value for the brand (De Chernatony, 1993b; De Chernatony and Riley, 1999; McWilliam and Dumas, 1997; Ambler and Styles, 1996). The process of branding are highlighted in Table I presenting several stages starting from the unbranded stage to the symbolic stage (Stewurt and Burke, 2000; Wee and Ming, 2003). De Chernatony and McWilliam (1989) attempted to conceptualize a brand by introducing two dimensions, namely, performance needs (functionality) and personal expression needs (representation). Subsequently, De Chernatony (1993b) tried to empirically test this model in both product and service markets and demonstrated that a brand can be conceptualized by these two dimensions in both types of market. Generally, as noted by Harris and De Chernatony (2001), there is a shift in the branding literature from a focus on the concept of brand image, which relates to the consumers’ perceptions of brand differentiation, to brand identity which focuses the distinctiveness of the brand (Kapferer, 1997). Generally, understanding the concept of brand is the first step in order to understand the concept of brand equity.

Goodyear (1993) Unbranded goods Brand as a reference Brand as a personality Brand as icon Brand as company


Brand as policy

De Chernatony (1993a)

De Chernatony and Riley (1999)

Integrated approach

Differentiation stage Sign of ownership Functional stage Service stage Brand as legal device Shorthand stage Risk reduction stage Symbolic stage

Brand Brand Brand Brand Brand

as as as as as

a legal instrument a logo a company an identity system an image

Unbranded stage Legal stage Logo and differentiation Functional stage Service stage

Brand Brand Brand Brand

as as as as

a personality a relationship adding value evolving entity

Risk reduction stage Shorthand stage Symbolic stage

Brand equity has been defined by Aaker (1991a, p. 4) as: [. . .] a set of assets such as name awareness, loyal customers, perceived quality, and associations that are linked to the brand and add value to the product or service being offered.

Keller (1993), on the other hand, defines brand equity as the effect of the brand on the consumers response to the marketing activities associated with a particular product. It is clear from the above definitions that “brand equity is a multi-dimensional concept” (De Chernatony and McDonald, 1998, p. 396) and can be considered from a number of different perspectives, including financial markets, the consumer, the firm, the employees and the channel of communication (Kim et al., 2003, Va´zquez et al., 2002; Supornpraditchai et al., 2007). The definition of brand equity from the financial perspective emphasizes the brand as a name which represents an asset which is of value to the organization because of its ability to create future earnings/cash flow (Shocker and Weitz, 1988; De Chernatony and McDonald, 1998; Kim et al., 2003). From a consumer’s point of view, brand equity represents attributes such as better product performance, stronger risk reduction, lower information costs and a positive image of the product. Consumer-based brand equity represents the added value of the brand to the consumer (Farquhar, 1989) and can be defined as “the overall utility that the consumer associates with the use and consumption of the brand; including associations expressing both functional and symbolic utilities” (Va´zquez et al., 2002, p. 28). From a firm’s point of view, brand equity represents attributes such as lower financial risk, incremental cash flow, higher rent, higher entry barriers, lower marketing and distribution cost for extensions and protection from imitation via trade marking (De Mooij, 1993). In addition, the brand can create stronger customer loyalty, reduced price elasticity of demand, increased marketing effectiveness, opportunities for licensing agreements as well as brand extensions and a stronger competitive position (Keller, 2001). Finally, employee-based brand equity (EBBE) is another dimension of brand equity which focuses on the employees’ perception toward the organization brand. EBBE reflects “uniqueness of company brand associations, brand consistency, brand creditability and brand clarity” (Supornpraditchai et al., 2007, p. 1728). There are a variety of conceptualizations of brand equity, though relatively few empirical evaluations in a service context. Aaker (1991a) proposed the first comprehensive model of brand equity. He identified five dimensions of brand equity, namely brand name awareness, brand associations, perceived quality, brand loyalty

