The concept of brand equity has increased its acceptance since the 1980s. The field has experienced noteworthy expansion, and a growing number of experimental replicas (Yoo and Donthu 2000, Netemeyer et al. 2004, Erdem et al. 2006) succeed the conceptual models (Aaker 1991, Keller 1993). One of the common definitions of Brand Equity is that it is set of brand assets and liabilities, linked to the brand’s name and symbol, which can subtract from as well as add to the value provided by a product or service, and which provides value to customer as well as to firm (Akar, 1991). Brand equity has been seen with different outlooks by academicians: financial perspective and customer perspective. From the financial perspective, brand equity is evaluated according to the market value of a company’s asset (Farquhar et al. 1991; Simon and Sullivan 1990).

In referring to the customer perspective, brand equity is appraised according to the consumer’s reaction to a brand name (Keller, 1993; Shocker and Weitz, 1994). The thought of Consumer-based Brand Equity (CBBE) has developed as a dominant marketing concept because of increasing technical and commercial curiosity towards brand, since the attitude according to which brands establish one of the most valuable intangible properties of companies is becoming increasingly widespread (Kapferer 2008). (Keller 1993) looked at consumer based brand equity strictly from a consumer psychology perspective and defined it as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand”. The Consumer-based Brand Equity (CBBE) generally differs from one to another. (Aaker, 1996) conceptualizes Brand Equity in terms of five sources, namely Brand Loyalty, Brand Awareness, Perceived Quality, Brand Associations, and other proprietary brand assets. The proprietary brand assets include intellectual property rights, patents and trademarks (Shen et al., 2014). According to (Lee, Chen and Guy 2014), it is impractical to precisely evaluate the latter source because it is indirectly related to consumers. Consumer-based Brand Equity (CBBE) is generally clubbed into four different categories: Brand Loyalty, Brand Awareness, Perceived Brand Quality and Brand Associations. Brand Awareness is considered as consumer’s ability to recall and recognize a brand (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 2003). Top-of-mind and brand dominance is other levels of awareness included by (Aaker, 1996) while measuring awareness. Brand association comprises the meaning of the brand for consumers (Keller, 1993). It is anything linked in memory to a brand (Aaker, 1991). Perceived Brand Quality is considered as the customer’s decision for product dominance in contrast to alternative's brand (Zeithaml, 1988; Aaker, 1996) and overall preeminence that ultimately stimulates the customer to purchase the product (Aaker and Jacobson, 1994). (Aaker, 1991) defines brand loyalty as the attachment that a customer has to a brand. Brand loyalty and brand value associations directly create brand equity for online companies (Rios and Riquelme, 2008).

Customer-based brand equity (CBBE) is theorized in accord with (Aaker 1991, 1996) and (Keller 1993)’s replicas. A description of the CBBE constructs has been examined and tested in accordance with the effective construct in the following section of study.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Brand a single element of marketing mix which is capable of incorporating the positive effects of all marketing activities, and by this they become tangible indications of quality for the familiarity and credence traits (Erdem et al. 2006, Goldfarb et al. 2009). (Aaker 1991) offers that brand equity can: help a customer interpret, process, store, and retrieve a large quantity of information about products and brands; affect the customer’s confidence in the purchase decision; and enhance a customer’s satisfaction when the individual uses the product. Perhaps the first step to building a strong brand and fostering brand equity is to identify the power of the brand. Brand Equity has gained its acceptance in terms of customers, which expresses brand equity as the value of a brand to the customer (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995; Van Osselaer and Alba, 2000). Customer perspective of modern marketing theory and practice (Keller and Lehmann 2006; Keller 1993) defines brand equity as the added value, from the perspective of the customer, endowed by the brand to the product (Christodoulides and de Chernatony 2010; Keller 1993; Rust, Lemon, et al. 2004). In contrast to firm-based brand equity, which tends to be well-defined, there remains substantial conceptual and methodological controversy regarding customer-based brand equity, ones which may particularly benefit from recent insights from consumer neuroscience (Rust, Zeithaml, et al. 2004; Keller 1993).(De Chernatony and Cottam 2006) explored that instead of focusing on one comprehensive methodology to evaluate brand success, there are a range of financial and non-financial measures that collectively provide the necessary insight. (Agarwal et. Al. 1996) clarified that there are two diverse approaches to measure brand equity; straight approach and subsidiary approach. The straight approach tries to assess the added value of the brand and appears to be the accepted definition of brand equity (Farquhar, 1989; Keller, 1993). The subsidiary approach tries to identify the potential sources of brand equality. An understanding of these sources for a firm’s own and competitive brands is critical for the brand manager (Keller, 1993). (Dua et al. 2013) identifies the relationship of Akar’s CBBE dimensions in the banking sector. Data were collected with the help of a structured questionnaire from different respondents of Punjab and it was observed that the Aker’s construct has direct influence on Brand Equity.

