Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-2323.htm
IJBM
32,4
Building brand equity in retail
banks: the case of Trinidad
and Tobago
300 Meena Rambocas and Vishnu M. Kirpalani
Department of Management Studies, The University of the West Indies,
Received 15 November 2013
Revised 20 February 2014 St Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago, and
Accepted 25 March 2014 Errol Simms
Faculty of Social Sciences, The University of the West Indies,
St Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate an integrated model mapping the influence
of brand affinity, customer experience, and customer satisfaction on brand equity in retail banking.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from 315 banking customers in Trinidad and
Tobago through personally administered structured questionnaires and analyzed with Structural
Equation Modelling.
Findings – The findings showed the mediating role of customer satisfaction in brand equity
relationships. The results also showed the pivotal role of brand affinity, customer satisfaction, and
service experience in explaining brand equity.
Practical implications – The study provides an integrated approach to brand building. It also offers
an objective framework brand owners can use to evaluate marketing investments. It also provides a
clear brand differentiation strategy for bank brands. Finally, it introduces cross-cultural research in
brand equity which can be a useful competitive tool for indigenous banks and foreign banks seeking
market expansion strategies.
Originality/value – This research is one of the few studies that analyzed brand equity in retail
banking. It advanced a brand equity framework that explores the mediating role of customer
satisfaction and provides a guide to uplift perceptions and stimulate customer confidence in the
banking sector.
Keywords Brand equity, Customer satisfaction, Bank marketing, Brand affinity, Service experience,
Trinidad and Tobago
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Retail banking is changing rapidly as customers and government agencies become
more demanding, and markets more competitive. In response to these changes, banks
are adopting integrated branding strategies (Cohen and Mazzeo, 2010; Tallon, 2010;
Bravo et al., 2010). Through effective branding, banks cultivate unique identities and
relationships, simplify product choice, reduce search activities, and reduce purchase
risks. The value of successful brands encapsulates the essence of brand equity (Keller,
1993). Specifically, brand equity is the value of a brand name to all stakeholders
including producers, retailers, and consumers (Tuominen, 1999). It exists when
International Journal of Bank customers select a specific brand or express a willingness to pay more for the same
Marketing
Vol. 32 No. 4, 2014
level of quality just because of the product’s name. Brand equity has a direct and
pp. 300-320 positive link with profitable performances and competitive advantages (Bello
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-2323
and Holbrook, 1995; Kim et al., 2003) and remains as one of the few areas banks can
DOI 10.1108/IJBM-11-2013-0136 maintain a trustworthy relationship with customers (Ohnemus, 2009). Banks with
strong brand equity also reap financial incentives through cobranding advantages Brand equity in
and product line extensions (Ohnemus, 2009). retail banks
There is an abundance of research conceptualizing and measuring brand equity, but
to date most are focussed on product-based brand equity, with only a handful of studies
focussing on service-based brand equity ( Jahanzeb et al., 2013; Krishnan and Hartline,
2001). This sparse contribution to the service literature is surprising given the
increasing role of services in modern economies (Wilson et al., 2012) and in particular 301
to employment in developing nations (Cali et al., 2008). In addition, the inherent
differences between service and product-related marketing make a case for expanding
brand equity literature into the service domain (Krishnan and Hartline, 2001). Some
academics argue that brand equity is cognitively constructed through awareness,
association, loyalty, and perceived quality (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Yoo and Donthu,
2001). Others argue that brand equity is a personal and social phenomenon created
through social appeal and personal attachment (Belen del Rı́o et al., 2001). This study
builds on the academic contribution and examines brand equity through the lens
of consumer behavior and psychology theories, focussing specifically in the domain of
retail banking. An examination of the literature suggests that the use of service
experience in marketing is growing as more managers are realizing the benefits on
fundamental marketing goal such as customer satisfaction, loyalty, and positive word
of mouth (Camarero, 2007; Verhoef et al., 2009). But, despite this increased interest, the
use of service experience as a marketing strategy is often isolated from other
marketing initiatives (Berry et al., 2006). In this regard, a strong call for integrating
service experience as a strategic tool in marketing (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Keller, 2001;
Klaus and Maklan, 2007; Klaus et al., 2013). This paper responds to this call by
investigating the effect of service experience on brand equity (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Keller,
2001). The role of brand attachment is also receiving a considerable interest in research
given the proven correlation with long-term customer relationships (Park et al., 2010).
Attachment reflects the degree of affinity or bond that emotionally connects a brand
with a customer on a personal level. Berry (2000) also make a case for strong emotional
connections in branding. According to Berry (2000) emotionally attached customers
hold favorable attitudes toward brands which positively affect a wide range of
marketing outcomes. In addition to service experience and affinity, studies support for
the role of customer satisfaction in bank management (Moutinho and Smith, 2000).
More recent contributions have explored customer satisfaction as a mediator between
form activities and marketing outcomes like perceived quality and customer loyalty
(Caruana, 2002; Al-Hawari and Ward, 2006), customer retention, and economic
performance (Cronin and Taylor, 1992). This study extends these contributions and
investigates the mediating role of customer satisfaction on brand equity relationships.