Brand equity in higher education 405 Table I. Stages of the branding process

MIP 29,4


406

and other proprietary assets (e.g. patents, channel relationships and trademarks). Keller (1993) developed a customer-based brand equity model which focused on familiarity and awareness, and favourable strong and unique brand associations. He argued that brand equity is determined mainly by brand knowledge which comprises awareness, attributes, benefits, images, thoughts, feelings, attitudes and experience. Subsequently, these and other models have been tested in a variety of contexts. Faircloth et al. (2001) examine the relationship between brand image, brand attitude and brand equity using Aaker’s (1991a) and Keller’s (1993) models. The results provide some support for both models in that brand image and attitude create brand equity, although the role of brand awareness was not explicitly evaluated. Yoo and Donthu (2001) developed a “multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale (MBE)” based on Aaker’s and Keller’s models and focused particularly on brand awareness, perceived quality, associations and loyalty. The study provides a generalized measure of brand equity and highlights the differential impact of different dimensions of brand equity. In a comparative study, Cobb-Walgren et al. (1995) examined the effect of the main dimensions of consumer-based brand equity on purchase intent (based on Aaker’s (1991a) and Keller’s (1993) conceptual models of brand equity). Specifically in the service sector, Muller (1998) examined the determinants of brand equity in the case of the restaurant industry and found that quality of the product or the service, service delivery and symbolic image were the main determinants of brand equity. In the hotel sector, Prasad and Dev (2000) investigated brand performance and brand awareness as dimensions of brand equity and developed a hotel brand equity index. In financial services, Mackay (2001) used a “hierarchy of effects model” and focused on market share as an indicator of brand equity. Kim et al. (2003) used Aaker’s (1991a) model in the hotel industry study. The empirical analysis indicated that brand loyalty, perceived quality and image were more significant in determining brand equity in comparison with brand awareness. HE represents a context in which brand image potentially plays a major role in reducing the risk associated with such service largely because the assessment of quality takes place after consumption (Byron, 1995; Binsardi and Ekwulugo, 2003; Chen, 2008). Hence, having a strong brand is important as a risk reliever that simplifies the decision-making process (Erdem and Swait, 1998; Chen, 2008). That is to say, the brand represents a differentiation tool that gives cues to the consumers during the decision-making process (Temple, 2006; Lockwood and Hadd, 2007; Chen, 2008). In addition, there are a number of other factors that directly influence the evaluation of the educational quality and hence the perception of the university brand (Kurz et al., 2008). These factors include the quality of the staff, location, size, history and international agreements (Mazzarol and Soutar, 2008; Binsardi and Ekwulugo, 2003; Chen, 2008; El Mahdy and Mourad, 2008; Mourad, 2010). It was noted that many universities adopt a brand management strategy in order to improve their ranking in the HE market (Brunzel, 2007). Finally, the social image of the educational institution as well as its overall position in the market are important in influencing the HE brand and thus impact on the selection process (Paden and Stell, 2006). The existing research in brand equity demonstrates a degree of commonality in terms of the drivers of brand equity although there are some inconsistencies and overlap in terms of the relationships between key variables and some inconsistencies in terms of structuring models (i.e. distinguishing between determinants and dimensions).


It is also apparent that there is relatively little research that focuses on the service sector. The following section synthesizes existing research to develop a brand equity framework which is then tested in a service sector context. 3. Conceptual framework The model used in this paper builds on the work of Keller and to a less extent of Aaker. Following Keller (1993) brand equity is presented as a two-dimensional construct-based around brand awareness and brand image. Brand loyalty is treated as an outcome of brand equity rather than one of its dimensions. Aaker (1991a) defined brand awareness as the ability of a potential consumer to recognize the brand as a member of a specific product category and emphasized that awareness and recognition are essential before attaching attributes to the brand. While brand awareness is about the ability to link the brand to a product category, brand image is concerned with the associations that an individual makes with the brand. “A brand association is anything ‘linked’ in memory to a brand” (Aaker, 1991a, p. 109) and collectively, these brand associations define a brand image (De Chernatony, 2001; Keller, 1993). Brand associations may include a variety of attributes such as perceived quality, brand name and product attributes. A broad range of factors have been identified as determinants of brand equity, recognizing that some attributes may be relevant to the awareness dimension while others may be relevant to the image dimension. Using a modification of the approach suggested by Vorhies (1997), these determinants have been categorized under a number of distinct headings: (1) Consumer attributes. These relate to the consumers own socio-economic characteristics and experience with the brand. In the proposed model, these attributes represent student-related factors in terms of academic qualification, motivations, occupational interest and previous experience with the service provided, etc. (Keller, 1993; Lockwood and Hadd, 2007). (2) Provider attributes. These relates to the attributes of the organization itself, the staff providing the service and other attributes such as location (Booth, 1999; Scott, 2000; Chen, 2008; Kurz et al., 2008), country of origin, size (Cheng and Tam, 1997; Kent et al., 1993; Scott, 2000; Smith and Ennew, 2000) and history. In the proposed model, these attributes include the relationship between students/parents and the faculty/staff (Scott, 2000; Chen, 2008). (3) Marketing activities. This covers all the marketing activities conducted by the HE institutions as well as word of mouth communication (Booth, 1999; Chen, 2008; Kent et al., 1993; Scott, 2000). (4) Product attributes. These relate to attributes such as the perceived quality of the education service (Cheng and Tam, 1997; Kent et al., 1993; Scott, 2000; Smith and Ennew, 2000; Kurz et al., 2008; Chen, 2008), tuition fees (Booth, 1999; Keller, 1993; Chen, 2008), guarantees and after sales service (Vorhies, 1997; Kent et al., 1993). Also included are university-related factors in terms of the availability of the courses, admission criteria, tuition fees, graduate employment rate, etc. (5) Symbolic attributes. This encompasses associations relating to brand personality and identity and in our proposed model, represents the overall image and reputation of the university (Byron, 1995; Cheng and Tam, 1997;

Brand equity in higher education 407

MIP 29,4

408

Keller, 1993; Kent et al., 1993; Scott, 2000; Smith and Ennew, 2000; Chen, 2008; Temple, 2006). The model for service brand equity developed in the current study focuses directly on the determinants of brand equity and is shown in Figure 1. Recognizing that brand equity has an awareness dimension, it is argued that awareness is largely driven by marketing activities including advertising, publicity,

