Journal of Euromarketing, 18:115–132, 2009

Copyright
c Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1049-6483 print / 1528-6967 online
DOI: 10.1080/10496480903022253

Customer-Based Brand Equity for Global Brands:

A Multinational Approach
Eda Atilgan
Serkan Akinci
Safak Aksoy
Erdener Kaynak

ABSTRACT. Focusing on the dimensions and measurement, this study is based on the concept of brand
equity for global brands with empirical evidence from three economically and culturally dissimilar
countries—USA, Turkey, and Russia. The brand equity for global brands can be measured under four
basic dimensions: perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand associations, and brand trust. Emergence of
brand trust as a new dimension instead of brand awareness complies well with recent literature on
global branding, global consumption orientation, and corporate reputation.

KEYWORDS. Branding and brand management, structural equation modeling, brand equity, global
brands

INTRODUCTION firm-based perspectives. The consumer-based

Brand equity has been an issue of increasing
importance in recent years. It is defined as the
difference in consumer choice between the fo-
cal branded product and an unbranded product
given the same level of product features (Yoo
& Donthu, 2001). In other words, it represents
the utility difference in terms of a positive mar-
keting outcome, which is created by a branded
product compared to that of the generic version
of the same product. In the marketing litera-
ture, this incremental utility or positive market-
ing outcome is viewed both from customer- and
perspective focuses on “customer mind-set” and
is explained with such constructs as attitudes,
awareness, associations, attachments, and loyal-
ties (Keller & Lehmann, 2001). The firm-based
perspective, however, uses “product-market out-
comes” such as price premium, market share,
relative price, and “financial-market outcomes”
such as brand’s purchase price and discounted
cash flow of license fees and royalties (Ailawadi,
Lehmann, & Neslin, 2003; Keller & Lehmann,
2001). The “revenue premium” measure devel-
oped recently by Ailawadi et al. and defined as
the difference in revenue (Net Price × Volume)

Eda Atilgan is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Department of Business Administration, Akdeniz Unvier-
sity, Antalya, Turkey. Serkan Akinci is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Department of Business Administra-
tion, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey. Safak Aksoy is Professor of Marketing, Department of Business
Administration, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey. Erdener Kaynak, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of
Euromarketing, is Professor of Marketing and Chair of the Marketing Program at the School of Business
Administration of the Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg.
Address correspondence to Eda Atilgan, Akdeniz University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative
Sciences, Department of Business Administration, Antalya, Turkey. E-mail: eatilgan@akdeniz.edu.tr

115
116 JOURNAL OF EUROMARKETING
between a branded good and a corresponding
private label can also be considered within the
firm-based perspective. In sum, there are differ-
ent approaches to the concept of brand equity
depending on the actors, measures, and the final
purpose of using it.
Turning to customer-based brand equity, it
is claimed that the conceptualization and oper-
ationalization of customer-based brand equity
is somewhat elusive (Punj & Hillyer, 2004).
Brand researchers have devoted considerable at-
tention to develop and test such brand-related
constructs as brand loyalty (e.g., Amine, 1998;
Day, 1969; Jacoby & Chestnut, 1978; Yi & Jeon,
2003), awareness (e.g., Bird & Ehrenberg, 1966;
Greenberg, 1958; Laurent, Kapferer, & Rous-
sel, 1995; MacInnis, Shapiro, & Mani, 1999),
associations (e.g., Uggla, 2004; Van Osselaer
& Janiszewski, 2001), perceived quality (e.g.,
Erdem, Zhao, & Valenzuela, 2004; Teas &
Agarwal, 2000), and trust (e.g., Chaudhuri &
Holbrook, 2001; Delgado-Ballester, Munuera-
Alemán, & Yagüe-Guillén, 2003; Fournier &
Yao, 1997). These established constructs are also
included in various customer-based brand eq-
uity models (e.g., Aaker, 1991, 1996; Agarwal
& Rao, 1996; Keller, 1993; Yoo, Donthu, & Lee,
2000).
Although it is apparent that customer-based
brand equity has multiple dimensions, there is
no general agreement in current marketing lit-
erature as to the nature and content of these
dimensions. Previous research has proposed
two (e.g., Faircloth, Capella, & Alford, 2001;
Keller, 1993), three (e.g., Han & Collins, 2002;
Netemeyer et al., 2004), four (e.g., Aaker, 1991;
Yoo et al., 2000), five (e.g., Lassar, Mittal, &
Sharma, 1995), and even eight (e.g., Vazquez,
Del Rio, & Iglesias, 2002) dimensions. However,
many of these brand equity dimensions have
not been systematically measured or validated
within a nomological framework (Netemeyer
et al., 2004). For example, the existence and
function of trust have not been fully investigated
within the context of brand equity.
On the globalization front, branding has
received increasing attention from marketing
academicians. The two prominent reasons
for this are increased cross-border population
mobility and electronic mobility, both of which
contributed to faster transfer of ideas and a
global convergence in consumer tastes and val-
ues (Quelch, 1999). Global brands, as defined
by Aaker and Joachimsthaler (1999), are those
brands whose positioning, advertising strategy,
personality, look, and feel are in most respects
the same from one country to another. Reviewing
the top 10 global brands, Quelch identified seven
common features: strength in home market (gen-
erating funds for a global rollout), geographical
balance (certain level of awareness, recognition
and sales all over the world), addressing
similar consumer needs worldwide, consistent
positioning, country of origin, product category
focus, and corporate name. From consumers’
perspective, consumers’ perception is important
that the brand is marketed in multiple countries
and is generally recognized as global in these
countries. According to Steenkamp, Batra, and
Alden (2003), the appeal of global brands arises
from three different but not mutually exclusive
sources: higher perceived quality, higher pres-
tige, and the psychological benefits of perceived
brand globalness. From firms’ viewpoint, on
the other hand, the drivers of global branding
are economies of scale, growing consumer
segments with similar needs and tastes, risks
of time-consuming local modifications, and
emerging consumer preference for brands with
global image. Global branding, however, might
also be a trap for managers if not handled care-
fully. In this context, Aaker and Joachimsthaler
(1999) drew attention to three basic points. First,
economies of scale may be elusive because of
existing cultural differences between foreign
markets. Second, top management may face
difficulties in forming a successful global brand
team. Third, global brands can not be imposed
on all foreign markets in a standard way because
of the image differences across these countries.
Overall, global brands are powerful institutions
because of their pervasiveness but require a
nuanced approach when managed in different
foreign markets.
Given these accumulation of knowledge on
brand equity and global branding briefly, it is ap-
parent that the amount of empirical research in-
tegrating the two subjects is limited. By address-
ing the aforementioned gaps, we seek to clarify
and validate the dimensions of customer-based
 Atilgan et al.
brand equity for global brands in a multinational
setting.
The central premise of this research is to re-
view the existing brand equity models for global
brands by way of measuring several underly-
ing constructs. Specifically, departing from the
two well-known models of brand equity (Aaker,
1991; Keller, 1993), we first review a set of re-
lated underlying dimensions which are reported
in the marketing literature. Second, we propose
a brand equity model based on a new dimen-
sionality and validate it for two global brands in
three culturally dissimilar countries according to
Hofstede and Hofstede’s (2005) parameters.
Our research is unique in three ways. First, we
unify and complement previous works that have
examined consumer-based brand equity with
different approaches but not necessarily refer-
ring to global brands. Second, we integrate brand
trust into the brand equity model and explain its
linkages with other underlying constructs. Third,
the proposed model for global brands is validated
by culturally diverse countries.
ALTERNATIVE
CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF BRAND
EQUITY
In recent brand equity literature, there are
two prominent theoretical views that provide
FIGURE 1. Alternative Conceptualizations of Brand Equity
A: Brand Equity Model
(Aaker, 1991)
Brand
Loyalty
Brand
Awareness
Brand Perceived
Equity Quality
Brand
Associations
Other Proprietary
Brand Assets
117
valuable insights into the body of customer-
based brand equity (see Figure 1). Aaker (1991)
defined four basic dimensions of customer-based
brand equity: perceived quality, brand aware-
ness, brand associations, and brand loyalty.
These dimensions are reviewed in more detail
in the following parts of this article.
Another prominent theoretical conceptualiza-
tion is Keller’s (1993) customer-based brand eq-
uity model. The basic premise of Keller’s (1993)
customer-based brand equity model is that “the
power of a brand lies in what customers have
learned, felt, seen, and heard about the brand as
a result of their experiences over time” (Keller,
2003, p. 59). His model is an insightful way
to represent how brand knowledge is the key
to creating brand equity. Keller (1993) viewed
customer-based brand equity as “the differen-
tial effect of brand knowledge on consumer re-
sponse to the marketing of the brand” (p. 2). He
conceptualized the sources of brand knowledge
as brand awareness and brand image. In brief,
the customer-based brand equity dimensions of
both Aaker’s (1991) and Keller’s (1993) mod-
els are strictly intersecting. What Keller (1993)
left out from Aaker’s framework in defining the
customer-based brand equity is the brand loyalty
dimension.
Yoo et al. (2000) extend Aaker’s (1991) model
by placing brand equity as a separate construct
between the dimensions of brand equity and
B: Brand Equity Model
(Keller, 1993)
Brand
Awareness
Brand
Knowledge
Brand
Image
118 JOURNAL OF EUROMARKETING