This study is unique given that it is one of the first to investigate the impact of service
experience and brand affinity on brand equity, an area identified as underexplored in
the branding literature (Christodoulides and De Chernatony, 2010). It is also one of the
first studies to investigate the mediating role of customer satisfaction on brand equity
relationships and addressed a recent call by leading researchers ( Jahanzeb et al., 2013)
to examine causal relationships in marketing concepts (service experience, brand
affinity, customer satisfaction, and brand equity). Additionally, this study is one of a
few that examined brand equity from a banking perspective, an industry classified as
complex with high consumer involvement (Aldlaigan and Buttle, 2001). In addition
to these theoretical gaps, no study has undertaken brand equity investigations in
small island states, with Trinidad and Tobago (TT) as no exception. This study has
IJBM implications for retail bankers in TT and the wider Caribbean. Specifically, the study
32,4 empirically demonstrated the importance of customer satisfaction in brand value
and proposed an integrated model for predicting and explaining brand equity in retail
baking. Customer satisfaction is an important managerial and theoretical concept
given the strategic importance ( Jamal and Naser, 2002; Torres and Tribo, 2011). This
study demonstrated the mediating role of customer satisfaction in brand equity
302 relationships.
The retail banking sector of TT, a small twin island state located in the southern
Caribbean, is a distinctive service category, facing unprecedented challenges. It is
the largest service sector in the country comprising nearly 40 percent of total
financial assets (Trinidad and Tobago Central Statistical CSO (TT CSO), 2010).
It contributes 14 percent to the country’s gross domestic product and employs
approximately 8 percent of the labor force. Historically, retail banking in TT has
been relatively stable. Most operations center on providing conventional services
(such as loans, deposits, and short-term credit facilities) through traditional
distribution channels (the majority of transactions are done through personal
interface and automated banking machines), with limited use of internet banking
(Rambocas and Arjoon, 2012). However, the market is transforming both
structurally and operationally, which, when coupled with the aftermath of the
2008 financial crisis, have challenge customer confidence and trust in the banking
system. In addition, the emergence of other financing options such as peer to peer
lending and micro financing options are challenging the financial supremacy banks
once enjoyed. These alternatives are now presenting opaque distinctions between
banks and non-banks and are driving banks to find innovative market distinctions.
Despite these challenges, retail bank remains the largest sector in the TT financial
market, with eight commercial banks and 123 branches. Although, the financial
crisis of 2008 challenged the economic sustainability of many Caribbean countries,
its impact on the TT’s retail banking institutions has been mild when compared to
Caribbean neighbors (Trinidad and Tobago Central Bank, 2011). This makes TT an
ideal for further investigations. Industry experts are also having trouble explaining
the sector’s stability. Some arguments draw on the industry’s oligopolistic structure,
others look at a bank’s management practice and/or government regulations (PECU
Credit Union, 2009; Bankers Association of Trinidad and Tobago, 2008). But, these
arguments have failed to consider the role of market forces that include brand
stability and customer value. This study will address this issue.
The remainder of the paper is structured in four main sections. First, we examined
the theoretical relationships between consumer brand knowledge and brand equity.
Second, we presented the conceptual model that guided our research design and
hypotheses. Third, we presented the methodology and data analysis techniques and
finally a discussion on the implications of our findings and recommendations for future
research initiatives.
H1. Service experience positively relates to brand equity, better service experiences
will increase the brand equity customers assign to retail banks.
H2. Brand affinity positively relates to brand equity, higher brand affinity will
increase the brand equity customers assign to retail banks.
305
2.3 Customer satisfaction
Satisfaction is a mental state of pleasurable fulfillment derived from consumption
(Oliver, 1999). Satisfaction reflects an overall judgment on one product’s superiority
that occurs after consumption, guided by reference points set before consumption.
Although satisfaction is related to perceived quality, it is considered as a distinctive
long-term mental state (Sureshchander et al., 2002; Gustafsson et al., 2005). Satisfied
customers create and sustain deep psychological bonds with preferred brands.
Customer satisfaction is linked to economic performance given the relationship
with profitability, market share and return on investments (Bitner, 1990; Oliver,
1999). Additionally, satisfaction is linked to non-economic performance given the
relationship with behavioral and attitudinal loyalty (Bloemer and Kasper, 1995).
Also, satisfaction influence other aspects of consumer behavior such as buying
more products, buying other products from the same supplier, increasing the
tolerance for higher prices and positive word of mouth. More recently, Anderson
et al. (2004) developed a framework that specified how customer satisfaction affects
current and future consumer behavior, and in turn how behavior affect future cash
flow risk and shareholder value. Satisfied customers are able to identify preferred
brands very easily and impact on market penetration and expansion strategies.
Therefore, customer satisfaction reduces demand volatility and improves
cash flow. Customer satisfaction is also linked to long-term financial performance
(Bolton et al., 2000; Zeithaml, 2000; Anderson et al., 2004) and shareholder value
(Hogan et al., 2002). Satisfied customers increase a firm bargaining power with
stakeholders and facilitate stable demand patterns, increase investment and reduce
overall cost.
Given the strong and positive relationships between both firm performance and
customer behavior, we expect satisfaction to have a similar influence on other
marketing phenomena like brand equity. This provided the motivation for our third
research hypothesis:
H3. Customer satisfaction directly relates to brand equity in retail banks, higher
customer satisfaction will increase the brand equity customers assign to retail
banks.