OBJECTIVE:

The broad objectives of the study are as follows:

1. To identify the different constructs and the effect of most significant construct on CBBE.

2. To examine the impact of identified construct on most significant construct in order to develop CBBE.

HYPOTHESIS:

The broad hypotheses of the study are as follows:

H₀: There is no significant impact of Brand Awareness on Brand Loyalty.

H₀: There is no significant impact of Brand Association on Brand Loyalty.

H₀: There is no significant impact of Perceived Brand Quality on Brand Loyalty.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

Research Design:

An exploratory research followed with causal research design was used to carry out the study. Exploratory research was used to identify the CBBE constructs and Causal research design was used to identify the relationship between CBBE constructs and consumer demographics.

Data Collection:

The present study is based on both the primary as well as on secondary data. The secondary data was collected from published and unpublished business reports, magazines, journals, books, historical studies etc. Primary data was collected through a structured questionnaire based on CBBE constructs.

Sampling procedure:

In this research probability sampling procedure has been used. In order to stratify the heterogeneity of population Stratified Random Sampling was used. Stratified Random Sampling was used to stratify the sample on the basis of various demographic parameters of the respondents. The sample size for the study comprises of 200 computer peripheral customers with varied demographic profile from different areas of Dehradun District, Uttarakhand.

Tools for Analysis:

The analysis was based on data as to each aspect/ characteristics in tabulated form. Exploratory Factor Analysis was used to reduce the total number of items to a small number of underlying factors (eignvalues > 1). Varimax rotation was used to facilitate the interpretation of the factors, The Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy were used to validate the factor analysis results. Weighted Average was used to assign weights to determine the relative importance of each quantity on the average. Correlation reflects the statistical relationship between the data set. Multiple Regression Modeling was used to examine how the multiple attributes of the predictor variable are related with the outcome factors. Once the information is obtained how the predictor variables are related with the dependent variable it can be used to make much more powerful and accurate predictions about why things are the way they are.

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION:

Exploratory Factor Analysis was performed on the CBBE Constructs included in the questionnaire in order to determine the underling dimensions of Consumer Based Brand Equity. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) value is .856, which indicates the presence of sufficient inter- correlations in the data set and appropriateness of factor analysis. Bartlett’s test of Sphericity is significant at p=.000 and it is indicates that correlation matrix is not an identity matrix. The CBBE Constructs constituted to four factors accounted for a total of 73.075 per cent of the variance.

Table 1 Exploratory Factor Analysis

Constituent Variable	Label	Factor Loading	Factor Name	Variance Explained by the Factor (%)
Easy to select your brand among other brands.	V1	.800	Brand Awareness	26.049
Your brand is most popular in the market.	V2	.745
The promotional strategy of your brand is effective among competitors.	V3	.723
You have proper information about your selected brand.	V4	.718
The image of your brand is very good in the market.	V5	.713
You prefer to purchase same brand when other brands offer similar features and price?	V6	.653
Features of your brand are good and enough.	V7	.763	Brand Association	19.636
The cost of your brand is appropriate in the market.	V8	.735
Your preferred brand provides better services in comparison to others.	V9	.698
Your brand offers high-quality and different attributes.	V10	.673
Your preferred brand concern for social responsibility and support good causes.	V11	.658
You brand provides satisfaction.	V12	.746	Brand Loyalty	18.876
You would purchase same brand when you consider next purchasing.	V13	.723
Would you suggest your friends to buy same brand?	V14	.659
Preferred Brand functionality is very high	V15	.795	Perceived Brand Quality	8.513
Preferred brand reliability is very high	V16	.732
My brand quality is high as compared to others	V17	.685

Weighted Averages are used to identify the most significant factor retained through factor analysis i.e. Brand Awareness, Brand Association, Brand Loyalty and Perceived Brand Quality. The means were calculated through descriptive statistics in SPSS. Weighted Average Score (WAS) of all the six factors extracted from the factor analysis. As shown in Table 2 maximum Weighted Average Score (WAS) is of the “Brand Loyalty” factor. This reflects that Brand Loyalty is found to most significant construct in the development of CBBE followed with Brand Association (Rank 2), Brand Awareness (Rank 3) and Perceived Brand Quality (Rank 4). Perceived Brand Quality emerged as the least significant factor in the development of CBBE.