the value for the customer and the firm. They
also add price, store image, distribution inten-
sity, advertising spending, and price deals as
antecedents of brand equity with their signifi-
cant effects on the dimensions of brand equity.
In their model, brand awareness and brand as-
sociations dimensions have emerged as a sin-
gle dimension, whereas perceived quality and
brand loyalty are retained as separate dimen-
sions. Yoo and Donthu (2001) also developed
and validated a cross-culturally invariant multi-
dimensional consumer-based brand equity scale
containing these dimensions. To sum up, the
most commonly cited brand equity studies are
briefly reviewed in Table 1.
Although all these valuable models define
the fundamental pillars of brand equity, there
is still want for potential contributions with re-
spect to the quantitative clarifications of the de-
fined dimensions, their measurement, and their
adequacy for global brands.
PROPOSED FACTOR STRUCTURE
FOR BRAND EQUITY
We departed from two different consumer-
based definitions of brand equity in the related
literature. The first one is that of Yoo and Donthu
(2001) as given at the beginning of this article:
“The difference in consumer choice between the
focal branded product and an unbranded prod-
uct given the same level of product features”
(p. 1). As explicated in Yoo and Donthu’s model,
which is briefly explained earlier, this definition
refers to the major dimensions that account for
the consumer choice. The second definition is
that of the Brand Equity Board quoted by Keller
(2003): “Brands with equity provide an own-
able, trustworthy, relevant, distinctive promise to
consumers” (p. 43). In our view, it complements
and further strengthens the first definition with
the inclusion of trust. Relying on the synergy
of these two definitions and the review of past

TABLE 1. Mostly Cited “Brand Equity” Studies

Author Dimensions of Brand Equity Related Findings

Keller (1993) Brand awareness, brand image When the consumer is familiar with the brand and
holds some favorable, strong, and unique brand
associations in the memory, then customer-based
brand equity occurs.
Park and Srinivasan Brand associations (Attribute-based and The non-attribute-based component of brand equity
(1994) non-attribute-based component of appears to play a more dominant role in determining
brand equity) a brand’s equity.
Lane and Jacobson Brand attitude, brand name familiarity The stock market participants’ responses to brand
(1995) extension announcements depend on brand attitude
and familiarity.
Cobb-Walgren, Perceived quality, brand awareness, The brand with greater advertising budget yielded
Ruble, and brand associations, advertising substantially higher levels of brand equity. In turn,
Donthu (1995) awareness the brand with the higher equity generated
significantly greater preference and purchase
intentions.
Aaker (1996) Brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand Four dimensions of brand equity represent customer
awareness, brand associations perceptions of the brand and could be applied
across markets and products.
Yoo, Donthu, and Brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand Brand equity is positively related to perceived quality,
Lee (2000 ) awareness/associations brand loyalty, and brand associations. The
relationship of perceived quality and brand
associations to brand equity is much weaker than
the relationship of brand loyalty to brand equity.
Berry (2000) Brand awareness, brand meaning Positive service brand equity emerges from the
(customer’s dominant perceptions) synergy of brand awareness and brand meaning.
Yoo and Donthu Brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand A multidimensional brand equity scale is validated
(2001) awareness/associations across Americans, Korean Americans and Koreans
samples.
 Atilgan et al.
FIGURE 2. The Proposed Brand Equity Model
BRAND
EQUITY
PERCEIVED BRAND BRAND
QUALITY LOYALTY ASSOCIATIONS
research, we took perceived quality, brand loy-
alty, brand associations, brand awareness, and
brand trust as the five basic consumer-related di-
mensions central to brand equity (see Figure 2).
We expect them to be distinct but highly corre-
lated. A more detailed discussion of these dimen-
sions regarding their relationships with brand
equity are presented next.
Perceived Quality
In the customer-based brand equity frame-
works (Aaker, 1996; Dyson, Farr, & Hollis,
1996; Farquhar, 1989; Keller, 1993), perceived
quality is considered a primary dimension. Per-
formance and features are some of the product
quality dimensions (Yoo et al., 2000). Service
quality dimensions, on the other hand, reflect
the characteristics of a service business such
as reliability, responsiveness, and tangibles
(Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985). The
main reason that perceived quality is a primary
dimension in brand equity models is that it has a
strategic effect on brand equity, by reducing the
perceived risk (Aaker, 1991; Erdem et al., 2004;
Keller, 1993). It also creates a basis for brand dif-
ferentiation and extension (Aaker, 1991), and of-
fers a price premium advantage for firms (Keller,
1993; Netemeyer et al., 2004).
For global brands, the importance of per-
ceived quality is also evident. For example,
based on the results of a qualitative research in 41
countries, Holt, Quelch, and Taylor (2004) iden-
tified “quality signal” as a distinct dimension in
consumers’ perception of global brands. They
119
BRAND BRAND
AWARENESS TRUST
concluded that a company’s global stature indi-
cates whether it excels on quality. Thus, there
is a general consensus that perceived quality
is among the fundamental constructs of brand
equity.
Brand Loyalty
Several meanings have been attributed to
brand loyalty after the concept was first intro-
duced by Copeland (1923). The concept is ex-
amined mainly from two broad aspects, which
are behavioral (or purchase) loyalty (Agrawal,
1996; Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Huang &
Yu, 1999) and attitudinal loyalty (Chaudhuri &
Holbrook, 2001; Huang & Yu, 1999; Moreau,
Lehmann, & Markman, 2001; Pritchard, Havitz,
& Howard, 1999). Behavioral loyalty refers to
repeat purchases and is related with how of-
ten and how much consumers purchase a brand
(Aaker, 1991; Keller, 2003). It also encompasses
the comparison of the brand with other brands
offering similar benefits (Aaker, 1996). Fournier
and Yao (1997) and Dekimpe, Steenkamp,
Mellens, and Abeele (1997) suggested that an
ideal measure of brand loyalty should incorpo-
rate both behavioral and attitudinal aspects. For
instance, consumers with a great deal of attitu-
dinal attachment to a brand may state that they
“love” the brand (Keller, 2003, p. 93) or con-
sider themselves “loyal customer[s]” (Yoo et al.,
2000). Another distinguishing feature of brand
loyalty is the “sense of community” (Keller,
2003). Identification with a brand community
(such as friends or acquaintances) is a necessity
120 JOURNAL OF EUROMARKETING