The mediating role of customer satisfaction in our brand equity model is based on the
recent arguments promoted by Caruana et al. (2000) suggesting that customer
satisfaction is a dynamic concept that varies with intensity, time, and circumstance.
The author found that customer satisfaction serves a mediating role in several
customer relationships. Positive thoughts and feelings toward a brand are likely to
have a positive influence on the brand evaluation (Yuksel et al., 2010) and increase
the level of satisfaction toward the brand and influence preferential responses.
Furthermore favorable experiences with the services core, functional and technical
areas and emotional affinity should reinforce the preferential value customers assign to
IJBM the brand and increase the level of brand equity. In line with this argument we
32,4 expect that:
306 H5. Customer satisfaction mediates the relationship between brand affinity and
brand equity.
3. Methodology
The study examined the relative effect of three predictor variables (customer
experience, brand affinity, and customer satisfaction on brand equity. The study also
investigated the mediating role of customer satisfaction in explaining brand equity.
The population of interest was defined as citizens of TT, 18 years and over with an
expressed preference toward a specific bank for service encounters. Service encounter
is defined in this study as depositing, borrowing or purchasing of financial products.
According to the TT National Census Report, the number of citizens above 18 years is
just over 980,000 people. The authors could not verify the number of eligible banking
customers in TT and estimated this number to be within the vicinity of 900,000.
In terms of sampling, the research employed a multi-stage approach. This approach
involved two stages: area sampling and systematic sampling. According to Davis
(2000), when area sampling is conducted, the study’s population is first separated into
two distinct non-overlapping geographic areas (here after referred to as clusters), and
then a sample is selected from each cluster. This approach guarantees a wide
geographical reach and more representativeness. The study divided the first cluster
(Tobago) into two regions (north and south) and the second cluster (Trinidad, the larger
island) into four regions: eastern, western, central, and southern. The researchers
identified major banks in each region through bank web sites. Each bank’s corporate
division was contacted to seek consent for data collection on bank premises. In order to
overcome the sample bias associated with the research design, the data collection
extended to intercepting bank customers at leading shopping malls. The shopping
malls selected for data collection housed retail banks and therefore represented the
sample of interest. Data were collected by a final year PhD student trained in research
methodology. To collect the data, the researcher was stationed at the exit/entrance
closest to the resident bank and approached every third person entering was
SERVICE EXPERIENCE
Figure 1.
Proposed research model
BRAND AFFINITY
approached for participation (a convenience sample). We recognize the statistical Brand equity in
dilemmas associated with convenience samples in quantitative research, but justify retail banks
its use, given the absence of a sampling frame and inability to identify members of
the population. In light of the obvious limitations of our sampling strategy, steps were
taken to minimize the uncertainties and bias by ensuring participants met two
specified criteria before participation (citizens of TT over the age of 18 years and had
an expressed preference toward a particular bank for service encounters). We also 307
employed the advice form Skowronek and Duerr (2009) to design diversity in survey
administration to strengthen the weaknesses of the sampling approach. Diversity was
added by distributing questionnaires at different times of the day on different days of
the week during a three-month period. This strategy allowed access to a cross-section
of retail banking clients and control (although not eliminate) the statistical dilemmas
associated with convenience sampling.
Approximately 450 participants were approached and 360 agreed to participate in
the study, but only 315 met specified sampling criteria with respect to age and banking
preference. This generated a 70 percent response rate. Participation was voluntary
without incentives. Data collection extended for three months July 2011 to September
2011. Data were collected through structured questionnaires divided into two sections.
The first section solicited responses on brand affinity, service experience, customer
satisfaction, and overall brand equity (previously discussed in the literature
review). The study utilized scales developed and tested by previous studies (brand
affinity – Aziz and Yasin, 2010; service experience – Grace and O’Cass, 2004; customer
satisfaction – Taylor et al., 2004; and brand equity – Lassar et al., 1995). Each construct
was measured on five-point Likert Scale that ranged from 1 – strongly disagree to
5 – strongly agree. Table I presents sample items used in the survey. Section 2, asked
for data on age, gender, income, education, and ethnicity. The items in the final survey
were refined with a pilot study using personal intercepts on a convenient sample of
50 full time university students. The pilot study employed a similar approach for data
collection as the main study and was designed to obtain feedback on the structure and
wording of the survey instrument and get an opportunity to observe non-verbal cues of
respondents. The pilot study helped with phrasing the questions for the main study.
Overall, the pilot study showed no major problems with the structure and design of
the instrument and paved the way for the main study. In total, 315 questionnaires
were completed in the main study, with 32 cases with missing data (10.1 percent).
The percentage is relatively high to warrant diagnosis of randomness through Little’s
Missing Completely at Random test (w2 ¼ 808.04, df ¼ 919, p ¼ 0.996). This suggested
that the data is missing completely at random and replacing missing values with
predicted values provides a powerful alternative to analyzing data. Although there are
several methods to replace missing data (Hair et al., 2010) the Expectation Maximum
(EM) algorithm was chosen as the preferred method because of the technique’s power
in imputing data to create complete data sets. Based on probabilistic models, the EM
imputes missing data in all cases regardless of the number of missing cases or sample
size and is a powerful alternative to other imputation algorithms such as WOMAC
(Ghomrawi et al., 2011).