Experience


Consumer attributes

Socio-economic factors Educational level Gender Age Level of income

Brand awareness attributes

Promotion activities Brand equity Word of mouth

Service attributes Price Perceived quality After sales service

Brand image attributes

Symbolic attributes Personality Social image Positioning

Provider attributes

Figure 1. Proposed conceptual model of brand equity in HE service

Relationships Location Country of origin Staff


word of mouth and that these attributes will therefore serve as an important potential influence on overall brand equity. Similarly, with respect to the brand image dimension, key drivers of image and therefore of brand equity include product attributes (Agarwal and Rao, 1996; Aaker, 1991a, b, 1996, 2003), provider attributes (De Chernatony and McDonald, 1998; Marconi, 1993) and symbolic attributes (Yoo and Donthu, 2001; De Chernatony, 2001). Consumer attributes are treated as a final set of determinants of brand equity (Goodyear, 1993) but are not specifically grouped with either awareness-based determinants or image-based determinants on the grounds that they might be expected to have a more generic impact. 4. The Egyptian HE market The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of the HE market in Egypt which provides the empirical setting for this research. Egypt provides an interesting context for research on brand equity in HE. HE in Egypt is facing a challenging marketing environment due to the emergence of private universities and while marketing practice suggests an increasing focus on the role of brands there has been no systematic academic research to understand the role played by brand equity within the HE sector. The demand for HE in Egypt is growing and the sector is undergoing considerable change, with a range of new, private providers joining established publicly funded universities. This has created considerable uncertainty in the market place in relation to assessments of the quality of different providers. The limited capacity of the established public universities meant that they have been unable to satisfy the growth in demand (Khaled et al., 2001). This fact encouraged the government in 1996 to give permission to private universities to operate in Egypt. The emergence of the new private universities introduced to the market the concept of competition among universities as each of the new private universities had to build brands in order to communicate their service offer to the marketplace. It should be noted that the competition was not only among the private universities but also between them and the public universities. 5. Research method The current study concerns itself with the service sector and particularly, with HE. There is little empirical work addressing brand image or brand equity in HE (Palacio et al., 2002), despite the potential significance of HE brands in student choice and the importance of credence qualities as well as experience qualities. Given the difficulties associated with evaluating quality prior to consumption, a strong brand which signals high quality can decrease the perceived risk associated with choice (Davies and Ellison, 1997; Va´zquez et al., 2002; Biel, 1992). The empirical setting is Egypt which has recently liberalised HE resulting in mixed public and private provision and an increasingly competitive environment. In such competitive environment, brands have an important role to play in communicating the investment that has been made to ensure high-quality provision (Konrad, 1995). Since education service as with other professional services is characterised by high perceived risk (Mitchell, 1999), brand equity potentially plays a major role in reducing the risk associated with the selection of such a service (Byron, 1995). Accordingly, managing brands and building brand equity in HE plays a key role in HE marketing. The sample chosen for the current study targeted 150 actual (university students) and 150 potential university students (high school students) in Egypt. University students


MIP 29,4


410

were selected from the most popular universities in Cairo categorized according to the types of ownership (public, private or foreign), with between 15 and 20 students targeted from a broad range of institution types. The unit of the analysis was the university brand, and each current student was asked to evaluate two brands (a first and last choice). The method of data collection was based on group-administered questionnaire where 200 questionnaires were distributed among high school students in their classes who evaluated two brands, and another 220 were distributed among students of ten different universities in Cairo, also in their classrooms. The final response rate of high school students 67.5 percent (135 questionnaire completed) and for university students 75 percent (165 questionnaire completed), forming the total of almost 71 percent valid for the analysis. The data were collected parallel to each other in almost six weeks starting from 5 December 2003 to 9 January 2004. Accordingly, a total of 600 units of analysis were available. Two distinct samples were identified to accommodate the fact that current students would have experience of the actual service whereas high school students would not and so current students might be expected to make better judgements of experience qualities. Respondents were asked to identify their first choice and last choice university and then provide ratings for brand equity and also for the determinants of brand equity. The reason for collecting data from two extremes was to ensure a sufficient degree of variability in the data and to test the relevance of the model across a broad spectrum of evaluations. The questionnaire was designed primarily using a range of established scales from previous studies. It was extensively pre-tested on both groups within the sample prior to administration. Considering the brand image dimension of brand equity and following the categorisation discussed earlier, the independent variables were: . Service attributes used by consumers to evaluate a service. Attributes chosen were price, quality, benefits and after sales service (Gabbott and Hogg, 1998; Teas and Grapentine, 1996; Lemon, 2001). Scales for the first two attributes were selected from existing studies while scales for the last two attributes were developed from exploratory research. . Provider attributes focused on the features of the provider that will influence consumer perceptions of the value they received. Chosen attributes were the quality of staff and their relationship with customers (De Chernatony and McDonald, 1998), location, size, history and international reputation (Kim et al., 2003). Existing scales were used except in the case of size and location. . Symbolic attributes were defined as social image, market position and personality (Lovelock, 1991, De Chernatony, 2001) and these were measured using a set of established scales. In terms of the brand awareness dimension, the marketing activities that were identified as important were promotional activities and word of mouth (Aaker, 1991a, 1996, 2003). Given the context-specific nature of both of these activities, exploratory work was used to support the development of appropriate scale items. Finally, consumer attributes were separated from the image and awareness dimension and included age, income, experience, gender and level/type of education. The dependent variable, brand equity was measured using a six-item scale from Yoo and Donthu (2001).