Table 2 Weighted Average Score Table

Factors	Variables	Mean	Weighted Average	Rank
Brand Awareness	V1	1.600	1.640	3
	V2	1.800
	V3	2.220
	V4	1.980
	V5	1.760
	V6	2.140
Brand Association	V7	2.120	2.104	2
	V8	2.300
	V9	2.100
	V10	2.00
	V11	2.000
Brand Loyalty	V12	2.560	2.360	1
	V13	2.000
	V14	2.540
Perceived Brand Quality	V15	2.300	1.350	4
	V16	1.950
	V17	2.100

Multiple Regression Modeling is used to examine how the multiple attributes of the predictor variable Brand Association, Brand Awareness and Perceived Brand Quality are related with the outcome factors Brand Loyalty. Once the information is obtained how the predictor variables are related with the dependent variable it can be used to make much more powerful and accurate predictions about why things are the way they are.

H₀: There is no significant impact of Brand Awareness on Brand Loyalty.

Table 3 Multiple Regression Model I

Dependent Variable	(Brand Loyalty) You brand provides satisfaction.				(Brand Loyalty) You would purchase same brand when you consider next purchasing.				(Brand Loyalty) Would you suggest your friends to buy same brand?
R Square	.429				.375				.277
F- Value	24.128				19.319				12.354
Significance	.000				.000				.000
Predictors (Brand Awareness)	B	S.E	T	Sig.	B	S.E	t	Sig.	B	S.E	t	Sig.
Constant	.934	.160	5.843	.000	1.800	.228	7.908	.000	1.714	.243	7.062	.000
Easy to select your brand among other brands.	.462	.078	5.941	.000	.299	.111	2.699	.008	.080	.118	.680	.497
Your brand is most popular in the market.	-.176	.062	-2.836	.005	-.418	.089	-4.722	.000	-.233	.094	-2.469	.014
The promotional strategy of your brand is effective among competitors.	-.096	.059	-1.623	.106	-.120	.085	-1.420	.157	-.370	.090	-4.097	.000
You have proper information about your selected brand.	.037	.058	.638	.524	-.010	.111	-.577	.565	.065	.088	.739	.461
The image of your brand is very good in the market.	.157	.078	2.008	.046	.651	.095	-.090	.928	.309	.119	2.606	.010
You prefer to purchase same brand when other brands offer similar features and price?	.201	.067	3.002	.003	-.007	-.007	6.847	.000	.423	.101	4.169	.000

Table 4 Multiple Regression Model II

Dependent Variable	(Brand Loyalty) You brand provides satisfaction.				(Brand Loyalty) You would purchase same brand when you consider next purchasing.				(Brand Loyalty) Would you suggest your friends to buy same brand?
R Square	.612				.443				.434
F- Value	61.269				30.845				29.798
Significance	.000				.000				.000
Predictors (Brand Association)	B	S.E	T	Sig.	B	S.E	t	Sig.	B	S.E	t	Sig.
Constant	-.272	.151	-1.801	.073	-.166	.247	-.673	.502	-.077	.246	-.312	.756
Features of your brand are good and enough.	.087	.065	1.330	.185	.238	.106	2.243	.026	.238	.106	2.244	.026
The cost of your brand is appropriate in the market.	.344	.068	5.090	.000	.511	.110	4.640	.000	.327	.110	2.967	.003
Your preferred brand provides better services in comparison to others.	.103	.058	1.775	.077	-.005	.094	-.055	.956	.404	.094	4.279	.000
Your brand offers high-quality and different attributes.	.374	.047	7.878	.000	.160	.077	2.060	.041	.368	.077	4.761	.000
Your preferred brand concern for social responsibility and support good causes.	.100	.050	1.999	.047	.280	.081	3.447	.001	-.228	.081	-2.806	.006

Table5 Multiple Regression Model III

Dependent Variable	(Brand Loyalty) You brand provides satisfaction.				(Brand Loyalty) You would purchase same brand when you consider next purchasing.				(Brand Loyalty) Would you suggest your friends to buy same brand?
R Square	.445				.378				.363
F- Value	52.342				39.663				37.159
Significance	.000				.000				.000
Predictors (Perceived Brand Quality)	B	S.E	T	Sig.	B	S.E	t	Sig.	B	S.E	t	Sig.
Constant	-.025	.169	-.146	.884	.203	.243	.835	.405	-.194	.244	-.795	.427
Preferred Brand functionality is very high	.337	.069	4.896	.000	.466	.099	4.695	.000	.319	.100	3.205	.002
Preferred brand reliability is very high	.346	.080	4.331	.000	.485	.115	4.204	.000	.367	.116	3.175	.002
My brand quality is high as compared to others	.206	.066	3.106	.002	.112	.096	1.167	.244	.406	.096	4.224	.000

Above model was found to be significant at 1 per cent level of significance. Brand Functionality, Brand Reliability and Brand Quality were found to have a significant impact on Brand Satisfaction. A unit high movement of these increases Satisfaction. Brand Functionality and Brand Reliability were found to have a significant impact on Repeated Brand Consideration. Brand Functionality, Brand Reliability and Brand Quality were found to have a significant impact on Brand Recommendation. A unit high movement of these increases Recommendation for the same brand.