4. Results
In terms of profile, 51 percent of the participants were male. Relative to age, the
majority of participants were between 25 and 44 years old (45.1 percent). This profile
closely resembles the national distribution according to the recently conducted national
IJBM Brand affinity 1. I feel emotionally connected to my bank
32,4 2. I like my bank
3. To me, my bank is unique
4. My bank suits my personality
5. I am proud to tell my colleagues about my bank
6. I am happy with my bank
Customer 1. The services I get from my bank exceeds my expectations
308 satisfaction 2. I am a satisfied customer of my bank
3. My bank provides me with all the services I need from a bank
4. I consider my choice to continue transacting with my bank a wise one
5. My bank comes close to what I would describe as a perfect bank
6. I am contented with my bank
7. I am delighted with my bank
8. I am sure that my bank is the right bank to do business with
Service 1. My bank has a modern layout
experience 2. Employees at my bank provide prompt service
3. Employees of my bank are always willing to help
4. Employees at my bank are never too busy to give me assistance
5. The service offered by my bank is superior compared to alternative banks
6. My bank has never broken my trust
Brand equity 1. I find my bank more attractive compared to other banks
2. I have great respect for my bank
Table I. 3. I have positive feelings towards my preferred bank
Sample items 4. Even though the other banks offer similar services I transact with my bank
used in survey because it is a logical choice for me
survey (TT CSO, 2010). The income distribution showed the majority of participants
(88.6 percent) earned less than US$30,000 (US$1 ¼ TT $6.00), which reflects the
average income distribution of the country. Table II presents the mean, standard
deviation, and correlations for all the variables used in the study.
Data analysis began with factor analysis on predictor items using principal
component approach with varimax rotation. As expected, three groups emerged which
provided the empirical support for discrimination among the three theoretical
constructs proposed in the brand equity model (service experience, brand affinity, and
customer satisfaction). Next, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the
theoretical pattern of factor loadings on each of the pre-specified constructs. CFA
establishes uni-dimensional constructs through varimax rotation and ensures that the
combination of measured indicators measure one and only one construct, an important
test in multi-item measurement scales. Before CFA was applied, the items were tested
for sufficient level of correlations. This relationship was verified through the factor’s
MSA coefficient and Bartlette test of Sphericity, to measure the degree of inter-item
correlation among measured indicators. The results of the CFA show that each construct
was uni-dimensional and had acceptable reliability coefficients. The measurement scale
for service experience consisted of six items. The MSA (0.803) and Bartlett test of
Sphericity ( po0.05) were acceptable, but two items were deleted from further analysis
because of low factor communalities. The retained items explained 66.1 percent of
variance with a strong reliability statistic (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.826). The second construct
“brand affinity” comprised six indicators. The MSA (0.842) and Bartlett test of Sphericity
( po0.05) were also acceptable but two items were deleted from this scale because of low
factor communalities. The retained indicators explained 68 percent of total variance and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Prompt 1 0.607** 0.555** 0.526** 0.495** 0.466** 0.491** 0.459** 0.458** 0.432** 0.298** 0.442** 0.507** 0.492** 0.532** 0.486** 0.321** 0.307** 0.385** 0.276**
Helpful 0.607** 1 0.775** 0.396** 0.459** 0.376** 0.333** 0.457** 0.470** 0.514** 0.312** 0.296** 0.463** 0.523** 0.487** 0.374** 0.223** 0.141* 0.318** 0.208**
Busy 0.555** 0.775** 1 0.396** 0.447** 0.439** 0.345** 0.455** 0.507** 0.577** 0.341** 0.352** 0.501** 0.572** 0.523** 0.427** 0.294** 0.179** 0.343** 0.293**
Trust 0.526** 0.396** 0.396** 1 0.521** 0.522** 0.540** 0.450** 0.525** 0.509** 0.328** 0.529** 0.548** 0.473** 0.498** 0.538** 0.472** 0.303** 0.404** 0.395**
Like 0.495** 0.459** 0.447** 0.521** 1 0.568** 0.627** 0.553** 0.500** 0.554** 0.445** 0.494** 0.605** 0.517** 0.580** 0.535** 0.388** 0.322** 0.444** 0.426**
Unique 0.466** 0.376** 0.439** 0.522** 0.568** 1 0.649** 0.470** 0.451** 0.496** 0.372** 0.521** 0.570** 0.526** 0.609** 0.533** 0.366** 0.360** 0.384** 0.429**
Personality 0.491** 0.333** 0.345** 0.540** 0.627** 0.649** 1 0.562** 0.446** 0.500** 0.448** 0.552** 0.588** 0.485** 0.574** 0.568** 0.383** 0.454** 0.430** 0.479**
Social acceptance 0.459** 0.457** 0.455** 0.450** 0.553** 0.470** 0.562** 1 0.424** 0.633** 0.396** 0.529** 0.498** 0.516** 0.553** 0.493** 0.426** 0.368** 0.453** 0.429**