6. Analysis and results The data collection generated 270 units of analysis from high school respondents and 330 from current university students. This is slightly imbalanced compared with the initial target but reflected the greater ease of accessing university students. Clearly, the two groups differ in term of experience, and further differences arise from the fact that they are rating both a first and a last choice institution. The analysis strategy was to treat the whole sample as a single unit but to check for differences at sub-group level during the analysis phase. The primary difference between the two groups of respondents was expected to arise from the fact the university students had direct experience of the delivery of the service and the extent to which it aligned with the brand promise. In fact, a simple descriptive analysis of the group suggested that there were few significant differences between university and high school students in their evaluations of the dimensions of brand equity and this reinforced the decision to analyse responses as a single group. Exploratory factor analysis was used to check individual constructs and the results were generally supportive of the proposed measurement structure. A high degree of consistency was observed across the two groups in terms of the factor structures and reliabilities were also highly consistent as Table II shows. With the exception of “location”, all constructs displayed high levels of reliability. For completeness, location was retained for the next stage of the analysis although its low reliability was noted. All constructs were measured as mean values across individual items. The model shown in Figure 1 was tested using multiple regression analysis for the whole sample, with dummy variables included to incorporate university vs high school and first choice vs last choice distinctions as well as a series of dummy variables relating to individual consumer characteristics (Table III). The estimated regression equation is highly significant; the value for R 2 of 0.91 looks particularly good although it should be noted that the use of an aggregate sample with first and last choices will tend to inflate an R 2-value because the calculations rely on deviations from the mean. Although the variance inflation factors all fall within the limit of ten quoted by Hair et al. (1998), this is a generous limit and the variance inflation factors for service quality and social image are something of a cause for concern. Consumer characteristics have no significant impact on perceptions of brand equity nor do constructs relating to the awareness dimension of brand equity. Variables Independent variables Word of mouth Promotion Perceived service quality Price Social image Staff image History International relation Location Dependent variable Brand equity

School

University

Combined

0.8767 0.8720 0.9683 0.8617 0.9683 0.9556 0.9070 0.9307 0.4749

0.8860 0.8754 0.9678 0.8208 0.9691 0.9458 0.8858 0.9517 0.3809

0.8812 0.8737 0.9680 0.8419 0.9687 0.9503 0.8959 0.9432 0.4199

0.9748

0.9651

0.9698


Table II. Reliability tests: Cronbach’s alpha

MIP 29,4


412

Table III. The brand equity model (whole sample)

Model summary Adjusted R 2 F (Sig.) Determinants of brand equity Awareness dimension Marketing activities Word of mouth Promotion Image dimension Symbolic attributes Social image Personality Market position Service attributes Service quality Benefits Price After sales Provider attributes Relationship History Staff International relations Location Size Consumer attributes Age Family experience of university Gender Income level High level Average level Low level Controls High school vs university First choice vs last choice

0.906 214.250 (0.000) Standardized coefficients b Sig.

VIF

20.016 20.001

0.297 0.961

2.051 1.272

0.173 0.084 0.000

0.000 0.003 0.998

9.114 7.302 6.253

0.168 0.079 0.065 20.078

0.000 0.006 0.000 0.001

9.452 7.651 2.249 4.761

0.108 0.038 0.061 0.031 0.004 20.003

0.000 0.048 0.026 0.056 0.758 0.864

6.869 3.264 6.813 2.370 1.428 1.945

20.013 0.000 20.001

0.405 0.985 0.920

2.153 1.149 1.068

20.034 20.030 20.029

0.090 0.143 0.104

3.645 3.838 2.957

0.000 0.328

0.979 0.000

2.117 8.641

In spite of the existing literature (Aaker, 1991a, 1996, 2003), there is no evidence to suggest that marketing activities – whether controlled in the form of managed marketing communications or uncontrolled in the form of word of mouth – have any impact on the extent to which the brand is valued. However, important awareness may be, it has no direct impact on consumers’ assessments of the value of the brand. In contrast, a range of symbolic, service and provider attributes are significant, as is the dummy variable for first or last choice. Of the symbolic attributes, social image (i.e. the extent to which the university is viewed positively) and personality (i.e. the extent to which the university is seen as displaying attributes such as honesty, sincerity, etc.) both have a positive impact on brand equity. Interestingly, market position (in terms of market leadership) does not impact on brand equity. All service attributes were found to be significant; price (measured in term of value offered), high quality and benefits (enhancing employment opportunities)


