Kalwani
n contemporary marketing, brand equity has emerged as equity (Aaker 1996). In the marketing literature, Park and
B: Dish Detergents
Average
Quarterly
Mean Mean Mean Mean National
Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Average % Advertising
Sales Revenue Price Share UPCs on Deal (in Millions
Brand (oz.) ($) ($/oz.) (%) in a Quarter of Dollars)
Ajax 0,638,193 033,013 .054 04.74 20.80 0.29
Dawn 3,369,961 202,546 .061 24.98 14.72 4.88
Ivory 1,487,602 089,382 .059 10.91 22.35 2.85
Joy 1,473,495 086,520 .057 10.89 10.28 1.42
Palmolive 2,850,432 170,741 .061 21.64 11.70 2.61
Sunlight 1,560,109 077,361 .053 12.13 15.36 0.42
which entered the market with its baking soda formulation, Operationalization of Variables
was relatively new at the beginning of our observation win- The Stage 1 model. First, we discuss the product charac-
dow. The other major entrant in this market was Mentadent, teristics. In the toothpaste category, we define product vari-
which entered midway in our data with the baking soda and ants on the basis of five characteristics: brand name, gel
peroxide formulation. (versus paste), baking soda, peroxide, and size. We chose
gel, baking soda, and peroxide product attributes because of
Dish Detergent Category their importance as judged from business press articles and
Our analysis is based on 173 UPCs with six brands that the relative market shares of the product variants incorpo-
account for 98% of UPCs and almost 100% of sales in the rating these attributes, which were 22%, 17%, and 11%,
category. Descriptive statistics for the brands included in respectively. Of these three attributes, baking soda was
our analysis appear in Table 1, Panel B. The major brands in introduced just before the beginning of the period for which
this category are Dawn and Palmolive, which have 25% and we have data, and peroxide was introduced in the middle of
22% market shares, respectively. Unlike the toothpaste cate- the period. We include dummy variables to capture the pres-
gory, we do not have any premium-priced brands that serve ence (or absence) of these attributes. In addition, we clas-
niche markets. Although no new brands entered the dish sify size into five different categories (extra small, small,
detergent market during the period of our analysis, product medium, large, and extra large), which results in four
modifications based on two new attributes—antibacterial dummy variables. We then aggregate sales over all the
and “ultra” product formulations—were introduced. Procter UPCs that possess the same characteristics to yield sales of
& Gamble was the first to introduce ultra formulations of its the product variants. This aggregation gives us 76 variants
brands—Dawn, Ivory, and Joy—in the third quarter of and an average of 40 variants each quarter.
1995, and this was quickly followed by Palmolive. The ultra In the dish detergent category, we define product vari-
formulations were superconcentrated versions of the regular ants on the basis of five characteristics: brand, lemon scent,
dish detergent and came in bottles two-thirds the size of a antibacterial formulation, ultra formulation, and size.
standard bottle but typically sold for the same price as regu- Again, we chose the product attributes of lemon scent,
lar dish detergents. The rationale was that the ultra versions antibacterial formulation, and ultra formulation because of
required the use of one-third less detergent to get the same their importance as judged from business press articles and
results in terms of dishes washed. Notably, the ultra version the relative market shares of the product variants incorpo-
product variants accounted for more than 60% of the cate- rating these attributes, which were 13%, 7%, and 50%,
gory sales within six quarters after their introduction. respectively. We use dummy variables to capture the pres-
Heterogeneity Parameters
A&H (SD) 2.242 .353 6.350
Aquafresh (SD) .089 36.550 .002
Close-Up (SD) .147 10.209 .014
Colgate (SD) .025 8.339 .003
Crest (SD) .087 2.750 .032
Mentadent (SD) .041 4.923 .008
Price (SD) 2.977 1.715 1.736
A&H 2.359
Aquafresh 1.225
Close-Up .580
Colgate 1.577
Crest 2.189
Mentadent 3.377
aWe set the dummy variable for small to zero.