Expectations 0.458** 0.470** 0.507** 0.525** 0.500** 0.451** 0.446** 0.424** 1 0.633** 0.449** 0.439** 0.644** 0.529** 0.556** 0.443** 0.356** 0.250** 0.403** 0.387**
Overall
satisfaction 0.432** 0.514** 0.577** 0.509** 0.554** 0.496** 0.500** 0.633** 0.633** 1 0.626** 0.611** 0.581** 0.624** 0.649** 0.572** 0.400** 0.345** 0.519** 0.469**
Only choice 0.298** 0.312** 0.341** 0.328** 0.445** 0.372** 0.448** 0.396** 0.449** 0.626** 1 0.517** 0.513** 0.500** 0.521** 0.472** 0.295** 0.302** 0.422** 0.377**
Wise choice 0.442** 0.296** 0.352** 0.529** 0.494** 0.521** 0.552** 0.529** 0.439** 0.611** 0.517** 1 0.588** 0.518** 0.546** 0.606** 0.409** 0.452** 0.609** 0.607**
Perfect 0.507** 0.463** 0.501** 0.548** 0.605** 0.570** 0.588** 0.498** 0.644** 0.581** 0.513** 0.588** 1 0.585** 0.698** 0.594** 0.485** 0.313** 0.497** 0.521**
Experiences 0.492** 0.523** 0.572** 0.473** 0.517** 0.526** 0.485** 0.516** 0.529** 0.624** 0.500** 0.518** 0.585** 1 0.671** 0.592** 0.398** 0.341** 0.512** 0.458**
Delight 0.532** 0.487** 0.523** 0.498** 0.580** 0.609** 0.574** 0.553** 0.556** 0.649** 0.521** 0.546** 0.698** 0.671** 1 0.608** 0.400** 0.392** 0.486** 0.474**
Right choice 0.486** 0.374** 0.427** 0.538** 0.535** 0.533** 0.568** 0.493** 0.443** 0.572** 0.472** 0.606** 0.594** 0.592** 0.608** 1 0.441** 0.351** 0.511** 0.557**
Attractive 0.321** 0.223** 0.294** 0.472** 0.388** 0.366** 0.383** 0.426** 0.356** 0.400** 0.295** 0.409** 0.485** 0.398** 0.400** 0.441** 1 0.326** 0.554** 0.567**
Respect 0.307** 0.141* 0.179** 0.303** 0.322** 0.360** 0.454** 0.368** 0.250** 0.345** 0.302** 0.452** 0.313** 0.341** 0.392** 0.351** 0.326** 1 0.507** 0.457**
Affection 0.385** 0.318** 0.343** 0.404** 0.444** 0.384** 0.430** 0.453** 0.403** 0.519** 0.422** 0.609** 0.497** 0.512** 0.486** 0.511** 0.554** 0.507** 1 0.607**
Logical 0.276** 0.208** 0.293** 0.395** 0.426** 0.429** 0.479** 0.429** 0.387** 0.469** 0.377** 0.607** 0.521** 0.458** 0.474** 0.557** 0.567** 0.457** 0.607** 1
Mean 3.60 4.02 3.82 3.51 3.73 3.37 3.70 3.97 3.36 4.00 3.84 3.92 3.24 3.73 3.58 3.75 3.71 3.74 3.95 3.89
Standard
deviation 1.123 0.962 0.995 0.904 0.894 0.989 0.983 0.930 1.056 0.885 0.976 0.762 1.074 0.968 1.007 0.891 0.894 1.072 0.753 0.838
N 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315
309
Table II.
Brand equity in
variables in study
IJBM had strong reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.842). The third construct labeled
32,4 “customer satisfaction” was measured using an eight-item scale. The MSA (0.908) and
Bartlett test of Sphericity ( po0.05) were also acceptable. All eight items were retained
which explained 62 percent of total variance, which is above the minimum requirement
(50 percent) in social science research. These eight items had strong reliability coefficient
(Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.911). The final construct (the dependent construct in this model) was
310 “brand equity” was measured with a four item scale. The MSA (0.771) and Bartlett test of
Sphericity ( po0.05) were acceptable and items explained 63 percent of total variance
with strong reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.786). The factor loadings are shown
in Table III.
The factor loadings were used as composite variables for all four constructs.
Using factor scores as the basis for calculating composite variables has the advantage
is purported as the best method for complete data reduction as it represents all
variables loading on the factor (Hair et al., 2010). It is also a method commonly used in
past literature when multi-item scales are used. We tested the convergent validity of the
model by using the average variance extracted (AVE) criteria. According to Hair et al.
(2010, p. 687) the average variance of 0.5 is a good rule of thumb for adequate
convergence. All four constructs meet the convergence requirement (brand affinity
0.680, service experience 0.661, customer satisfaction 0.623, and brand equity 0.631).
Discriminant validity was accessed by estimating the correlation coefficient among
factors in the model with correlations o0.85 indicative of discriminant validity
(Rambocas and Arjoon, 2012). The correlation matrix is shown in Table IV. All factors
were significantly correlated, however the greatest correlation exist between brand
affinity and customer satisfaction (b ¼ 0.795) and service experience and customer
satisfaction (b ¼ 0.720).
The second stage in the analysis utilized Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) to
estimate the brand equity model through AMOS 18. The justification for using SEM rests
on the technique’s ability to uniquely estimate a series of separate, but interdependent
regression equations simultaneously which allow the strength and significance of
relationships to be assessed within the context of the entire model. Additionally, SEM
enables complex and multiple relationships to be modelled simultaneously so that an
independent variable in one relationship can also be modelled as a dependent variable
in another relationship, and is an instrumental tool for testing mediating effects.