all had a significant and positive impact on brand equity. This result is consistent with the literature review as price, quality and benefits are determinants of the overall image of the service provided (Aaker, 1991a, b; Gabbott and Hogg, 1998; Teas and Grapentine, 1996; Lemon, 2001). Unusually, after sales service – based around the idea of alumni relations – had a significant and negative impact on brand equity which is inconsistent with the literature review (Aaker, 1994; Gabbott and Hogg, 1998; Teas and Grapentine, 1996; Lemon, 2001). Precise explanations for this are difficult but such a counter-intuitive finding could be a product of a lack of familiarity with this type of attribute. Finally, among the provider attributes, all except location and size were significant or marginally significant. The quality of the relationship with the provider (in terms of ability to trust) has a positive impact on brand equity as does the quality of the staff. Tradition and history have a positive impact on brand equity while the university’s international reputation has a marginally significant impact. This is strongly supported by the existing literature (De Chernatony and McDonald, 1998; Kim et al., 2003). Overall, then, the evidence would suggest that consumer attributes do not impact on brand equity in HE, although it may be worth noting that a degree of homogeneity among respondents (i.e. all were part of the universities’ target market) may partially explain this result. Marketing activities which were primarily expected to increase brand equity by increasing awareness were also found to be insignificant. Brand image-related factors – namely symbolic, provider and service-related attributes were generally but not universally significant which suggested that at least in relation to HE and in keeping with the literature (Lovelock, 1991, De Chernatony, 2001), image-related dimensions were far more important as drivers of brand equity than awareness-related ones. Finally, it is important to note the significance of the dummy variable used to capture whether the university being rated was the first or the last choice. This dummy variable was highly significant and had the largest impact of any single variable. This suggested that some aspects of the evaluation of brand equity might differ between first and last choice brands. Accordingly, the brand equity model was re-estimated for first and last choice brands. The results are shown in Table IV. To mitigate the problems created by multi-collinearity and to simplify interpretation, a stepwise procedure was used. Both models were highly significant with respectable explanatory power. The values for R 2 were noticeably lower, although this is essentially an artefact of the data and the way in which R 2 is calculated. Only relationship and social image are significant in evaluations of the value of both first and last choice brands. A range of other determinants of brand equity appear to have a more asymmetric impact. For example, word of mouth has a significant negative effect on last choice brand but no impact on first choice brand. A strong market position contributes to the value of first choice brands but its absence does not appear to detract from the value of last choice brands. Conversely, personality has no impact on first choice brands but will tend to improve the value associated with last choice brands. Service quality and price both contribute to the value of first choice brands whereas benefits contribute to the value of last choice brands. History/tradition adds value to last choice brands but not to first choice ones while size adds to the value of first choice brands but not to last choice ones. Finally, it is worth noting that whether a respondent was a school or university student has no impact in relation to last choice brands but does impact on the equity


MIP 29,4

First choice brand Adj. R 2 F (Sig.)


414

Table IV. The brand equity model (first and last choices)

Awareness dimension Marketing activities Word of mouth Promotion Image dimension Symbolic attributes Social image Personality Market position Service attributes Service quality Benefits Price After sales Provider attributes Relationship History Staff International relations Location Size Control High school vs university Consumer attributes None reported as significant

0.405 30.064 (0.00) b

Last choice brand

Sig.

0.134

0.011

0.107

0.043

0.239

0.000

0.145

0.003

0.262

0.000

0.111

0.019

20.124

0.007

0.441 34.667(0.00) b

Sig.

2 0.102

0.026

0.250 0.173

0.000 0.002

0.135

0.022

0.156 0.155 0.144

0.019 0.001 0.030

associated with first choice brands, but negatively. That is to say students at university tend to have lower ratings of the brand equity associated with their first choice brand when compared with high school respondents. This may reflect the impact of the reality of the student experience relative to initial expectations. 7. Conclusions This paper presents the results of an analysis of the determinants of service brand equity in the context of a relatively high-credence service – HE. Although there is a growing body of research which examines brand equity from the consumer perspective in relation to physical goods, comparatively few studies have explored brand equity in a service context. A modified brand equity model was proposed, based on Keller’s (1993) and Aaker’s (1991a, b) models. This model emphasized two main dimensions of brand equity: brand awareness and brand image. The awareness dimension is created by word of mouth and promotion while the image dimension is created by symbolic attributes (brand personality, social image of the brand and positioning in the market), service attributes (price, perceived quality, after sales service, benefits from consuming the service) and provider attributes (relationship between the provider and the staff, location of the service organization, internationalization of the service, staff, historical image, size). In addition, the model highlights the role of consumer attributes in terms