sures, such as the intercept measure and price premiums, the managers who monitor brand health. For the toothpaste
that reflect the value the buyers of a brand place on the category, we present the brand equity estimates over time in
brand name regardless of its market share. Figure 1, Panel A, and summarize the number of quarters
In contrast, the correlations of the intercept brand equity when these brands experienced statistically significant and
measure with sales and revenue premiums are high in the positive and negative deviations in their equity compared
dish detergent category. The rationale for this difference is with the values in the first quarter in Table 4, Panel A.9 Fig-
that the toothpaste category has some niche brands (i.e., ure 1 reveals that the brand equities of all brands, with the
Mentadent and A&H) that are highly valued by their respec- exception of Mentadent, appear to have decreased com-
tive focused target markets, unlike the dish detergent cate- pared with the values in the first few quarters. From Table 4,
gory in which the brands do not appear to be highly differ- Panel A, it is clear that most of these deviations are statisti-
entiated. Overall, the positive, significant, and moderately cally significant. The narrowing differences between the
high correlation of the intercept brand equity measure with national brands and the store brand point to an overall com-
other measures of brand performance, especially price pre- moditization of the category. However, the brand equities of
mium, provides confidence that this is a valid measure of
brand equity. 9In the toothpaste category, the store brand enters the market in
Time trend in brand equity. We now turn to the time the third quarter of 1990. Because we estimate the brand equities
trend in the brand equities, which should be of interest to with respect to the store brand, henceforth, we track brand equities.
Heterogeneity Parameters
Ajax (SD) .863 2.754 .313
Dawn (SD) .474 .758 .626
Ivory (SD) 2.013 1.716 1.173
Joy (SD) .106 7.878 .014
Palmolive (SD) .620 .769 .806
Sunlight (SD) .941 1.142 .824
Price (SD) 2.282 1.954 1.168
Ajax .452
Dawn 1.566
Ivory 1.100
Joy 1.007
Palmolive 1.403
Sunlight .864
aWe set the dummy variable for the extra-large size to zero.
most of the brands appear to rebound from their low point brand equity. If the actual sales are lower than the simulated
around Quarter 13 (fourth quarter of 1995), which coincides values, it implies that the brand has lost sales because of a
with Mentadent’s entry. Further examination of the data decline in brand equity. We present the results from this
reveals that during this time frame, established brands intro- simulation for the toothpaste brands in Table 4, Panel B.
duced a flurry of product innovations (e.g., baking soda, The results confirm that with the exception of Mentadent,
peroxide, new flavors, stand-up packaging). This appears to all toothpaste brands lost some sales because of changes in
allow them to recover some of their equity and to put some brand equity. In terms of magnitude, although the larger
distance between themselves and the store brand. brands, Crest and Colgate, seem to have lost the most, in
To quantify the net effect of the changes in brand equity, terms of percentage, A&H is the biggest loser. Part of the
we simulated the sales of each brand such that its brand reason behind the decline in A&H’s equity is a significant
equity remained the same, average value in the first four reduction in advertising support for this brand over time. As
quarters. We retained the equities of the remaining brands at we discuss subsequently, our Stage 2 model reveals that
their current levels during this simulation. We then com- advertising is an important driver of brand equity. Further-
pared these simulated sales with the actual sales of the more, our analysis of the time trend in A&H’s brand equity
brand. The total difference between the two values across reveals that the brand was adversely affected by the intro-
all the quarters is a measure of the effect of changes in duction of baking soda toothpaste by other brands, which
A: Toothpaste Brands
diluted its unique selling proposition. We discuss the track- 18.4% in the fourth quarter of 1989 to 5.8% in the first
ing of A&H’s brand equity in more detail subsequently. quarter of 1997, and Joy’s share dropped from 13.1% to
For the dish detergent category, we present the brand approximately 10.5% during the same period.