The hypothesized model depicted in Figure 1 was ascertained using multiple fit indices
(w2 to degree of freedom w2/df, significance p, GFI, AGFI; Hair et al., 2010). The measures
of good fit (w2/df ¼ 185.132; p ¼ 0.000; GFI ¼ 0.818; AGFI ¼ 0.822; NFI ¼ 0.762) were
less than an acceptable level. This suggested that the data collected did not fit the
theoretical model tested and the theoretical model should be re-specified. This is shown in
the correlation matrix in Table V.
In order to improve the model, we re-specified the model through a series of iterative
adjustments according to the steps set by Hair et al. (2010). These included first
deleting standardized path coefficients that were not statistically significant ( p40.01),
and second inspecting the modification indices for possible relationships not estimated
in the model. Generally, modification indices 44 suggest that the model can be improved
Standardized estimate p CR
e1
0.45
SERVICE EXPERIENCE
0.34
e3 e4
0.67
0.70 0.49
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 0.53
Brand Equity
0.57 0.21
0.00
BRAND AFFINITY
Figure 2.
Re-specified brand e2
equity model
Notes: χ2 = 3.929, df = 1, Prob=0.047, GFI=0.994, AGFI=0.938, NFI=0.995
Estimate p CR
Hypothesis Conclusion
H1 Service experience positively relates to brand equity, better service Not supported
experiences will increase the brand equity customers assign to retail banks
H2 Brand affinity positively relates to brand equity, higher brand affinity Supported
will increase the brand equity customers assign to retail banks
H3 Customer satisfaction directly relates to brand equity in retail banks, Supported
higher customer satisfaction will increase the brand equity customers
assign to retail banks
H4 Customer satisfaction mediates the relationship between service Supported
experience and brand equity Table VII.
H5 Customer satisfaction mediates the relationship between brand affinity Partially Summary of research
and brand equity supported hypotheses
IJBM This study empirically examined the causal impact of service experience and brand
32,4 affinity on brand equity as well as mediating role of customer satisfaction on
brand equity relationships. Our study is one of the few studies that empirically
examined brand equity relationships in a specific service sector, and as far as we know,
the only study that presents a brand equity model in retail banking. The results of our
study suggest that customer satisfaction fully mediates the relationship between
314 service experience and brand equity, but only partially mediates the relationship
between brand affinity and brand equity.
The results showed that customer experience had a strong and positive effect on
customer satisfaction. This relationship revealed the perceptual consequences of
service experience, which in turn influence brand equity. Similarly, our findings
mapped a positive and direct relationship between service experience and brand
affinity, where higher brand affinity is linked to better service experience. This finding
suggests that customers evaluate their actual experiences during consumption by
subjective beliefs and connotations formed prior to consumption.
Similarly, the result showed that brand affinity had a significant and positive
impact on brand equity, but this relationship can be improved through customer
satisfaction. The mediating role of customer satisfaction in our brand equity model
suggests that service experience and affinity toward a bank increase customer
satisfaction and in turn increase the attractiveness of banks. Customer satisfaction is
considered a principal component of customer loyalty, word of mouth (Molina et al.,
2007), brand extension and willingness to pay price premiums (Cronin et al., 2000;
Anderson et al., 1994). The more satisfied customers are the less vulnerable the banks
are to competitive threats from other financing options ( Jamal and Naser, 2002).
Customer satisfaction is normally described as a multi-faceted marketing concept
created through the interaction of different service quality dimensions (McDougall and
Levesque, 1999). Our findings show that importance of service experiences during
service consumption, and support the contributions made in prior research (Cronin and
Taylor, 1992; Jamal and Naser, 2002). However, this study extends the literature by
showing the effect of subjective beliefs formed prior to consumption on satisfaction
and ultimately brand equity. The findings suggest that consumers who are emotionally
tied to a brand are likely to hold favorable attitudes toward the brand and is in line with
contribution in the attachment literature (Thomson et al., 2005). This is an interesting
point in the context of retail banking given its credence and complex nature.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A.L. (Eds) (1993), Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertising’s Role in
Building Strong Brands, Vol. 1, Psychology Press, East Sussex.
Aldlaigan, A.H. and Buttle, F.A. (2001), “Consumer involvement in financial services: an
empirical test of two measures”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 6,
pp. 232-245.
IJBM Al-Hawari, M. and Ward, T. (2006), “The effect of automated service quality on Australian banks’
financial performance and the mediating role of customer satisfaction”, Marketing
32,4 Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 127-147.
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Lehmann, D.R. (1994), “Customer satisfaction, market share, and
profitability: findings from Sweden”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 53-66.
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Mazvancheryl, S.K. (2004), “Customer satisfaction and
316 shareholder value”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 172-185.
Aziz, N.A. and Yasin, N.M. (2010), “Analysing the brand equity and resonance of banking
services: a Malaysian perspective”, International Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 180-189.
Bankers Association of Trinidad and Tobago (2008), “Financial crisis on Trinidad and Tobago”,
available at: www.batt.org.tt (accessed February 16, 2012).
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, p. 1173.
Belen del Rı́o, A., Vazquez, R. and Iglesias, V. (2001), “The effects of brand associations on
consumer response”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 410-425.
Bello, D.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1995), “Does an absence of brand equity generalize across product
classes?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 125-131.
Berry, L. (2000), “Cultivating service brand equity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 128-137.