of experience and socio-economic factors affecting the consumers’ perceptions of brand equity. The findings of this empirical research suggest that the brand is a significant influence on the selection of a university. By implication, creating and managing strong universities’ brands can have an important role to play in the HE market (Chen, 2008). The results provided partial support for the proposed model; using the whole sample suggested that image-related determinants were the major drivers of brand equity. Consumer-specific attributes had no significant impact on ratings of brand equity. Splitting the sample into two groups – to focus on ratings of first brand and ratings of last brand, suggested that the impact of many determinants of brand equity might be asymmetric. Many factors which impacted on brand equity for the last-rated brand did not affect brand equity for the first-rated brand and vice versa. From a conceptual perspective, this suggests that we need to be aware of the variable impact of different attributes on brand equity according to the ranking of a brand in the consumer’s choice set. The distinctive contribution of this research is in its empirical contribution through selecting HE as an example of a service and investigating the determinants of brand equity from a consumer’s point of view. This is undertaken with specific reference to HE service in Egypt as an example of an emerging market. For those involved in marketing service brands, the asymmetric impact of various determinants of brand equity provides guidance on how and where to focus marketing efforts. Hence, the following academic and practical implications could be derived to provide guidelines for the top managers to help them in improving the value of their brands. First, creating and managing brand equity is one of the main strategic issues in today’s competitive environment. “In an abstract sense, brand equity provides marketers with a strategic bridge from their past to their future” (Keller, 2003, p. 154). In order to create strong brand equity, managers should check that their brand has the following characteristics: meets the customer expectations, reliable, consistent over time, its price reflects its added value, it is properly positioned in the market, all the marketing activities help in building and maintaining it and brand managers understand consumer perceptions (Keller, 2003). Second, the marketers in the area of HE service should realize that developing a positive brand image is more important than creating awareness. Hence, they should invest more to create and maintain the determinants of the brand image dimension of brand equity rather than in simply expanding their promotional campaigns. That is to say that creating good service quality in terms of service, provider and symbolic attributes, will result in the development of a strong brand image and hence brand equity. Finally, managers should realize that brand equity plays a major role in influencing the consumers’ selection process especially in the service industry as it acts as a risk reliever. As a result, focusing on developing and maintaining the determinants of brand equity will help them in positioning their service in the market and hence influencing the consumer choice. This is supported by Keller (2003, p. 154) who noted that “brand equity can help marketers focus, giving them a way to interpret their past marketing performance and design their future marketing programs”. As with any social science study, there are a number of limitations in this research. First, the research sample includes only high school and university studentsand did not include graduates of the university in order to avoid the possibility of mixing pre-purchase with post-purchase criteria (Gardial et al., 1994). Second, the sample does not represent the whole Egyptian population but only the capital city of Cairo.


MIP 29,4


416

In other areas of Egypt, there is only one big university which most students are forced to enter because this is where they reside. Third, the selected sample is a convenience sample and in spite of the advantages of selecting such sample, this can cause some measurement problems. Fourth, the researchers focus on only one type of brand equity which is customer-based brand equity and other studies could focus on brand equity from different perspectives, such as the financial or employer perspectives. Fifth, the research focuses on the students’ perspective of the determinants of brand equity and ignored the university’s point of view, which should be analysed in future research. Finally, the research did not monitor whether the potential students in the sample joined the university that they perceived as the best brand in the market. Clearly, the model has been tested only in the context of HE and in one specific country, so caution must be exercised in generalizing from these findings, but the analysis in this paper provides at least a framework to guide further studies of service brand equity. A number of directions for future research exist. For instance, there is scope for a comparison between search, experience and credence qualities in terms of their effects on the perception of brand equity in the service industry. Future research could also monitor the changes in consumer perceptions of the determinants of brand equity when they move from pre-purchase to post-purchase. There are also considerable opportunities to apply the modified framework of the determinants of brand equity in service industries adopted in this research to another service other than HE. It is also noted that in spite of the range of studies that focus on brand extension strategy as a main outcome of brand equity in the product market, the role of brand equity in developing brand extension strategies in service industries is still in a need of further research. In addition, the new retro brands strategy, which is “re-launched historical brands with updated features” (Brown et al., 2003, p. 19), needs to be empirically tested. Finally, research should investigate the growth in international HE market and its direct effect on brand perception and hence students’ choice (Altbach and Knight, 2007). References Aaker, D. (1991a), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY. Aaker, D. (1991b), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of Brand Name, The Free Press, New York, NY. Aaker, D. (1994), “Building a brand: the Saturn story”, California Management Review, Vol. 36, pp. 114-33. Aaker, D. (1996), “Measuring brand equity across products and markets”, California Management Review, Vol. 38, pp. 102-20. Aaker, D. (2003), “The power of the branded differentiator”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 83-7. Agarwal, M.K. and Rao, V.R. (1996), “An empirical comparison of consumer-based measures of brand equity”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 237-47. Altbach, P.G. and Knight, J. (2007), “The internationalization of higher education: motivations and realities”, Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 11, pp. 290-305. Ambler, T. and Styles, C. (1996), “Brand development versus new product development: towards a process model of extension decision”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 10-20.


Biel, A.L. (1992), “How brand image drives brand equity?”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 6-12. Binsardi, A. and Ekwulugo, F. (2003), “International marketing of British education: research on the students’ perception and the UK market penetration”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 318-27. Blackett, T. (1993), “Brand and trademark valuation – what’s happening now?”, Marketing & Research Today, May, pp. 111-13. Booth, J. (1999), “Choosing a place of higher education: some preliminary analysis of student response to marketing efforts”, Academy of Marketing Annual Conference Proceedings, University of Stirling, Scotland, UK, 7-9 July. Brown, S. Jr, Sherry, J.F. and Kozinets, R.V. (2003), “Teaching old brands new tricks: retro branding and the revival of brand meaning”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 19-33. Brunzel, D.L. (2007), “Universities sell their brands”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 152-3. Byron, S. (1995), “Brand equity and market-based assets of professional service firms”, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 3-7. Chen, L.-H. (2008), “Internationalization or international marketing? Two frameworks for understanding international students’ choice of Canadian universities”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-33. Cheng, Y.C. and Tam, W.M. (1997), “Multimodels of quality in education”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 5 No. 1. Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N. (1995), “Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase intent”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 25-40. Davies, B. and Elllison, L. (1997), Strategic Marketing for Schools: How to Integrate Marketing and Strategic Development for an Effective School, Pitman Publishing, London. De Chernatony, L. (1993a), “Categorizing brands: evolutionary processes underpinned by two key dimensions”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 9, pp. 173-88. De Chernatony, L. (1993b), “New direction – understanding the dynamic of brands as molecules”, Admap, February, pp. 21-3. De Chernatony, L. (2001), From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation: Strategically Building and Sustaining Brands, Butterworth Heineman, Oxford. De Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (1998), Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer, Services and Industrial Markets, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. De Chernatony, L. and McWilliam, G. (1989), “The strategic implications of clarifying how marketers interpret brands”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 153-71. De Chernatony, L. and Riley, F.D. (1999), “Experts views about defining services brands and principles of service branding”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46, pp. 181-92. De Mooij, M. (1993), Brand Equity, Education Directorate of the International Advertising Association, Amsterdam, September. El Mahdy, M. and Mourad, M. (2008), Higher Education in Egypt. Higher Education in Africa: Internationalization Dimensions, Co-published by the Association of African Universities (AAU) and the Centre for International Higher Education (CIHE), Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA. Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (1998), “Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 131-57.