equity estimates over time in Figure 1, Panel B, and sum- As in the toothpaste category, we quantified the net
marize the number of quarters with statistically significant effect of changes in brand equity for the dish detergent
deviations in brand equity in Table 5, Panel A. The results brands by comparing the actual sales with the simulated
in Table 5, Panel A, reveal that as in the toothpaste category,
sales and by holding the brand equity the same as in the first
the deviations in brand equity are statistically significant.
year. The results appear in Table 5, Panel B. The results
Moreover, most of the statistically significant deviations are
negative in magnitude. Indeed, the trends in brand equities reveal that all brands lost sales because of declining brand
in Figure 1, Panel B, reveal declining equities and declining equity over time. The results also confirm our observation
differences between brands. These trends suggest decreas- that the three Procter & Gamble brands—Dawn, Ivory, and
ing brand differentiation in the category. The results also Joy—dropped significantly in their brand equities during
reveal a significant declining trend in the brand equities of this period. However, the biggest loser among these brands
Ivory and Joy, both of which are Procter & Gamble brands. both in terms of magnitude and as a percentage of sales was
The market shares of both brands declined substantially Joy. Conversely, Sunlight lost the least in terms of magni-
during this period. Ivory’s share dropped more steeply from tude and percentage of sales.
A: Number of Quarters with Brand Equity Estimates Significantly Different from the First Quarter
Number of Quarters Number of Quarters Number of Quarters
Number of Quarters with Significant with Positive, with Negative,
Brand Compared Deviations Significant Deviation Significant Deviation
A&H 25 20 4 16
Aquafresh 25 23 0 23
Close-Up 25 23 0 23
Colgate 25 21 0 21
Crest 25 23 6 17
Mentadent 13 6 5 1
Stage 2 Results: The Effects of Marketing Actions carryover for brand equity is consistent with our expecta-
on Brand Equity tion that brand equity should exhibit higher inertia. The
We infer the effects of advertising, sales promotions, and advertising coefficients in both categories have the expected
product innovations on brand equity by pooling the brand positive sign and are significant both in the short run and in
equity estimates from the Stage 1 model and estimating the the long run. Sales promotions have a negative effect on
model in Equation 4 separately for each of the two cate- brand equity in both categories. However, the effect is not
gories.10 We present these results for the two categories in statistically significant either in the short run or in the long
Table 6.11 run. As we expected, the innovation variable has a signifi-
Our results are fairly consistent in terms of the impact cant, positive effect on brand equity in the toothpaste cate-
of marketing actions on brand equity across the two cate- gory both in the short run and in the long run. However, the
gories. The lagged brand equity coefficient, a measure of effect is not significant in the dish detergent category. This
the stability or inertia in brand equity, is equal to .905 for may be because all competitors quickly matched the princi-
the dish detergent category and .945 for the toothpaste cate- pal innovation of ultra formulation.
gory. Clarke (1976) finds that the quarterly carryover coeffi- The consequence of high inertia in brand equity is that
cient in the case of sales is approximately .6. The higher the long-term effects of advertising, sales promotions, and
product innovations are much higher in magnitude than are
the short-term effects. For example, in the toothpaste cate-
gory, the long-term effect is more than 20 times that of the
10To assess the appropriateness of the partial adjustment model corresponding short-term effect. Thus, inferring the total
specified in Equation 4, we test for the autocorrelation of errors for impact of marketing actions on brand equity only on the
the individual brands using Durbin’s h statistic, which is the basis of the immediate effect will significantly underesti-
appropriate test in the presence of a lagged dependent variable. We mate their total impact.