Berry, L.L., Wall, E.A. and Carbone, L.P. (2006), “Service clues and customer assessment of the
service experience: lessons from marketing”, The Academy of Management Perspectives,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 43-57.
Biedenbach, G. and Marell, A. (2009), “The impact of customer experience on brand equity in a
business-to-business services setting”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 6,
pp. 446-458.
Bitner, M. (1990), “Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and
employee responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 69-82.
Bloemer, J.M. and Kasper, H.D.P. (1995), “The complex relationship between consumer
satisfaction and brand loyalty”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 311-329.
Bolton, R.N., Kannan, P.K. and Bramlett, M.D. (2000), “Implications of loyalty program
membership and service experiences for customer retention and value”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 95-108.
Bowlby, J. (2005), The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds, Taylor & Francis, New York, NY.
Bravo, R., Montaner, T. and Pina, J.M. (2010), “Corporate brand image in retail banking:
development and validation of a scale”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 30 No. 8,
pp. 1199-1218.
Cali, M., Ellis, K. and Te Velde, D.W. (2008), The Contribution of Services to Development and the
Role of Trade Liberalisation and Regulation, Overseas Dev’t Institute, London.
Camarero, C. (2007), “Relationship orientation or service quality? What is the trigger of
performance in financial and insurance services?”, International Journal of Bank
Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 406-426.
Caruana, A. (2002), “Service loyalty: the effects of service quality and the mediating role of
customer satisfaction”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 7/8, pp. 811-828.
Caruana, A., Money, A.H. and Berthon, P.R. (2000), “Service quality and satisfaction – the
moderating role of value”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 11/12, pp. 1338-1353.
Christodoulides, G. and De Chernatony, L. (2010), “Consumer based brand equity Brand equity in
conceptualization and measurement”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 52
No. 1, pp. 43-66. retail banks
Cohen, A. and Mazzeo, M.J. (2010), “Investment strategies and market structure: an empirical
analysis of bank branching decisions”, Journal of Financial Services Research, Vol. 38
No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Cronin, Jr, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a reexamination and 317
extension”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.
Cronin, Jr, J.J., Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000), “Assessing the effects of quality, value, and
customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments”, Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 193-218.
Davis, D. (2000), Business Research for Decision Making, 5th ed., Duxbury Thomas Learning, FL.
De Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1999), “Experts’ views about defining services brands
and the principles of services branding”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46 No. 2,
pp. 181-192.
Epstein, S. (1998), “Cognitive-experiential self-theory: a dual process personality theory with
implications for diagnosis and psychotherapy”, in Bornstein, R. and Masling, J.M. (Eds),
Empirical Perspectives on the Psychoanalytic Unconscious, American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC, pp. 99-140.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), “The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and
commitment in customer relationships”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 70-87.
Ghomrawi, H.M., Mandl, L.A., Rutledge, J., Alexiades, M.M. and Mazumdar, M. (2011), “Is there a
role for expectation maximization imputation in addressing missing data in research using
WOMAC questionnaire? Comparison to the standard mean approach and a tutorial”, BMC
Musculoskeletal Disorders, Vol. 12 No. 1, available at: www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/
12/109 (accessed January 10, 2013).
Giese, J.L. and Cote, J.A. (2000), “Defining consumer satisfaction”, Academy of Marketing Science
Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Grace, D. and O’Cass, A. (2004), “Examining experiences and post-consumption evaluations”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 450-461.
Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M.D. and Roos, I. (2005), “The effects of customer satisfaction,
relationship commitment dimensions, and triggers on customer retention”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 210-218.
Hair, J.F., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Pearson Education Inc., New Jersey, NJ.
Hogan, J.E., Lemon, K.N. and Rust, R.T. (2002), “Customer equity management charting
new directions for the future of marketing”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 4-12.
Jahanzeb, S., Fatima, T. and Butt, M.M. (2013), “How service quality influences brand equity: the
dual mediating role of perceived value and corporate credibility”, International Journal of
Bank Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 126-141.
Jamal, A. and Naser, K. (2002), “Customer satisfaction and retail banking: an assessment of some
of the key antecedents of customer satisfaction in retail banking”, International Journal of
Bank Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 146-160.
Kayaman, R. and Arasli, H. (2007), “Customer based brand equity: evidence from the hotel
industry”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 92-109.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
IJBM Keller, K.L. (2001), Building Customer Based Brand Equity: A Blue Print for Creating Strong
Brands, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, available at: http://
32,4 mktg.unisvishtov.bg/ivm/resources/customerbasedbrandequitymodel.pdf (accessed
January 12, 2010).
Kim, H.B. and Kim, W.G. (2005), “The relationship between brand equity and firms performance
in luxury hotels and chain restaurants”, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 549-560.
318
Kim, H.B., Kim, W.G. and An, J.A. (2003), “The effect of consumer-based brand equity
on firms’ financial performance”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 335-351.
Kim, J.S., Kaye, J. and Wright, L.K. (2001), “Moderating and mediating effects in causal models”,
Issues in Mental Health Nursing, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 63-75.
Klaus, P. and Maklan, S. (2007), “The role of brands in a service-dominated world”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 115-122.
Klaus, P., Gorgoglione, M., Buonamassa, D., Panniello, U. and Nguyen, B. (2013), “Are you
providing the ‘right’ customer experience? The case of Banca Popolare di Bari”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 506-528.