for active engagement with the brand (Keller, ease with which it does so” (Keller, 1993, p. 3).
2003, p. 93). However, brand loyalty, as one of It is based on both brand recognition and re-
the most important determinants of brand equity call (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993). The studies re-
(Aaker, 1991; Yoo et al., 2000), has received rel- garding brand awareness are mostly focused on
atively less attention in terms of cross cultural its effect on brand choice. For example, Hoyer
issues and empirical approaches (e.g., Yoo & and Brown (1990) found that participants with
Donthu, 2001). no brand awareness tended to select the high-
quality brand on the final choice significantly
Brand Associations more often than those with brand awareness.
Holden (1993) probed the importance of brand
Brand associations are defined as “anything
awareness in brand choice, and his qualitative
linked in memory to a brand” (Aaker, 1991,
research indicates that brand awareness appears
p. 109), such as product attributes (Yoo et al.,
to be operating as a cue to brand retrieval. In the
2000), brand name (Zinkhan & Prenshaw, 1994),
context of consumer-based brand equity, Agar-
and relative price (Aaker, 1996). Keller (1993)
wal and Rao (1996) measured brand awareness
discussed this construct under brand image and
by unaided recall and familiarity. They found
classifies these associations into three major cat-
that the familiarity measure is highly consistent
egories: attributes, benefits, and attitudes. Ac-
with other brand equity measures, but the re-
cording to Keller (1993), “customer-based brand
call measure is not convergent. Other issues re-
equity occurs when the consumer is aware of
lated to brand awareness, such as the sources of
the brand and holds some favorable, strong, and
brand awareness (Greenberg, 1958), its underly-
unique brand associations in memory” (p. 17).
ing structure (Laurent et al., 1995), and its effect
In the customer-based brand equity model of
on consumer purchase behavior, are also stud-
Netemeyer et al. (2004), brand uniqueness is
ied (Bird & Ehrenberg, 1966), but, as with other
taken as a “primary” brand equity dimension,
brand equity dimensions, its effect on overall
whereas brand awareness, familiarity, popular-
brand equity is narrowly investigated in the lit-
ity, organizational associations, and brand image
erature. The studies of Yoo et al. (2000) and Yoo
consistency are taken as “related” brand equity
and Donthu (2001) incorporate this dimension
dimensions. Aaker (1996), on the other hand,
into their empirical models but have not detected
suggested using “organizational associations”
any direct effect on brand equity. Therefore, in
as the core brand association/differentiation
their studies, it is simply combined with brand
dimension, especially when brands have similar
associations.
attributes or when a corporate brand is involved.
These associations reflect the “business philos-
ophy” of the organization that lies behind the Brand Trust
brand. Aaker (1996), respectively, gave the ex-
Rotter (1967) defined the trust construct as
ample of McDonald’s brand and some types of
a generalized expectancy held by an individual
related brand associations such as “being suc-
that the word of another can be relied upon.
cessful,” “being oriented toward the commu-
Although trust is a concept that has received
nity,” and “striving for high quality” (p. 113).
notable attention in several different social sci-
For global brands, consumers’ preference may
ences literatures (see Kramer & Tyler, 1996),
be attributed to the associations of higher pres-
“brand trust” is an unexplored dimension that
tige the brand holds (Kapferer, 1997). Similarly,
appears to be important and worthy of investi-
Steenkamp et al. (2003) noted that perceived
gation in terms of its effect on customer-based
globalness of a brand, which is positively as-
brand equity. Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)
sociated with its prestige, creates brand value.
defined brand trust as “the willingness of the
Brand Awareness average consumer to rely on the ability of the
brand to perform its stated function” (p. 82).
Brand awareness “relates to the likelihood In line with this definition, Delgado-Ballester
that a brand name will come to mind and the et al. (2003) developed a brand trust scale. They
 Atilgan et al.
found that brand trust is significantly correlated
with measures of satisfaction and brand loyalty
and further emphasized that it is the essence of
the value that a strong brand provides for cus-
tomers. Brand trust may also be evaluated as a
consistency and credibility clue by customers.
Erdem, Swait, and Valenzuela (2006) tested the
effect of brand credibility on consumers’ brand
choice. They stated that brand credibility “re-
quires that consumers perceive the brand as hav-
ing (1) the ability (expertise) and (2) willing-
ness (trustworthiness) to deliver continuously
what has been promised” (p. 35). In their sig-
naling perspective, credibility is the primary de-
terminant of customer-based brand equity, and
it is the key element in brand equity forma-
tion and management (Erdem & Swait, 1998;
Erdem et al., 2006). These two components of
brand credibility are discussed under the dimen-
sions of brand trust such as brand reliability
(competence or technical ability), brand inten-
tions, and brand predictability (see Delgado-
Ballester, 2004; Lau & Lee, 1999). Although
brand trust has been a component in differ-
ent brand frameworks (e.g., Chaudhuri & Hol-
brook, 2001; Erdem & Swait, 1998; Erdem et
al., 2006), we have little knowledge of its “di-
rect” impact on brand equity. Because its effect
on relationship commitment (Morgan & Hunt,
1994), product consideration and purchase (Er-
dem et al., 2006), satisfaction and loyalty (Lau
& Lee, 1999), and brand performance (Chaud-
huri & Holbrook, 2001) have so far been dis-
cussed in the literature, the missing point here
remains that, with the other primary brand eq-
uity dimensions (e.g., perceived quality and
brand associations), brand trust has not been di-
rectly involved in any brand equity framework
yet.
There are, however, strong references made,
implicitly and explicitly, to the importance of
consumer’s trust not only in the brand equity lit-
erature but also in global branding and global
consumption studies. We propose that brand
trust should be considered as a distinct dimen-
sion in brand equity framework. The justifica-
tion for this is as follows: First, Aaker (1991, p.
267) referred to the concept of “reduced risk”
provided by local brands as opposed to global
brands. We believe that this is a challenge for
121
global firms to develop risk-reducing/trust build-
ing counterstrategies to improve the strength of
their brands. Second, Aaker (1991, p. 270) il-
lustrated in his model that providing value by
“enhancing customer’s confidence” is directly
linked with the five brand equity dimensions,
which eventually leads to brand equity. Third,
building trust has direct benefits for global com-
panies. In their recent study on global consump-
tion orientation, Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra
(2006) drew attention to this point. They under-
lined that a global brand may attempt to over-
come opposition by performing actions that are
locally valued. For example, in many developing
countries Coca-Cola has invested in the infras-
tructure to produce clean water, benefiting both
the company and the local population (Alden et
al., 2006). We think that this incremental in-
crease in trust will have a positive effect on
brand equity.
Fourth, trust can be a strategic tool in serv-
ing global consumer segments. Concentrating
on global brands, Holt et al. (2004) reported
that consumers ascribe certain characteristics to
global brands and use those attributes as criteria
while making purchase decisions. Thus, global
firms are likely to benefit from creating appro-
priate identity-affirming myths that will cater to
consumer’s self identity. Based on this, Holt
et al. suggested global companies to “build
credible myths” for their potential customers.
Giving the example of Microsoft’s successful
advertising tagline, “Where do you want to go
today?” they point out the importance of “earn-
ing credibility” by addressing consumer’s dream
of self-empowerment. Fifth, trust is directly as-
sociated with the dimensions of global brands
and corporate reputation. For example, social
responsibility is noted to be as one of the key
dimensions of global brands (Holt et al., 2004).
Adding that “social and environmental respon-
sibility” and “reliable and financially strong
company” are among the key dimensions of
customer-based corporate reputation, Walsh and
Beatty (2007) also drew attention to the signifi-
cant positive association detected between trust
and these two dimensions. Overall, we propose
that trust can be considered as a separate dimen-
sion in measuring brand equity particularly for
global companies.
122 JOURNAL OF EUROMARKETING
PROCEDURES AND MEASURES IN
THE MAIN STUDY
For empirical investigations, the McDonald’s
and Coca-Cola brands were selected because
they represent their respective service and prod-
uct categories well, based on Interbrand’s most
valuable global brand ranking list in 2004 (In-
terbrand, 2004). In the Interbrand’s 2004 list,
Coca-Cola ranked number one among product
brands, whereas Disney came first in the service
brands category. Because the Disney brand ex-
isted only in two countries (USA and France),
the most valuable number two service brand,
McDonald’s, was selected instead.
The items used in the constructs were
adapted from the related literature. For instance,
perceived quality statements were derived from
the studies of Parasuraman et al. (1985), Aaker
(1991, 1996), and Erdem and Swait (1998);
brand loyalty statements were derived from
the studies of Dekimpe et al. (1997), Yoo
et al. (2000), and Keller (2003). Brand associ-
ations and awareness statements were adapted
from the studies of Agarwal and Rao (1996),
Aaker (1996), and Yoo et al. (2000). For
brand awareness, we used separate statements
referring to brand recall (recall the symbol
or logo), top of mind awareness (first-named
brand), and brand knowledge (knowing the
product/food and beverage assortment). Brand
trust statements were derived from the studies
of Erdem and Swait (1998) and Delgado-
Ballester et al. (2003). Here, we referred to
brand reliability (the consumer’s belief that the
brand accomplishes its value promise), brand
intentions (the consumer’s belief that the brand
would hold the consumer’s interest when unex-
pected problems with the consumption arise),
and credibility (truthfulness and dependability).
For brand association/differentiation measures,
we used Aaker’s (1996) “brand-as-product”
and “brand-as-organization” perspectives. The
former focuses on the brand’s value proposition,
which involves a functional benefit (value
for money and reasons to buy the brand over
competitors). The latter plays an important
role by showing that a brand represents more
than products and services. Organizational
associations are particularly helpful when
brands are similar with respect to attributes,
when the organization is visible, or when a
corporate brand is involved. In determining
the specific words in the brand association
statements, we relied on the slogans used as
well as the two brands’ general global perfor-
mance. The first associative word, liveliness,
was derived by the authors from McDonald’s
“Food, fun, family” and Coca-Cola’s “Life tastes
good” slogans (http://www.coca-cola.com;
Keller, 2003, p. 693). Success was chosen as
the second associative word (organizational
association), as both brands were among the
most valuable global brands in product and
service categories, respectively.
As we aimed to perform the empirical in-
vestigations in three different countries (USA,
Turkey, and Russia), the final questionnaire was
judged by five marketing professors, including
two from the USA, two from Turkey, and one
from Russia, with backgrounds in both measure-
ment and management. This resulted in the de-
velopment of 36 items for the McDonald’s brand
and 34 items for the Coca-Cola brand, and re-
tained a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 6
items per construct.
We aimed for comparable samples of respon-
dents in three different countries, which we in-
tentionally chose because they differ in terms
of fundamental cultural traits. In doing this, we
followed the steps of Keillor, Hult, and Kan-
demir (2004) for selecting those countries that
had (a) generalizability (i.e., those countries that
broadly displayed an international dispersion)
and (b) data availability. For international dis-
persion, we used four of the five cultural value
indicators developed by Hofstede and Hofstede
(2005): power distance (PDI), uncertainty avoid-
ance (UAI), individualism (IDV), masculinity
(MAS), and long-term orientation (LOT). The
fifth dimension, LOT, had to be excluded from
the present study as Hofstede and Hofstede
(2005) measured it on 39 countries only, drop-
ping off Turkey and Russia. According to the
first four indices, the USA scored 40, 46, 91, and
62, respectively. Thus, the U.S. culture can be
described as having a small distance to power, a
low level of uncertainty avoidance, and high lev-
els of individualism and masculinity. In contrast,
Russia scored 93, 95, 39, and 36, respectively,
 Atilgan et al.
on PDI, UAI, IDV, and MAS. These scores place
Russia toward the other end of the scale com-
pared to the USA. The third country, Turkey,
scored 66, 85, 37, and 45 on PDI, UAI, IDV,
and MAS, respectively, according to Hofstede
and Hofstede’s (2005) methodology. When the
scores of these three countries are plotted in dual
index combinations (i.e., C1: PDI vs. IDV; C2:
UAI vs. IDV; C3: UAI vs. PDI; C4: PDI vs.
MAS), it is clearly seen that the USA and Rus-
sia are placed near the two opposite extremes,
whereas Turkey remains between them almost in
all cases. Thus, we can claim that the three coun-
tries chosen for this study represent well three
different cultures and enhance external validity.
To collect consumer survey data, we first
judgmentally selected the largest (i.e., availabil-
ity of food courts including more than three
globally known restaurants and several interna-
tional and domestic retail stores) and centrally
located shopping malls of Pennsylvania (USA),
Moscow (Russia), and Antalya (Turkey). Then,
we obtained official permission from the respec-
tive mall administrations for a certain period.
Thus, our sampling frame consisted of those con-
sumers visiting in the specified courts within the
given period. Questionnaires were randomly de-
livered to the subjects while they were sitting in
the food court area.
Data were collected via a self-administered
questionnaire, which required respondents to in-
dicate their level of agreement/disagreement on
FIGURE 3. The Refined Brand Equity Model
BRAND
EQUITY
PERCEIVED BRAND
QUALITY LOYALTY
PQ1 PQ2 PQ3 PQ4 BL1 BL2 BL3 BL4 BL5
123
a 9-point Likert-type scale. At the end of the
data collection period, 1,542 usable question-
naires were obtained for two brands from three
countries.
Scale Purification
The responses were analyzed via principal
components and item analysis. For each brand
equity dimension, if an item consistently had
low (<0.50) or very high (>0.95) factor load-
ings (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988), consistently had low
or very high item-to-total correlations, and was
consistently highly correlated with another item
within its construct (>0.80), it was considered
for deletion (Netemeyer et al., 2004). Overall,
these statistical heuristics and judgment proce-
dures resulted in the retention of 18 items for
each product and service brand equity scale (a
minimum of 4 and a maximum of 6 per brand eq-
uity construct). During this procedure, the items
related to the brand awareness dimension were
totally eliminated. This finding was not sur-
prising because Yoo et al. (2000) had designed
awareness and association dimensions in a uni-
fied form.
The final refined scales for both brands (see
Figure 3), which consisted of a four-item mea-
sure of quality (PQ1-PQ4), a six-item measure
of loyalty (BL1-BL6), a four-item measure of
trust (BT1-BT4), and a four-item measure of
association (BA1-BA4; see Appendix 1), were
BRAND
ASSOCIATIONS BRAND TRUST
BL6 BA1 BA2 BA3 BA4 BT1 BT2 BT3 BT4
124 JOURNAL OF EUROMARKETING