performed this test assuming that the marketing variables were
exogenous. In the toothpaste category, of the six regressions (one To understand the extent to which the different
for each of the six brands), only one exhibited significant autocor- marketing-mix variables affect brand equity, we computed
relation. In the dish detergent category, none of the brand equities the contribution of the variables in explaining variation in
exhibited autocorrelation. Thus, in general, our data are consistent brand equity. In both the categories, we find that lagged
with the partial adjustment model. Furthermore, we performed a brand equity explains a significant portion of the variation
test based on the work of Johnston (1984, p. 347) to check whether in brand equity (86.3% of the variation in toothpaste and
advertising, sales promotions, and product innovations have the
90.5% in dish detergents). Although advertising (8.9%)
same decay parameter. We could not reject the null hypothesis that
the decay parameters are the same for the three marketing-mix explains most of the remaining variation in brand equity in
variables in both the categories. the dish detergent category, all three variables—advertising,
11Our Stage 2 results are fairly consistent in terms of the effect sales promotions, and product innovations—explain
signs across different estimation methods, such as ordinary least approximately equal portions of the remaining variation for
squares and two-stage least squares, which suggests robustness. toothpaste brands.
TABLE 6
Managerial Implications Effect of Marketing Actions on Brand Equity
An Illustrative Application of Tracking Brand
Equity: The Case of A&H Toothpaste Dish Detergent
Category Category
The case of A&H in the toothpaste category illustrates the
strategic lessons that may be learned from tracking brand Intercept .054 .079
equity. Recall that A&H was introduced with a unique for- (.65) (2.05)
mulation of baking soda and commanded a significant price Lag brand equity .945 .905
premium. Furthermore, our analysis of the net effect of (31.36) (36.57)
Advertising .016 .018
changes in brand equity for the toothpaste category revealed
(1.90) (2.80)
that this brand lost the most as a percentage of sales because Sales promotions –.098 –.005
of a decline in brand equity. In Figure 2, we present the (–1.103) (–.043)
“observed” brand equity as estimated from the Stage 1 Innovations .246 22.596
model along with a 90% confidence band of the brand (1.96) (.26)
equity that the Stage 2 model would predict. Thus, points
within the confidence band represent observed brand equity Long-Term Effects
Advertising .287 .184
values that can be explained with some confidence by (1.94) (3.90)
A&H’s marketing actions as well as measurement errors Sales promotions –1.78 –.052
and “white noise” in the brand equity estimates. Conversely, (–1.139) (–.043)
points outside the confidence band may require further Innovations 4.486 236.745
investigation because they cannot be well explained by sys- (1.79) (.25)
tematic factors.12
R2 .92 .907
In the case of A&H, for example, the “observed” Stage Adjusted R2 .918 .905
1 brand equity estimates fall within the confidence band in
Notes: t-values are in parentheses.
all but three cases. These deviations warrant a brief discus-
sion. Note that the three significant adverse deviations
marked 1, 2, and 3 coincided with competitive new product tively. These imitations of the baking soda attribute chal-
introductions: (1) entry of Colgate baking soda toothpaste, lenged the unique identity of A&H as the toothpaste with
(2) entry of Crest baking soda toothpaste, and (3) entry of baking soda and, thus, its ability to differentiate itself.
Mentadent baking soda and peroxide toothpaste, respec- Notably, the market share of this brand did not record a per-
ceptible decline during this period. However, judging from
the trend in the proportion of volume sold on deal, we infer
12Although we used data from all quarters to draw up the confi- that A&H was able to maintain its market share by resorting
dence band for convenience, in practice, confidence bands are to promotional deals. Thus, an analysis of market share
based on historical data up to the previous quarter. alone may not reveal the true health of a brand. This case
also indicates that brands that build their equity on imitable assumed to be uniformly introduced during the year.
attributes will find it difficult to defend themselves against Because we assume that a new product requires two quar-
competitors. Thus, brands need to constantly innovate to ters to be fully established, uniform new product introduc-
maintain and enhance their equity, at least in dynamic mar- tions entail an equal number of product introductions every
kets such as toothpaste. two quarters. Appendix B describes the procedure we used
Overall, the A&H illustration reveals that the tracking of to answer our two questions, and Table 7, Panel A, shows
brand equity has a useful diagnostic value. It can help the the results of the analysis. In deriving the table, for simplic-
brand’s managers monitor the long-term health of a brand ity, we use the Stage 2 model estimates from the data on all
by tracking the impact of a firm’s actions and competitive quarters.