CONCLUSION

The study identifies four relevant factors in determining CBBE. Among all four factors, Brand Loyalty emerged as the most significant factor in determining CBBE. Brand loyalty was measured in terms of Brand Satisfaction, Repeated Brand Consideration and Brand Recommendation. In this study Brand Association, Brand Awareness, Perceived Brand Quality are evident to be important determinants that are helpful in developing Brand Loyalty. The Brand Equity construct Brand Association was studied with Appropriate Cost, Better Brand Features, High Brand Quality and Attributes, Brand Social Responsibility and Better Brand Features. The element under Brand Association shows a significant contribution on brand loyalty. Brand Awareness was studied with Easy Brand Selection, better Brand Image, Repeated Same Brand Purchase, Brand Popularity and Brand Promotional Strategy. The element under Brand Awareness shows a significant contribution on brand loyalty. Brand Functionality, Brand Reliability and Brand Quality was used to study Perceived Brand Quality. The element under Perceived Brand Quality shows a significant contribution on brand loyalty. There is a significant impact of three Brand Equity Constructs on Brand loyalty which leads to the development of Consumer Based Brand Equity.

REFERENCES:

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

2. Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets. California Management Review, 38 (3), 102-120.

3. Aaker, D. A. and Jacobson, R. (1994). Study Shows Brand-Building Pays off for Stockholders, Advertising Age, 65 (30), 18.

4. Cobb-Walgren, C. J., Ruble C. A. and Donthu, N. (1995). Brand Equity, Brand Preference, and Purchase Intent, Journal of Advertising, 24 (3). 25-40.

5. Christodoulides, G. and de Chernatony, L., 2010. Consumer-based brand equity conceptualization and measurement: a literature review. International Journal of Market Research, 52(1), p.43.

6. De Chernatony, L., Cottam, S. 2006. Internal brand factors driving successful financial services brands. European Journal of Marketing, 40 (5/6), 611 - 633.

7. Erdem, T., Swait, J. and Valenzuela, A. (2006): Brands as Signals: A Cross-Country Validation Study. Journal of Marketing, 70 (1), 34-49.

8. Farquhar, P.H. (1989). Managing brand equity, Marketing Research, Vol. 1, September, pp. 24-33.

9. Farquhar, P. H., Han, J. Y., and Ijiri, Y. (1991). Recognizing and measuring brand assets. Marketing Science Institute. MA: Cambridge.

10. Goldfarb, A., Lu, Q. and Moorthy, S. (2009). Measuring brand value in an equilibrium framework. Marketing Science, 28, 69–86.

11. Hernan E. Riquelme, (2008). Brand equity for online companies. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 26 Iss: 7, pp.719 – 742.

12. Kapferer, J. (2008). The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term, Kogan Page, London.

13. Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1252054.

14. Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R., 2006. Brands and branding: Research findings and future priorities. Marketing Science, 25(6), p.740.

15. Lee, H.M., Chen, T. and Guy, B.S. (2014). How the country-of-origin image and brand name redeployment strategies affect acquirers’ brand equity after a merger and acquisition. Journal of Global Marketing, 27(3): 191-206.

16. Netemeyer, R. G ., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J. and Wirth, F. (2004): Developing and Validating Measures of Facets of Customer-based Brand Equity. Journal of Business Research, 57 (2), 209-224.

17. Rust, R.T., Zeithaml, V.A. and Lemon, K.N., 2004. Customer-centered brand management. Harvard business review, 82(9), pp.110–120.

18. Shen, H., Yuan, Y., Zhang, Q. and Zhao, J. 2014. An empirical study of customer-based brand equity model for China economy hotels. Journal of China Tourism Research, 10: 21-34.

19. Shocker, A. D., and Weitz, B. (1994). A perspective on brand equity principles and issues. In L. Leuthesser (Ed.), Report Number 88-104. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

20. Simon, C. J., and Sullivan M. W. (1990). The measurement and determinants of brand equity: A financial approach. Working Paper, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.

21. Van Osselaer, S. M. J. and Alba J. W. (2000). Consumer Learning and Brand Equity. Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1). 1-16.

22. Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000). An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix Elements and Brand Equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2), 195-211.

23. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-end Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52 (3). 2-22.