FIGURE 4. Brand Equity: Four Basic Dimensions (McDonald’s)

φ11=.80

φ21=.68 φ31=.67

φ41=.64 φ41=.58 φ41=.75

PERCEIVED BRAND BRAND BRAND TRUST

QUALITY LOYALTY ASSOCIATIONS

λ11=.92 λ21=.93 λ32=1.00 λ42=.87 λ53=.92 λ63=.86 λ74=.92 λ84=.93

I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8

subjected to a confirmatory factor analysis for
validation using LISREL VIII to assess psycho-
metric properties (Burton, Lichtenstein, Nete-
meyer, & Garretson, 1998; Kohli, Jaworski, &
Kumar, 1993). For confirmatory factor analy-
sis, the partial disaggregation method was used
(see Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994; Dabholkar,
Thorpe, & Rentz, 1996) because previous evi-
dence by Dabholkar et al. (1996) showed that “it
allows meaningful research by combining items
into composites to reduce higher levels of ran-
dom error and yet it retains all the advantages
of structural equations” (p. 9). In this process,
we randomly combined items for each construct
to get two combined indicators (see Figures 4
and 5).
Confirmatory factor analysis results, average
variance extracted, and composite construct re-
liability were summarized in Table 2 for each
brand in multiple countries. Variance extracted
estimates of 0.50 and above indicate convergent
validity among items in a given scale (Bagozzi &
Yi, 1988; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Regarding
the scale reliability, the alpha meets the recom-
mended levels (.70) in the literature (Nunnally,
1978).