MIP 29,4


418

Faircloth, J.B., Capella, L.M. and Alford, B. (2001), “The effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand equity”, Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. P61-P76. Farquhar, P.H. (1989), “Managing brand equity”, Marketing Research, Vol. 1, pp. 24-33. Gabbott, M. and Hogg, G. (1998), Consumers and Services, Wiley, Chicester. Gardial, S., Clemons, D., Woodruff, R., Schumann, D. and Burns, M. (1994), “Comparing consumers’ recall of pre-purchase and post-purchase product evaluation experiences”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp. 548-60. Goodyear, M. (1993), “Reviewing the concept of brands and branding”, Marketing & Research Today, May, pp. 75-9. Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Harris, F. and De Chernatony, L. (2001), “Corporate branding and corporate brand performance”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 441-56. Kapferer, J.N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management, Kogan Page, London. Keller, K. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 1-22. Keller, K. (2001), “Building customer-based brand equity”, Marketing Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 14-19. Keller, K. (2003), “Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 595-600. Kent, W.E., Lian, K., Khan, M. and Anene, J. (1993), “Colleges’ hospitality programs: perceived quality”, Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 90-7. Khaled, H., Said, M. and Kortam, W. (2001), “Modernization of education and scientific research in Egypt”, Cairo University Vision, Part II, December, pp. 179-204. Kim, H., Kim, W. and An, A. (2003), “The effect of consumer-based brand equity on firms’ financial performance”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 335-51. Konrad, H. (1995), “State and university – the Austrian example”, Higher Education Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 165-70. Kurz, K., Scannell, J. and Veeder, S. (2008), “Willingness to pay: making the best case for institutional value and return on investment”, University Business, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 31-2. Laing, A., Lewis, B., Foxall, G. and Hogg, G. (2002), “Predicting a diverse future: directions and issues in the marketing of services”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 478-97. Lemon, K.N. (2001), “What drives customer equity?”, Marketing Management, Vol. 10 No. 1. Lockwood, R.C. and Hadd, J. (2007), “Building a brand in higher education: why business practice-particularly brand strategies – are becoming essential in today’s universities”, Gallup Management Journal Online, 12 July, pp. 1-6. Lovelock, C. (1991), Services Marketing, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. McWilliam, G. and Dumas, A. (1997), “Using metaphors in new brand design”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 13, pp. 265-84. Mackay, M.M. (2001), “Application of brand equity measures in service markets”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 210-21. Marconi, J. (1993), Beyond Branding: How Savvy Marketers Build Brand Equity to Create Products and Open New Markets, Probus Publishing Company, Chicago, IL. Mazzarol, T. and Soutar, G. (2008), The Global Market for Higher Education: Sustainable Competitive Strategies for the New Millennium, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.


Mitchell, V. (1999), “Consumer perceived risk: conceptualizations and models”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 Nos 1/2. Mourad, M. (2010), “Internationalisation: a new positioning strategy in the higher education market”, International Journal of Management in Education, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 185-200. Muller, C.C. (1998), “Endorsed branding”, Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp. 90-6. Paden, N. and Stell, R. (2006), “Branding options for distance learning programs: managing the effect on university image”, International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, Vol. 3 No. 8, pp. 45-54. Palacio, A.B., Meneses, G.D. and Pe´rez, P.J. (2002), “The configuration of the university image and its relationship with the satisfaction of students”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 486-505. Parasuraman, A., Zethaml, V. and Berry, L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 41-50. Prasad, K. and Dev, C.S. (2000), “Managing hotel brand equity: a customer-centric framework for assessing performance”, Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 22-31. Scott, M.B. (2000), “Adolescent pupil decision making: marketing schools/colleges to potential a level students in new millennium”, paper presented at the Academy of Marketing Annual Conference, University of Derby, Derby, 5-7 July. Shocker, A.D. and Weitz, B. (1988), “A perspective on brand equity principles and issues”, Defining, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity (Rep. No. 88-104), Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA. Smith, R. and Ennew, C. (2000), “Service quality and its impact on word of mouth communication in higher education”, paper presented at the Academy of Marketing Annual Conference, University of Derby, Derby, 5-7 July. Stewurt, D. and Burke, R. (2000), “A synthesis of brand typologies”, paper presented at the Academy of Marketing Annual Conference, University of Derby, Derby, 5-7 July. Supornpraditchai, T., Miller, K.E., Lings, I.N. and Jonmundsson, B. (2007), “Employee-based brand equity: antecedents and consequences”, AMZMAC, Conference Proceedings, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, 3-5 December. Teas, K. and Grapentine, T. (1996), “Demystifying brand equity”, Marketing Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 24-30. Temple, P. (2006), “Branding higher education: illusion or reality?”, Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 15-19. Turley, L.W. and Moore, P.A. (1995), “Brand name strategies in the service sector”, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 42-50. Va´zquez, R., Rı´o, A.B. and Iglesias, V. (2002), “Consumer-based brand equity: development and validation of a measurement instrument”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 18, pp. 27-48. Vorhies, D.W. (1997), “Building strong brands”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 260-1. Wee, T. and Ming, M. (2003), “Leveraging on symbolic values and meanings in branding”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 208-18. Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing and validating a multi-dimensional consumer-based brand equity scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14.