marketing programs on the brand’s equity. Next, we illus- The analysis shows that with no new product introduc-
trate how a manager may use the model to understand the tions, an annual advertising spending of $15.6 million is
relative desirability of alternative marketing actions to needed to increase the brand equity by 10% in one year. As
influence brand equity. a comparison, the average annual spending of A&H during
the data observation window was $9 million, whereas
Performing “What-If” Analyses of Alternative advertising spending dropped to zero during the year before
Marketing Actions Quarter 23. If the targeted improvement is 5%, Table 7,
We take the perspective of A&H’s brand equity manager to Panel A, shows that the advertising expenditure needed
illustrate the managerial analyses that can be conducted decreases significantly to $2.4 million. The steep increase
using the model results. We assume that at the beginning of in advertising expenditure needed to achieve the higher
Quarter 23, the brand equity manager is interested in brand equity target is due to the diminishing returns to
exploring alternative marketing actions to achieve brand advertising at higher levels.
equity targets at the end of the year. Specifically, we assume Although the advertising expenditure needed for achiev-
that the manager is considering alternative targets of 5% ing the higher brand equity target appears to be high com-
and 10% increases in brand equity by the end of Quarter 26 pared with historic spending levels by A&H, Table 7, Panel
from the average of 1.88 in Quarters 19–22. Although plan- A, shows that the beneficial effect of new product introduc-
ning for brand equity may typically entail a planning hori- tions on brand equity can significantly reduce the spending
zon of more than one year, for simplicity, we assume a one- levels needed. Moreover, the dollar reductions in advertis-
year horizon. We then address the following questions: (1) ing needed are more substantial when the targeted increase
What annual advertising budget uniformly spent in each of in brand equity is higher. Thus, product innovations may be
Quarters 23–26 will achieve the brand equity targets? and particularly more effective and efficient in achieving a sig-
(2) How does the introduction of new products reduce the nificant than a marginal brand equity improvement. Note
advertising expenditure needed to achieve the brand equity that the calculations in Table 7, Panel A, do not consider the
targets? We answer these questions with the help of the direct payoffs (or risks) from the introduction of new prod-
Stage 2 model. For this analysis, we assume that the promo- ucts. Prior studies (e.g., Urban and Hauser 1993) have
tions will be used at the same level as in the previous year. shown that new products have significant potential to gener-
Moreover, new product introductions, if applicable, are ate profits but also carry significant risks. Instead, Table 7,
A: A&H: Advertising Spending and Innovation Levels to Achieve Brand Equity Targets
Number of New Product (UPC) Annual Advertising Expenditure to Annual Advertising Expenditure to
Introductions Every Six Months Achieve 5% Brand Equity Target ($) Achieve 10% Brand Equity Target ($)
0 2,400,000 15,600,000
1 2,100,000 13,600,000
2 1,900,000 12,000,000
3 1,400,000 10,800,000
4 1,300,000 9,200,000
Panel A, captures only the beneficial affects of new product of the largest competitors—Aquafresh, Colgate, and
introduction in reducing advertising spending needed to Crest—increase by 5%, possibly because of advertising or
boost brand equity. The brand equity manager can point to new product introductions on their part.