FIGURE 5. Brand Equity: Four Basic Dimensions (Coca-Cola)

φ11=.84

φ21=.76 φ31=.64

φ41=.68 φ41=.62 φ41=.84

PERCEIVED BRAND BRAND BRAND TRUST

QUALITY LOYALTY ASSOCIATIONS

λ11=.90 λ21=.93 λ32=.99 λ42=.88 λ53=.90 λ63=.86 λ74=.89 λ84=.93

I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8
 Atilgan et al. 125

TABLE 2. Summary Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Multisample (MS) and Country
Specific Results

McDonald’s Coca-Cola

United United
Sample MS States Russia Turkey MS States Russia Turkey

n 767 319 136 312 775 323 119 333

χ2 62.93 35.90 23.31 38.26 84.76 11.54 40.98 32.30
df 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
RMSEA 0.068 0.070 0.070 0.075 0.081 0.000 0.128 0.063
RMR 0.085 0.056 0.085 0.022 0.092 0.031 0.16 0.092
GFI 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.92 0.98
AGFI 0.95 0.93 0.89 0.92 0.93 0.98 0.79 0.94
Perceived Quality ( I1 + I2 )
Composite Reliability 0.922 0.933 0.965 0.851 0.912 0.944 0.895 0.787
Average Variance Extracted 0.856 0.875 0.931 0.741 0.837 0.893 0.810 0.650
Brand Loyalty ( I3 + I4 )
Composite Reliability 0.935 0.959 0.888 0.923 0.934 0.938 0.884 0.906
Average Variance Extracted 0.878 0.922 0.801 0.856 0.877 0.884 0.794 0.829
Brand Associations ( I5 + I6 )
Composite Reliability 0.884 0.928 0.901 0.793 0.873 0.906 0.847 0.845
Average Variance Extracted 0.793 0.866 0.820 0.658 0.775 0.829 0.733 0.731
Brand Trust ( I7 + I8 )
Composite Reliability 0.922 0.938 0.954 0.884 0.906 0.928 0.869 0.834
Average Variance Extracted 0.856 0.884 0.912 0.793 0.829 0.865 0.769 0.716

Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; RMR = root mean square residual; GFI = goodness of fit; AGFI = adjusted
goodness of fit.

The tests of discriminant validity recom-
mended in the literature were conducted (Ander-
son & Gerbing, 1988; Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
First, the correlations between the four con-
structs (completely standardized phi estimates)
for the four-factor model ranged from 0.60 to
0.88 (see Figure 4) for McDonald’s for the three
countries, and 0.59 to 0.92 (see Figure 5) for
Coca-Cola for the three countries. All phi es-
timates were significantly less than 1. Second,
the more rigorous test of discriminant validity
assessed whether the square of the phi estimate
between two constructs was less than the av-
erage extracted variance estimates for the two
constructs. The average variances extracted were
between 0.71 and 0.93 (McDonald’s) and 0.65
and 0.89 (Coca-Cola) for the three countries
(see Table 2). The square of the phi estimates
ranged from 0.36 to 0.77 (McDonald’s), and
from 0.35 to 0.85 (Coca-Cola). In line with these
results, all of the estimates were less than the
average variance extracted for the correspond-
ing construct pairs, except quality and trust for
Coca-Cola in the Russian sample. In summary,
discriminant validity was supported by all the
tests.
For assessing cross-national equivalence
of measures, we followed the procedure of
Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998). To esti-
mate configural invariance, we assumed the pro-
posed factor model with four common factors
and fixed the first elements in each latent vari-
able to one in all three country groups and
in two brand categories separately (Steenkamp
& Baumgartner, 1998). For Coca-Cola brand,
the estimated configural invariance model’s
global goodness of fit statistics were satisfac-
tory (Table 3). Although the chi-square was sig-
nificant, χ 2 (42) = 93.436, p < .001, it was
disregarded owing to the statistic’s well-known
sensitivity to sample size (Cheung & Rensvold,
2000). To assess model fit, we used other fit in-
dices, including Bentler’s (1990) comparative fit
index (CFI; 0.994), Steiger’s (1990) root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA; 0.069),
and Tucker and Lewis’s (1973) Tucker–Lewis
126 JOURNAL OF EUROMARKETING

TABLE 3. Model Comparisons for Brand Equity Across Countries’ Data

χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI

McDonald’s
Equality of g and µg 835.433 88 0.1830 n.a. n.a.
Equality of g 501.498 72 0.1530 0.950 0.942
Equality of µg 234.600 16 0.2320 n.a n.a.
Configural invariance 96.486 42 0.0714 0.987 0.993
Metric invariance 139.462 50 0.0838 0.989 0.981
Partial metric invariance 110.006 49 0.0699 0.993 0.987
Coca-Cola
Equality of g and µg 1061.632 88 0.2070 n.a. n.a.
Equality of g 358.525 72 0.1240 0.964 0.958
Equality of µg 258.401 16 0.2430 n.a. n.a.
Configural invariance 93.436 42 0.0690 0.994 0.988
Metric invariance 131.458 50 0.0796 0.990 0.984
Partial metric invariance 103.432 48 0.0670 0.994 0.989