Krishnan, B.C. and Hartline, M.D. (2001), “Brand equity: is it more important in services?”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 328-342.
Lassar, W., Banwari, M. and Sharma, A. (1995), “Measuring consumer based brand equity”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 11-19.
Low, G.S. and Lamb, Jr, C.W. (2000), “The measurement and dimensionality of brand
associations”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 350-370.
McDougall, G.H. and Levesque, T.J. (1999), “Waiting for service: the effectiveness of recovery
strategies”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 6-15.
Molina, A., Martı́n-Consuegra, D. and Esteban, À. (2007), “Relational benefits and customer
satisfaction in retail banking”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 253-271.
Moutinho, L. and Smith, A. (2000), “Modelling bank customer satisfaction through mediation of
attitudes towards human and automated banking”, International Journal of Bank
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 124-134.
Netemeyer, R.G., Balaji, K., Chris, P., Guangping, W., 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, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 209-224.
Oberecker, E.M., Riefler, P. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2008), “The consumer affinity construct:
conceptualization, qualitative investigation, and research agenda”, Journal of International
Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 23-56.
Ohnemus, L. (2009), “Is branding creating shareholder wealth for banks?”, International Journal
of Bank Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 186-201.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 1,
pp. 33-44.
Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W. (2005), “Consumer-based brand equity: improving the
measurement-empirical evidence”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 143-154.
Park, C.W., MacInnis, D.J., Priester, J.R., Eisingerich, A.B. and Iacobucci, D. (2010), “Brand
attachment and brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation of two
critical brand equity drivers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 10-16.
PECU Credit Union (2009), “Financial crisis Trinidad and Tobago”, available at: http:// Brand equity in
pecutt.com/index.php/latest-news/65-financial-crisis-trinidad-and-tobago (accessed
February 20, 2010). retail banks
Raggio, R.D. and Leone, R.P. (2007), “The theoretical separation of brand equity and brand value:
managerial implications for strategic planning”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14
No. 5, pp. 380-395.
Rambocas, M. and Arjoon, S. (2012), “Using diffusion of innovation theory to model customer 319
loyalty for internet banking: a TT millennial perspective”, International Journal of
Business and Commerce, Vol. 1 No. 8, pp. 1-14.
Romaniuk, J., Sharp, B. and Ehrenberg, A. (2007), “Evidence concerning the importance of
perceived brand differentiation”, Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 42-54.
Schmitt, B. (2012), “The consumer psychology of brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 7-17.
Schmitt, B., Zarantonello, L. and Brakus, J. (2009), “Brand experience: what is it? How is it
measured? Does it affect loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 52-68.
Skowronek, D. and Duerr, L. (2009), “The convenience of nonprobability Survey strategies for
small academic libraries”, College and Research Libraries News, Vol. 70 No. 7, pp. 412-415.
Sureshchander, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Kamalanabhan, T.J. (2002), “Customer perceptions of
service quality: a critique”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 111-124.
Tallon, P.P. (2010), “A service science perspective on strategic choice, IT, and performance
in US banking”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 219-252.
Taylor, S., Celuch, K. and Goodwin, S. (2004), “The importance of brand equity to customer
loyalty”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 217-227.
Taylor, S.A., Hunter, G.L. and Lindberg, D.L. (2007), “Understanding customer-based brand
equity in financial services”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 241-252.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J. and Park, C. (2005), “The ties that bind: measuring the strength of
consumers’ emotional attachments to brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 77-91.
Torres, A. and Tribo, J.A. (2011), “Customer satisfaction and brand equity”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 64 No. 10, pp. 1089-1096.
Trinidad and Tobago Central Bank (2011), Implications of the Current Financial Crisis for Trinidad
and Tobago, available at: www.central-bank.org.tt/content/mr-ewart-s-williams-address-
%E2%80%9Cimplications-current-financial-crisis-trinidad-and-tobago%E2%80%9D
(accessed March 18, 2012).
Trinidad and Tobago Central Statistical CSO (TT CSO) (2010), “Business statistics”, available at:
www.cso.gov.tt (accessed March 18, 2012).
Tuominen, P. (1999), “Managing brand equity”, available at: http://lta.hse.fi/1999/1/
lta_1999_01_a4.pdf (accessed June 15, 2011).
Verhoef, P.C., Lemon, K.N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M. and Schlesinger, L.A.
(2009), “Customer experience creation: determinants, dynamics and management
strategies”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 31-41.
Wilson, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J. and Gremler, D.D. (2012), Services Marketing: Integrating
Customer Focus Across the Firm, 2nd ed., McGraw Hill, Berkshire.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based
brand equity scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
IJBM Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F. and Bilim, Y. (2010), “Destination attachment: effects on customer
satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31
32,4 No. 2, pp. 274-284.
Zeithaml, V.A. (2000), “Service quality, profitability, and the economic worth of customers: what
we know and what we need to learn”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28
No. 1, pp. 67-85.
320
Further reading
Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N. (1995), “Brand equity, brand preference, and
purchase intent”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 25-40.
Lazarus, R.S. (1984), “On the primacy of cognition”, American Psychologist, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 124-129.
Corresponding author
Dr Meena Rambocas can be contacted at: Meena.Rambocas@sta.uwi.edu