Gonzalez-Benito et al. (2015) suggested that brands play an important role as information signals in online contexts because consumers cannot touch or taste the products and the information they have is often imperfect. Similarly, Rios & Riquelme (2010) identified various sources of difference between online and offline environments.
Firstly, in online environments, customers interact with websites and technology to build experience about a brand (Dayal, Landesberg, & Zeisser, 2000), while in the offline context, customers are in touch with actual people rather than technologies (Rios & Riquelme, 2010). Secondly, some online specific sources could affect consumers perceptions, for example, the navigation, personalisation and reliability of websites can influence consumers’ perceptions and image of the brand (Page & Lepkowska-White, 2002; Rios & Riquelme, 2010). Thirdly, due to the intangible nature of online businesses, trust plays an important role in forming consumer based brand equity compared to offline contexts (wherein physical and tangible features are accessible to interact with by the customers (Berry, 2007)) (Christodoulides et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2002; Rios & Riquelme, 2010). Furthermore, it is suggested that due to the unique characteristics of online brands (such as intangibility) and the fact that brand experience occurs while visiting the online websites (Berry & Seltman, 2007), the dimensions of brand equity are more similar to services than the classical offline dimensions developed for products (Davis, 2000; Jevons and Gabbott, 2000; Rios & Riquelme, 2010).
Similarly, it is possible to assume that the differences between the brand equity of online brands and offline brands are rooted in the different sources of brand images (Page & Lepkowska- White, 2002). For example, in the offline context, associations are formed around characteristics of the product (i.e. associations about a computer is formed around its CPU speed, hard drive capacity, etc.) (Page & Lepkowska-White, 2002). However, for online
47
brands, the website related associations can also play a role in consumers’ formation of brand image (i.e. easy to use website, navigation and speed) along with product related features (Page & Lepkowska-White, 2002). In addition to website related association, new technologies have increased the number of consumer-brand contact points (such as social media and user- generated contents) in the digital context (Swaminathan, 2016). This in turn highlights the effect of online brand interaction and communication as sources of brand image and brand equity (Swaminathan, 2016).
Page & Lepkowska-White (2002, p.233) proposed that the factors that influence online brand equity consist of “Marketing Communication”, “Website design features”, “Vendor characteristics” and “public/service characteristics” . Marketing communication is divided into marketer communication and non-marketer communication (Page & Lepkowska-White, 2002). Marketer communication is comprised of advertisements, promotions, direct marketing and public relations, whilst, non-marketer communications comprises of actions such as word of mouth or non-marketer related publicities (Page & Lepkowska-White, 2002).
Website design feature include factors such as
- Reliability (consistency of the website).
- Navigation (easiness of finding required information).
- Quality information (the quality of the relevant information provided by website).
- Product comparison (ease of comparing different products).
- Personalised (how customised the information are for different users)
- Experiential (customers experience of the website such as enjoyment, fun)
48 Vendor characteristics refers to factors such as
- Customer service (the level of responsiveness to customer needs and inquiries). - Privacy (the ways the vendor protects customers privacy and information). - Security (the guarantee of the websites security)
- Trustworthiness (the reliability of the vendor) (Page & Lepkowska-White, 2002). Product/service characteristics refer to the quality (the quality of actual products/services), selection (a suitable array of products/ services) and price (the perception of the offered price) of online websites (Page & Lepkowska-White, 2002).
In addition, there are changes in the digital environment that can also influence branding and brand management. Gürhan-Canli, Hayran, & Sarial-Abi, (2016) explained that macro changes in the digital business environment may influence consumers’ expectations. As the consumers’ expectations are transformed, the underlying factors that create strong brands are also affected such as “fast paced technological advances”, “Digital (online) developments and increased connectivity” and “Social and environmental constraints” (Gurhan-Canli et al., 2016, p.25). They further noted that, to address these changes and create a strong image, brands must have three attributes, namely, innovativeness, responsiveness and responsibility. For instance, fast- paced technological advancements have improved service quality, customer services and personalization of goods and services. Accordingly, for brands to stay competitive and create the desired and valued brand perceptions, they need to be innovative in addressing new and changing customer needs and expectations. Similarly, consumers demand faster and more effective responses from brands in the digital environment. The increase in the number of social networking sites, and improved connectivity and digital information flow, has transformed the relationship between consumers and brands. Thus, brand responsiveness can influence consumers’ perceptions and image about the brand and serve as a source of unique brand
49
associations. Finally, the increasing levels of consumer interactions online and the formation of online communities highlight the significance of brands’ social and environmental responsibility (Gurhan-Canli et al., 2016).
To distinguish between offline and online brand equity, Kim et al. (2002) explained that creating brand equity in online context differs from the brick and mortar environment, because offline brands are unique and harder to replicate. Therefore, the differentiation of brands from competitors’ is indispensable for successful branding in online contexts (Rana et al., 2015). Kim et al. (2002) further explained that finding requisite information and comparing brands are much easier in online contexts because of the internet. Therefore, creating brand equity in online environments requires a different strategy to offline contexts (Kim et al., 2002). Hence, it implies that assuming the traditional dimensions of consumer based brand equity for online brands without considering the differences between these two contexts is inadequate (Meyers and Gerstman, 2001; Rios & Riquelme, 2010; Swaminathan, 2016). This is because such differences have implications on online brand equity dimensions (Keller, 2016; Rana et al., 2015; Swaminathan, 2016).
However, despite the discrepancies between these two contexts, some studies have used Aaker’s (1991) or Keller’s (2003) traditional brand equity dimensions to measure CBBE in the online and mobile commerce (m-commerce) context (i.e. Kim et al., 2002; Page & Lepkowska- White, 2002; Wang & Li, 2012). Accordingly, this thesis maintains the view that although the previously identified dimensions of offline brand equity could apply in online contexts, the differences between the two environments must also be considered. Following the clarification of the differences between the online and offline contexts, it is important to note here that these two environments also share some similarities as well. In the next section, these similarities are examined, followed by a review of the relevant literature on online brand equity, and finally, a conceptualisation of the CBBE in a digital environment.
50