index (TLI; 0.988) that all indicated an accept-
able fit.
For McDonald’s brand, the estimated con-
figural invariance model’s global goodness of
fit statistics were also satisfactory, χ 2 (42) =
96.486, p < .001 (RMSEA = 0.0714, CFI =
0.987, TLI = 0.993). In line with these in-
dices, we concluded that the factorial structure
of the proposed brand equity construct was simi-
lar across countries for both product and service
categories (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998).
Further metric invariance was tested sepa-
rately for Coca-Cola and McDonald’s samples,
respectively. Factor loadings were constrained to
be invariant across the countries for this purpose.
As shown in Table 3 for the Coca-Cola brand,
the chi-square value of the full metric invariance
model increased significantly, χ 2 (8) = 38.022,
p < .001. According to the expected parameter
change statistic in LISREL, the reason for sig-
nificant increase in chi-square was the lack of
invariance in two items across countries (L2 in
USA and Russia and Q2 in Turkey). Also, in
McDonald’s brand, chi-square value of the full
metric invariance model increased significantly,
χ 2 (8) = 42.976, p < .001. The expected
parameter change showed that L2 in Russia
was the reason for the significant increase in
McDonald’s brand. These results exposed the
need to test the partial metric invariance in both
categories. To test the partial metric invariance,
the determined parameters in loyalty and qual-
ity for Coca-Cola, and the parameter in loyalty
for McDonald’s in Russia, were sequentially
relaxed. The chi-square value gathered from
Coca-Cola’s final partial metric invariance
model was not significantly worse than the
configural invariance model, χ 2 (6) = 9.996,
p > .010. RMSEA, CFI, and TLI yielded sim-
ilar results (Table 3). Similarly the chi-square
value gathered from McDonald’s was not sig-
nificantly worse than that from the configural
invariance model, χ 2 (7) = 13.520, p > .010.
This test shows that the brand equity scale items’
difference scores can be meaningfully compared
across countries. Assessing both configural and
partial metric invariance tests successfully led
us to say that proposed brand equity construct
can be conceptualized in the same way across
countries (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Theoretical Contributions
Since the 1990s, customer-based brand equity
has been highly debated among both academics
and practitioners. There are two major studies
that are most cited on the conceptualization of
brand equity. Aaker’s (1991) model involves five
basic dimensions in capturing brand equity. The
other study, Keller’s (1993) model, is similar to
Aaker’s (1991) model in terms of its content
 Atilgan et al.
but defines the concept under two major dimen-
sions that are further broken down into several
attributes. Both perspectives highlight important
aspects of brand equity and their contribution to
the literature is undeniable. However, there are
still potential contribution areas with respect to
the dimensions, their justification with quanti-
tative methodology, and cross cultural measure-
ment issues in the global context.
Departing from the definitions that “the dif-
ference in consumer choice between the fo-
cal branded product and an unbranded prod-
uct given the same level of product features”
(Yoo & Donthu, 2001) and “brands with equity
provide an ownable, trustworthy, relevant, dis-
tinctive promise to consumers” (Brand Equity
Board, as cited in Keller, 2003, p. 43), and from
the past literature, this study provides sound em-
pirical evidence for the validity of a unified con-
ceptual model for global brands. Our model of
brand equity consists of four dimensions: per-
ceived quality, brand loyalty, brand associations,
and brand trust. The paths in the research model
are confirmed across three culturally different
countries and two global brands. This finding
indicates that each of the four dimensions is ap-
propriately conceived as a determinant of brand
equity. Our model reinforces the existence of
some dimensions, such as perceived quality and
brand loyalty, which were reported in the pre-
vious studies (Aaker, 1991; Yoo & Donthu,
2001; Yoo et al., 2000). Brand associations in
our model have also emerged as a distinct di-
mension as originally conceptualized in Aaker’s
(1991) model, whereas it is combined with brand
awareness into a single dimension in some other
studies (Yoo & Donthu, 2001; Yoo et al., 2000).
The main contribution of our model, how-
ever, comes from the inclusion of brand trust
as a new dimension and elimination of brand
awareness. This is not surprising because there
are strong references made, implicitly and ex-
plicitly, to the existence and importance of trust
not only in the brand equity literature but also in
global branding and global consumption studies.
One early indication is that of Aaker’s (1991)
model in which providing value by “enhanc-
ing customer’s confidence” is a moderating step
between the five brand equity dimensions and
brand equity. However, the most important sup-
127
port to our findings is given by Holt et al. (2004).
In their extensive study with 3,300 consumers
in 41 countries on how consumers value global
brands, they found that “most people choose
one global brand over another because of dif-
ferences in the brand’s global qualities” (p. 7).
This implies that consumers are aware of global
brands but the brand’s real value comes from
its global qualities such as its quality and con-
sumer trust. In fact, they more strongly em-
phasize this by pointing out to three funda-
mental dimensions with which consumers as-
sess global brands: quality signal, global myth,
and social responsibility. The last two dimen-
sions are strongly related to brand trust as the
authors recommend global companies to cre-
ate “credible global myths” and “take social
responsibility initiatives.” They concluded that
people trust global companies that are seen to
have sacrificed their interests for the good of the
whole, and these companies will reap its ben-
efits in the long run. Indeed, this point is fur-
ther stressed in more recent studies. In the con-
text of global consumption orientation, Alden
et al. (2006) underlined that a global brand may
attempt to overcome opposition by performing
actions that are locally valued. Similarly, Walsh
and Beatty (2007) asserted that customers tend
to prefer to deal with companies that have proven
reliable in the past. They further identified “reli-
able and financially strong company” and “social
and environmental responsibility” to be among
the determinants of corporate reputation, both
of which are found to be highly correlated with
the construct of trust. Based on our findings and
recent literature, we therefore claim that brand
trust surpasses brand awareness for global com-
panies. As quoted several years ago by Maruca
(1994) from Whirlpool’s CEO, “creating aware-
ness by flag planting—acquiring and establish-
ing businesses all over the world—is not enough
to be truly global, the real challenge for global
companies rests with having the best technolo-
gies and processes for designing, manufactur-
ing, selling, and servicing the products” which
in some way addresses the merit of earning con-
sumers’ trust.
Thus, there seems to be two major reasons for
the disappearance of the brand awareness dimen-
sion in quantitatively tested models. First, as our
128 JOURNAL OF EUROMARKETING
model suggests particularly for the top global
brands, it is surpassed by brand trust, which is
a more advanced construct in the global context
for brand equity. Second, as previously demon-
strated by other researchers (Yoo & Donthu,
2001; Yoo et al., 2000), there is at least a par-
tial convergence between brand awareness and
brand associations dimensions which weakens
the existence of brand awareness as a distinct
dimension in brand equity.
The present research has also three marginal
contributions with view to its approach and data.
First, although there is a dearth of studies on
brand equity in marketing literature, only a small
fraction of them are specifically designed for
global brands. This study, therefore, aims to con-
struct a linkage between the subjects of brand
equity and global branding. Second, the present
study shows that the proposed brand equity con-
struct can be conceptualized and measured in
the same way across countries. So far, however,
there has been very limited empirical study (e.g.,
Erdem et al., 2006) devoted to the brand equity
construct that is applied to culturally diverse
customers with a global perspective. Third, as
we used data collected in consumption sites from
real consumers including the mature ones (com-
pared to student samples), our findings are likely
to capture older consumer’s psychological at-
tachments to brand names such as length of ex-
posure to the brand, nostalgic associations with
the brand, and information-processing abilities
(Yoo & Donthu, 2001).
Managerial Implications
It is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for
a single perspective of brand equity to sat-
isfy all the characteristics of the ideal measure
(Ailawadi et al., 2003). However, the customer-
based perspective of brand equity offers attrac-
tive clues to managers. Instead of being solely
confined to internal sources of the firm or con-
centrating on financial performance measures
in the marketplace, managers can benefit from
monitoring such brand equity dimensions as
brand associations, perceived quality, brand loy-
alty, and brand trust. We believe that tailoring
marketing strategies according to these variables
is critical in designing global consumer solu-
tions. For managers, brand trust in particular de-
serves special attention, not only because it is
a major dimension of brand equity as demon-
strated in this research but also it is directly re-
lated to several dimensions of global brands and
company reputation. More specifically, man-
agers should elaborate on trust-building aspects
of the marketing mix with a view on social and
environmental responsibility programs. Today,
the revenues of some global corporations have
begun to exceed the gross national product of
many of the less developed countries where they
do business (Potts & Matuszewski, 2004). This
trend fuels an increasing pressure on global com-
panies to take over some governmental functions
and cater for the social well-being of the commu-
nities. By demonstrating their trustworthiness,
global companies are more likely to contribute to
their brand equity in the long run. Finally, man-
agers should also notice the causal order among
perceived quality, brand trust, and brand loyalty.
Marketing programs should give the priority to
perceived quality as it will drive consumers’ trust
and loyalty.
Research Limitations and Future
Directions
Our work has some limitations. First, al-
though the study covers three dissimilar coun-
tries and two global brands, generalizability
of the results bears risks, as our samples are
not nationally representative. The relatively in-
sufficient sample size of the Russian data for
construct validity did not fulfill the conven-
tional requirement of approximately five ob-
servations per scale item for conducting fac-
tor analysis (Hair, Ralph, Tatham, & Black,
1998; Stevens, 1996). Therefore, future research
should be directed toward multiple country and
multiple brand studies. Second, our approach
does not cover “product-market outcomes” such
as price premium, market share, relative price,
and “financial-market outcomes” such as brand’s
purchase price and discounted cash flow of li-
cense fees and royalties (Ailawadi et al., 2003;
Keller & Lehmann, 2001). Thus future research
can be directed toward the integration of these
perspectives. Third, our model does not pre-
dict the variation in brand equity with particular
 Atilgan et al.
reference to different global consumption orien-
tations of consumer groups (Alden et al., 2006).
Further research efforts can be directed to un-
cover the effects of such attitudinal response
groups on brand equity. Last, future research
can also address different product (pure ser-
vice vs. tangible product) and market (consumer
market vs. industrial market) aspects of brand
equity.
REFERENCES
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing
on the value of a brand name. New York: Free Press.
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across
products and markets. California Management Review,
38(3), 102–120.
Aaker, D. A., & Joachimsthaler, E. (1999). The lure of
global branding. Harvard Business Review, 77(6), 137–
144.
Agarwal, M. K., & Rao, V. R. (1996). An empirical com-
parison of consumer based measures of brand equity.
Marketing Letters, 7(3), 237–247.
Agrawal, D. (1996). Effect of brand loyalty on advertising
and trade promotions: A game theoretic analysis with
empirical evidence. Marketing Science, 15(1), 86–109.
Ailawadi, K. L., Lehmann, D. R., & Neslin, S. A. (2003).
Revenue premium as an outcome measure of brand eq-
uity. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 1–17.
Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Batra, R. (2006).
Consumer attitudes towards marketplace globaliza-
tion: Structure, antecedents and consequences. Inter-
national Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(3), 227–
239.
Amine, A. (1998). Consumers’ true brand loyalty: The cen-
tral role of commitment. Journal of Strategic Marketing,
6(4), 305–319.
Anderson, J., C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equa-
tion modeling in practice—A review and recommended
2-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–
423.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general ap-
proach to representing multifaceted personality con-
structs: Application to state self-esteem. Structural
Equation Modeling, 1(1), 35–67.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of struc-
tural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Mar-
keting Science, 16(1), 74–95.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural
models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
Berry, L. L. 2000. Cultivating Service Brand Equity. Jour-
nal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1): 128–
137.
129
Bird, M., & Ehrenberg, A. S. C. (1966). Non-awareness
and non-usage. Journal of Advertising Research, 6(4),
4–9.
Burton, S., Lichtenstein, D. R., Netemeyer, R. G., &
Garretson, J. A. (1998). A scale for measuring attitude
toward private label products and an examination of its
psychological and behavioral correlates. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 26(4), 293–306.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of ef-
fects from brand trust and brand affect to brand perfor-
mance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing,
65(2), 81–94.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2000). Assessing ex-
treme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural
research using structural equations modeling. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(2), 187–212.
Cobb-Walgren, C., Ruble, C. A., & Donthu, N. (1995).
Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase intent.
Journal of Advertising, 24(3), 25–40.
Copeland, M. T. (1923). Relation of consumer’s buying
habits to marketing method. Harvard Business Review,
1, 282–289.
Dabholkar, P. A., Thorpe, D. I., & Rentz, J. O. (1996).
A measure of service quality for retail stores: Scale
development and validation. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 24(1), 3–17.
Day, G. S. 1969. A two-dimensional concept of brand loy-
alty. Journal of Advertising Research, 9(3), 29–34.
Dekimpe, M. G., Steenkamp, J. E. M., Mellens, M., &
Abeele, P. V. (1997). Decline and variability in brand
loyalty. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
14(5), 405–420.
Delgado-Ballester, E. (2004). Applicability of a brand trust
scale across product categories. European Journal of
Marketing, 38(5/6), 573–592.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Alemán, J. L., & Yagüe-
Guillén, M. J. (2003). Development and validation of a
brand trust scale. International Journal of Market Re-
search, 45(1), 35–53.
Dyson, P., Farr, A., & Hollis, N. S. (1996). Understanding,
measuring, and using brand equity. Journal of Advertis-
ing Research, 36(6), 9–22.
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signaling
phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2),
131–158.
Erdem T., Swait, J., & Valenzuela, A. (2006). Brands as
signals: A cross-country validation study. Journal of
Marketing, 70(1), 34–49.
Erdem T., Zhao, Y., & Valenzuela, A. (2004). Performance
of store brands: A cross-country analysis of consumer
store brand preferences, perceptions, and risk. Journal
of Marketing Research, 41(1), 86–100.
Faircloth, J. B., Capella, L. M., & Alford, B. L. (2001).
The effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand
equity. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 9(3),
61–76.
130 JOURNAL OF EUROMARKETING
Farquhar, P. H. (1989). Managing brand equity. Marketing
Research, 1(3), 24–34.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and mea-
surement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39–50.
Fournier, S., & Yao, J. L. (1997). Reviving brand loyalty: A
reconceptualization within the framework of consumer-
brand relationships. International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 14, 451–472.
Greenberg, A. (1958). Validity of a brand-awareness ques-
tion. Journal of Marketing, 23(2), 182–185.
Hair, J. F., Ralph, E. A., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C.
(1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Sad-
dle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Han, J., & Collins, C. J. (2002). The effects of company
recruitment practices on job seekers’ perceived employ-
ment brand equity and intentions to pursue job opportu-
nities. Academy of Management Proceedings, pp. A1–
6.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and or-
ganizations: Software of the mind (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw Hill.
Holden, S. J. S. (1993). Understanding brand awareness:
Let me give you a c(l)ue! Advances in Consumer Re-
search, 20, 383–388.
Holt, D. B., Quelch, J. A., & Taylor, E. L. (2004). How
brands compete. Harvard Business Review, 82(9), 68–
75.
Hoyer, W. D., & Brown, S. P. (1990). Effects of brand
awareness on choice for a common, repeat-purchase
product. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 141–
148.
Huang, M., & Yu, S. (1999). Are consumers inherently or
situationally brand loyal? A set intercorrelation account
for conscious brand loyalty and nonconscious inertia.
Psychology and Marketing, 16(6), 523–544.
Interbrand. (2004). The 100 best global brands by value
2004. Retrieved August 5, 2004, from http://www.
ourfishbowl.com/images/surveys/BGBleaguetable
final .pdf
Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R. W. (1978). Brand loyalty mea-
surement and management. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Kapferer, J. N. (1997). Strategic brand management (2nd
ed.). Dover, NH: Kogan Page.
Keillor, B. D., Hult, G. T. M., & Kandemir, D. (2004). A
study of the service encounter in eight countries. Journal
of International Marketing, 12(1), 9–35.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, manag-
ing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing,
57(1), 1–23.
Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management: Build-
ing, measuring, and managing brand equity (2nd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2001). The brand value
chain: Linking strategic and financial performance.
Working paper, Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth
College, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Kohli, A. K., Jaworski, B. J., & Kumar, A. (1993).
Markor—A measure of market orientation. Journal of
Marketing Research, 30(4), 467–477.
Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R. (1996). Trust in organiza-
tions: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Lane, V., & Jacobson, R. (1995). Stock-market reactions to
brand extension announcements: The effects of brand
attitude and familiarity. Journal of Marketing, 59(1),
63–77.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B., & Sharma, A. (1995). Measur-
ing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 12(4), 11–19.
Lau, G. T., & Lee, S. H. (1999). Consumers’ trust in a brand
and the link to brand loyalty. Journal of Market-Focused
Management, 4(4), 341–370.
Laurent, G., Kapferer, J. N., & Roussel, F. (1995). The un-
derlying structure of brand awareness scores. Marketing
Science, 14(3), G170–G179.
MacInnis, D. J., Shapiro, S., & Mani, G. (1999). Enhancing
brand awareness through brand symbols. Advances in
Consumer Research, 26, 601–608.
Maruca, R. F. (1994). The right way to go global: An inter-
view with Whirlpool CEO David Whitwam. Harvard
Business Review, 72(2), 134–145.
Moreau, P. C., Lehmann, D. R., & Markman, A. B. (2001).
Entrenched knowledge structures and consumer re-
sponse to new products. Journal of Marketing Research,
38(1), 14–29.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-
trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Mar-
keting, 58(3), 20–39.
Netemeyer, R. G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci,
M., Dean, D., et al. (2004). Developing and validat-
ing measures of facets of customer-based brand equity.
Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 209–224.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A
conceptual model of service quality and its implications
for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41–50.
Park, C. S., & Srinivasan, V. (1994). A survey-based method
for measuring and understanding brand equity and its
extendibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2),
271–288.
Potts, S. D., & Matuszewski, I. L. (2004). Ethics and cor-
porate governance. Ethics and Corporate Governance,
12(2), 177–179.
Pritchard, M. P., Havitz M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1999).
Analyzing the commitment-loyalty link in service con-
texts. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
27(3), 333–348.
Punj, G. N., & Hillyer, C. L. (2004). A cognitive model of
customer-based brand equity for frequently purchased
 Atilgan et al. 131