the advertising savings as an additional benefit in any The results of this analysis in Table 7, Panel B, show
analysis of new product introductions.13 that a 5% brand equity improvement increases A&H’s quar-
In recommending brand equity targets, the brand equity terly profit by $1.5 million under the first scenario. Consid-
manager will be expected to address the profit conse- ering the advertising expenditure needed to achieve the 5%
quences of improving brand equity. As we discussed in the brand equity increase under various new product introduc-
“Literature Review” section, measuring the profit implica- tion scenarios (see Table 7, Panel A), payback can be
tions of increasing brand equity can be a difficult task achieved within two quarters.14 Conversely, the 10%
because high equity can be potentially leveraged with prof- improvement in brand equity has a much less favorable pay-
itable new products that are currently not offered by anyone back. Thus, these results indicate that improvements in
(Keller 1998). Moreover, the benefit from an increase in brand equity can be profitable but that a gradual improve-
brand equity may depend on competitive actions. Thus, we ment in a given time horizon may be more profitable than a
restrict ourselves to analyzing the impact of brand equity drastic improvement. The intuition is that a drastic improve-
improvements on profit and assume no change in the prod- ment requires a high intensity of advertising expenditure,
uct variants offered by A&H and its competitors. Further- which diminishes profit. This suggests that brand equity
more, we calculate the quarterly profit increase for A&H by should be managed with a long-term planning horizon
assuming that the advertising and promotion level for each because improving brand equity in a short time frame may
brand is equal to the corresponding average value in the be prohibitively expensive. Conversely, both panels in Table
year ending in Quarter 22. Because new product introduc- 7 (the first scenario) show that significant improvements in
tions can vary significantly from year to year, for simplicity, brand equity over a short time frame may be best achieved
we assume no product introductions for any competitor. We with the help of new product introductions because the pay-
run simulations using the Stage 1 model for calculating the back period may be more favorable under these conditions.
profit impact of an increase in A&H’s brand equity, assum- We observe in Table 7, Panel B, that under the second
ing that the marginal cost constitutes 30% of the wholesale scenario, when competitors make brand equity improve-
price, as do Jedidi, Mela, and Gupta (1999). To examine the ments, A&H’s quarterly profit gains from brand equity
impact of competitive actions to improve brand equity, we improvements are significantly reduced. However, this does
examine two scenarios: (1) Competitors’ brand equities not imply that A&H should not undertake brand equity
remain the same as in Quarter 22, and (2) the brand equities improvement when its largest competitors increase their
brand equities by 5%. Note that the profit gains reported
13Note that new product introductions typically involve an
increase in advertising spending to create awareness. This spend-
ing enters into the cost–benefit calculation for introduction of the 14This assumes that the brand equity is maintained at the new
new product. However, the advertising savings we discuss here level over the payback period. Our estimated Stage 2 model sug-
pertain to brand-image-oriented advertising, which is distinct from gests that advertising expenditures of $300,000 per quarter can
introductory advertising. sustain the brand equity at the new higher level.
REFERENCES
Aaker, David A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity. New York: The Mela, Carl F., Sunil Gupta, and Donald R. Lehmann (1997), “The
Free Press. Long-Term Impact of Promotion and Advertising on Consumer
——— (1996), Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Brand Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (May),
Press. 248–61.
Ailawadi, Kusum, Praveen Kopalle, and Scott A. Neslin (2005), Milgrom, Paul and John Roberts (1986), “Price and Advertising
“Predicting Competitive Response to Major Policy Change: Signals of Product Quality,” Journal of Political Economy, 55
Combining Game-Theoretic and Empirical Analyses,” Market- (August), 10–25.
ing Science, 24 (1), 12–24. Nevo, Aviv (2000), “A Practitioner’s Guide to Estimation of Ran-
———, Donald R. Lehmann, and Scott A. Neslin (2003), “Reve- dom Coefficient Models of Demand,” Journal of Economics
nue Premium as an Outcome Measure of Brand Equity,” Jour- and Management Strategy, 9 (4), 513–48.
nal of Marketing, 67 (October), 1–17. Park, Chan Su and V. Srinivasan (1994), “A Survey-Based Method
Berry, Steven, James Levinsohn, and Ariel Pakes (1995), “Auto- for Measuring and Understanding Brand Equity and Its
mobile Prices in Market Equilibrium,” Econometrica, 63 (4), Extendibility,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (May),
841–90. 279–96.