MIP 29,4


420

About the authors Maha Mourad is a Professor of Marketing, Business School at the American University in Cairo (AUC). She was awarded her PhD from the University of Nottingham Business School, UK in 2004; her MBA is from The AUC and she was awarded two BA degrees one from the AUC and another one from Cairo University. She spent Fall 2006 at George Washington University as part of her Fulbright research grant. Her research interest is in the area of brand equity, brand management, diffusion of innovation, service marketing and HE marketing. She has published a number of journal articles as well as participating in several international conferences. She is also a Co-author of a chapter in the Higher Education in Africa: Internationalization Dimensions book, co-published by the Association of African Universities and the Centre for International Higher Education in 2008. She is teaching at the AUC and jointly supervising PhD theses at the University of Nottingham Business School, UK. In addition, she has been involved in different marketing consultants’ assignments for USAID projects as well as several companies and organizations in Egypt and the Middle East. Maha Mourad is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Christine Ennew is Pro-Vice Chancellor at the University of Nottingham where she has responsibility for Internationalisation and the Faculty of Science. She was formerly Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Law and Education and is also Professor of Marketing in the Business School. She was Academic Director of the Division of Business and Management at the University of Nottingham in Malaysia during its start-up phase (2000-2001), and the Director of the Christel DeHaan Tourism and Travel Research Institute. Her research interests lie in the area of services marketing and specifically financial services and tourism, where she has focused particularly on service quality and delivery, loyalty and retention and service failure and recovery. She has also undertaken business-oriented research specifically in the areas of customer satisfaction, marketing relationships and trust, including on behalf of a number of major banking organizations. She has published some 90 articles in refereed journals, presented over 60 refereed conference papers and produced four books. Wael Kortam is a Professor of Marketing at the Department of Business Administration, and Vice Dean for Postgraduate Studies, Research and Internationalization, Faculty of Commerce, Cairo University since August 2008 to date. He obtained his PhD in Business Administration, the University of Nottingham, England, 1997. He also serves as a Visiting Research Fellow, the University of Nottingham Business School, England, 1998 to date and served as a Visiting Fulbright Scholar, School of Business and Public Management, the George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA, May-September 2001. He is also an academic member of the British Academy of Marketing. He has published a considerable number of research papers in English and Arabic in national and international world-class conferences and academically reviewed journals, focusing on the subject areas of philosophy of marketing science, marketing research methods, management education, management information systems and organizational learning. He serves as a reviewer on the International Journal of Bank Marketing and Saudi Management Journal. He has also taught a variety of undergraduate and postgraduate courses. He is also actively involved in business consultancies and professional marketing and management training since 1988 with special emphasis on marketing studies and research, feasibility studies, organizational development and the analysis and design of management information systems.

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


This article has been cited by: 1. Kati Suomi, Päivikki Kuoppakangas, Ulla Hytti, Charles Hampden-Turner, Jukka Kangaslahti. 2014. Focusing on dilemmas challenging reputation management in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management 28:4, 461-478. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 2. Kati Suomi, Arja Lemmetyinen, Frank Go. 2013. The tension between a distinct brand identity and harmonisation – Findings from Finnish higher education. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 9, 202-215. [CrossRef] 3. Ashita Aggarwal Sharma, Vithala R. Rao, Sapna Popli. 2013. Measuring consumer-based brand equity for Indian business schools. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 23, 175-203. [CrossRef] 4. Maha Mourad, Hatem El Karanshawy. 2013. Branding Islamic studies: exploratory study in the Middle East. Journal of Islamic Marketing 4:2, 150-162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 5. Naresh Malhotra, Satyabhusan Dash, Ravi Shekhar Kumar, Satyabhusan Dash, Prem Chandra Purwar. 2013. The nature and antecedents of brand equity and its dimensions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 31:2, 141-159. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 6. Marianne D. Sison, Linda Brennan. 2012. Students as global citizens: strategies for mobilizing studies abroad. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 22, 167-181. [CrossRef] 7. Kijpokin KasemsapThe Role of Brand Management in Emerging Markets 167-184. [CrossRef]