products: Conceptual framework and empirical results.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1–2), 124–131.
Quelch, J. (1999). Global brands: Taking stock. Business
Strategy Review, 10(1), 1–14.
Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of
the interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35(4),
651–665.
Steenkamp, J. E. M., Batra, R., & Alden, D. L. (2003).
How perceived globalness creates brand value. Journal
of International Business Studies, 34(1), 53–65.
Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). As-
sessing measurement invariance in cross-national con-
sumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–
90.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and mod-
ification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.
Stevens, J. P. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the
social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Teas, K. R., & Agarwal, S. S. (2000). The effects of extrin-
sic product cues on consumers’ perceptions of quality,
sacrifice, and value. Journal of the Academy of Market-
ing Science, 28(2), 278–290.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient
for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika,
38, 1–10.
Uggla, H. (2004). The brand association base: A concep-
tual model for strategically leveraging partner brand
equity. Journal of Brand Management, 12(2), 105–
124.
Van Osselaer, S. M. J., & Janiszewski, C. (2001). Two ways
of learning brand associations. Journal of Consumer
Research, 28(2), 202–223.
Vazquez, R., Del Rio, A. B., & Iglesias, V. (2002).
Consumer-based brand equity: Development and val-
idation of a measurement instrument. Journal of Mar-
keting Management, 18(1/2), 27–49.
Walsh, G., & Beatty, S. E. (2007). Customer-based cor-
porate reputation of a service firm: scale development
and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 35(1), 127–143.
Yi, Y., & Jeon, H. (2003). Effects of loyalty programs on
value perception, program loyalty, and brand loyalty.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3),
229–240.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating
a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale.
Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1–14.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination
of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2),
195–212.
Zinkhan, G. M., & Prenshaw, P. J. (1994). Good life im-
ages and brand-name associations: Evidence from Asia,
America, and Europe. Advances in Consumer Research,
21, 496–500.