Blattberg, Robert C., Richard Briesch, and Edward J. Fox (1995), Rothschild, Michael L. and William C. Gaidis (1981), “Behavioral
“How Promotions Work,” Marketing Science, 14 (3), G122–32. Learning Theory: Its Relevance to Marketing and Promotions,”
Bucklin, Randolph and Sunil Gupta (1999), “Commercial Use of Journal of Marketing, 45 (April), 70–78.
UPC Scanner Data: Industry and Academic Perspectives,” Rust, Roland T., Katherine N. Lemon, and Valarie A. Zeithaml
Marketing Science, 18 (3), 247–73. (2004), “Return on Marketing: Using Customer Equity to
Chintagunta, P.K. (2002), “Investigating Category Pricing Behav- Focus Marketing Strategy,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (Janu-
ior at a Retail Chain,” Journal of Marketing Research, 39 ary), 109–127.
(May), 141–54. ———, Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Katherine N. Lemon (2000),
Driving Customer Equity: How Customer Lifetime Value Is
Clarke, Darral G. (1976), “Econometric Measurement of the Dura-
Reshaping Corporate Strategy. New York: The Free Press.
tion of Advertising Effects on Sales,” Journal of Marketing
Schmalensee, Richard and Paul L. Joskow (1986), “Estimated
Research, 13 (November), 345–57.
Parameters as Dependent Variables: An Application to the
Farquhar, Peter H. (1989), “Managing Brand Equity,” Marketing
Costs of Electric Generating Units,” Journal of Econometrics,
Research, 1 (September), 24–33. 31 (3), 275–305.
Greene, William H. (2000), Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle Shoemaker, Robert and Lewis G. Pringle (1980), “Possible Biases
River, NJ: Prentice Hall. in Parameter Estimation with Store Audit Data,” Journal of
Hanushek, Eric (1974), “Efficient Estimators for Regressing Marketing Research, 17 (February), 91–96.
Regression Coefficients,” American Statistician, 28 (2), 66–67. Simon, Carol J. and Mary Sullivan (1993), “The Measurement and
Jedidi, Kamel, Carl F. Mela, and Sunil Gupta (1999), “Managing Determinants of Brand Equity: A Financial Approach,” Mar-
Advertising and Promotion for Long-Run Profitability,” Mar- keting Science, 12 (1), 28–52.
keting Science, 18 (1), 1–22. Srinivasan, V. (1979), “Network Models for Estimating Brand-
Johnston, J. (1984), Econometric Methods. New York: McGraw- Specific Effects in Multi-Attribute Marketing Models,” Man-
Hill. agement Science, 25 (1), 11–21.
Kamakura, Wagner and Gary Russell (1993), “Measuring Brand ———, Chan Su Park, and Dae Ryun Chang (2005), “An
Value with Scanner Data,” International Journal for Research Approach to the Measurement, Analysis, and Prediction of
in Marketing, 10 (1), 9–22. Brand Equity and Its Sources,” Management Science, 51 (9),
Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and 1433–48.
Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of Market- Tellis, Gerard (1988a), “Advertising Exposure, Loyalty, and Brand
ing, 57 (January), 1–22. Purchase: A Two-Stage Model of Choice,” Journal of Market-
——— (1998), Strategic Brand Management. Upper Saddle ing Research, 25 (May) 134–44.
River, NJ: Prentice Hall. ——— (1988b), “Price Elasticity of Selective Demand: A Meta-
Mahajan, Vijay, Vithala R. Rao, and Rajendra K. Srivastava Analysis of Economic Models of Sales,” Journal of Marketing
(1994), “An Approach to Assess the Importance of Brand Research, 25 (November), 331–41.
Equity in Acquisition Decisions,” Journal of Product Innova- Urban, Glen L. and John R. Hauser (1993), Design and Marketing
tion Management, 11 (3), 221–35. of New Products. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.