APPENDIX 1. Scale Items

USA Turkey Russia

Brand Equity Scale Items (McDonald’s) M SD M SD M SD

PQ1 I think that the taste of food and beverages served 5.24 1.97 5.85 2.29 5.16 2.79
at McDonald’s is delicious
PQ2 I think that the quality of food and beverages 4.75 2.03 6.57 2.25 5.29 2.53
served at McDonald’s is satisfactory
PQ3 I think that the external appearance of McDonald’s 5.49 1.84 6.95 2.01 4.88 2.71
outlets is well designed
PQ4 I think that the interior appearance of McDonald’s 5.30 1.85 6.17 2.11 4.90 2.63
outlets is well designed
BL1 I really love McDonald’s 4.26 2.39 5.43 2.70 5.48 2.57
BL2 If I am going to eat fast food, my first choice will 3.85 2.54 4.43 3.11 5.50 2.43
always be McDonald’s
BL3 If I am able to go to McDonald’s, I never go to any 3.25 2.40 3.95 3.02 5.46 2.62
other fast food outlet
BL4 In general, I consider myself as a loyal customer of 3.56 2.46 3.39 2.69 5.93 2.42
McDonald’s
BL5 My friends and the people I know, want/prefer to 3.71 2.25 4.40 2.74 5.54 2.12
eat at McDonald’s
BL6 I think that McDonald’s is superior to other fast 4.04 2.41 4.92 3.06 5.41 2.33
food outlets
BA1 “Success” is one of the words that describes 5.76 2.27 5.46 2.74 4.64 2.75
McDonald’s business philosophy
(Continued)
132 JOURNAL OF EUROMARKETING

APPENDIX 1. Scale Items (Continued )

USA Turkey Russia

Brand Equity Scale Items (McDonald’s) M SD M SD M SD

BA2 I believe that McDonald’s renews its food, 5.47 2.11 5.71 3.10 5.11 2.29
beverages and services according to its
customers’ changing preferences and
expectations
BA3 I believe that McDonald’s renews itself according to 5.49 2.01 5.68 2.49 5.04 2.27
the changing environmental circumstances
BA4 “Liveliness” is one of the words that describes 4.99 2.03 5.58 2.54 4.65 2.64
McDonald’s business philosophy
BT1 I trust the brand of McDonald’s 4.72 2.26 5.71 2.70 5.35 2.43
BT2 McDonald’s delivers the quality service as 4.68 2.10 6.07 2.41 4.84 2.97
promised
BT3 The quality of McDonald’s service is always 4.61 2.25 6.18 2.41 5.02 2.85
continuous and consistent
BT4 McDonald’s delivers the services as promised in its 4.91 2.17 6.25 2.42 5.00 2.55
advertisements

USA Turkey Russia

Brand Equity Scale Items (Coca-Cola) M SD M SD M SD

PQ1 I think that the taste of Coca-Cola is delicious 6.39 2.25 7.58 1.91 4.11 2.95
PQ2 I think that the overall quality of Coca-Cola is 6.42 2.19 7.68 1.79 4.13 2.66
satisfactory
PQ3 I think that the appearance of Coca-Cola’s bottles 6.90 1.86 7.38 1.91 3.87 2.40
and cans is well designed
PQ4 I believe that Coca-Cola is attractive 5.92 2.19 6.19 2.74 3.97 2.87
BL1 I really love Coca-Cola 5.06 2.65 6.86 2.55 4.36 2.50
BL2 If I am going to drink a nonalcoholic beverage, my 3.85 2.78 6.84 2.91 4.99 2.16
first choice will always be Coca-Cola
BL3 If I am able to drink Coca-Cola, I never drink any 3.02 2.53 5.68 3.12 4.97 2.59
other nonalcoholic beverage
BL4 In general, I consider myself as a loyal customer of 4.18 2.81 5.36 3.07 6.00 2.33
Coca-Cola
BL5 My friends and the people I know, want/prefer to 4.58 2.39 6.48 2.61 5.10 2.14
drink Coca-Cola
BL6 I think that Coca-Cola is superior to other 4.48 2.64 6.60 2.76 4.52 2.32
nonalcoholic beverages
BA1 “Success” is one of the words that describes 6.24 2.16 6.59 2.50 4.00 2.72
Coca-Cola’s business philosophy
BA2 I believe that Coca-Cola renews its products 5.79 2.07 6.25 2.47 4.49 2.44
according to its customers’ changing
preferences and expectations
BA3 I believe that Coca-Cola renews itself according to 5.38 2.14 6.60 2.38 4.18 2.39
the changing environmental circumstances
BA4 “Liveliness” is one of the words that describes 5.50 2.06 6.03 2.61 4.69 2.64
Coca-Cola’s business philosophy
BT1 I trust the brand of Coca-Cola 5.87 2.53 6.23 2.92 4.41 2.56
BT2 Coca-Cola delivers the quality as promised 6.16 2.31 6.78 2.52 4.16 2.25
BT3 The quality of Coca-Cola products is always 6.37 2.16 6.95 2.31 4.17 2.52
continuous and consistent
BT4 Coca-Cola delivers what it promises in its 5.69 2.26 7.06 2.97 4.20 2.48
advertisements