Hierarchy of Effects as a Framework for Building Customer-Based

limit their comprehensibility and accessibility from a practitioner’s perspective.

However, altogether, Aaker’s model seems to be a promising framework for the develop- ment of a brand equity model in an office property context. In particular, its advantages regarding academic requirements and its obvious dominance in the field of industrial brand equity research suggest the model as an appropriate basis for the second study in this work.

The review of adaptions of Aaker’s original model offered several valuable points of refer- ence for this work. For one thing, the applicability of the fifth dimension (other proprietary assets) is generally questionable when a clear customer-based brand equity perspective is applied. Thus, it seems appropriate to exclude this component from the conceptual do- main of brand equity for the purpose of this work. For another, the business-to-business context might require some adaptions of Aaker’s framework. In particular, the individual relevance of the different dimensions may vary between study settings and should be clar- ified for the office property context. In this regard, special attention should be paid to the role of brand awareness, and the potential relevance of brand familiarity should be dis- cussed. Moreover, the particular importance of trust as a cornerstone of valued business relationships should be examined in the light of the characteristics of the office property setting and might be considered in the conceptualization of the brand equity construct. The relevance of the different brand equity components and potential adjustments in a business-to-business environment were only briefly discussed on a general level in this section in order to derive the fundamental reference points for the second study in this work. Their actual applicability in an office property context is examined in more detail in Section Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden..

2.4.3 Hierarchy of Effects as a Framework for Building Customer-Based Brand Equity

Following a customer-based brand equity perspective, the dimensions of the construct can be seen as core components of individuals’ brand knowledge that should be ad- dressed by marketers in order to build strong brands in customers’ minds, which ultimately have an influence on their preferences and purchasing behavior. In this regard, AAKER’s

(1996, 1991) original model did not explicitly account for the potential relationships be- tween the dimensions of brand equity but rather focused on describing their conceptual domain and suggesting different perspectives for the development of measurement ap- proaches. However, later advances of the model obviously suggest a causal order be- tween the brand equity elements.

In order to develop a sequence of the brand equity components, authors have frequently relied on hierarchy-of-effects models as a framework for their hypotheses. Hierarchy-of- effects approaches, which originate from the field of advertising effectiveness research in a business-to-customer context, assume a connected series of responses to communica-

tion, where customers’ attitudes develop in a sequence of consecutive steps.385 _{In this re-}

gard, hierarchy-of-effects models differ primarily in their level of detail and thus in the number of stages.386 Their common core, however, is the assumption that according to cognitive learning theory, cognitive advertising effects precede affective effects, which are followed by conative effects. Together, cognitive, affective, and conative elements form an individual’s overall attitude.387

The AIDA model, developed by LEWIS in 1898 as a practice-based recommendation for the structure of sales conversations, is one of the most well-known hierarchy-of-effects models.388 The model suggests that advertising must catch customers’ attention, raise their interest, convince them that they desire the product or service, and lead them toward purchasing. Descending from Lewis’ basic approach, numerous hierarchy-of-effects mod- els have been developed, of which the model proposed by LAVIDGE/STEINER (1961) has been repeatedly applied in a brand equity context.389 The model consists of six stages that represent the sequence of an informed customer’s responses to communication efforts from viewing a product advertisement to product purchase: (1) awareness, referring to a customer’s initial acquaintance with a product or service; (2) knowledge, denoting product- related knowledge resulting from direct and indirect experiences; (3) liking, related to a fa- vorable evaluation of a product; (4) preference, representing a preferential judgment com- pared to rival products in this category; (5) conviction, referring to a customer’s wish to purchase the product and the reassurance that acquiring the product is a safe choice; and (6) purchase, describing the actual act of buying the product.390 Considering the sequence of the stages, the authors remark that the steps are not necessarily equidistant and that customers may move up several steps simultaneously.391 The authors were the first to as- sociate these steps with the cognitive, affective, and conative components proposed by attitude theory.392 In this regard, Lavidge/Steiner suggested that the first two stages relate to the cognitive or rational dimension, the third and fourth to the affective or emotional di- mension, and the fifth and sixth to the conative or motivational dimension.393

However, hierarchy-of-effects models, such as the AIDA model or Lavidge/Steiner’s mod- el, have not been free of criticism. In particular, they have been criticized for overly sim- plistic assumptions. For instance, they do not consider contextual and potentially disrup-

385

See ORMENO (2007), pp. 63-64.

386

See HUBER/MEYER/NACHTIGALL (2009), pp. 12.

387

See KOTLER/BLIEMEL (2001), p. 894. In fact, mainly the change from a stimulus-response para- digm toward a stimulus-organism-response paradigm, which emphasizes the importance of in- dividuals’ attitudes as major factors influencing the effectiveness of communication activities, has driven the development of hierarchy-of-effects models. However, they are still incapable of explaining exactly how attitudes are developed in individuals’ minds and provide only specula- tive answers based on observable stimuli and responses. (See BONGARD (2002), pp. 213-214.) 388

See HUBER/MEYER/NACHTIGALL (2009), pp. 12; KROEBER-RIEL/WEINBERG (2003), p. 612; KOT-

LER/ BLIEMEL (2001), pp. 891-894.

389

For a comprehensive overview and critical discussion of hierarchy-of-effects models, see, for in- stance, BONGARD (2002), pp. 211-292.

390

See HUBER/MEYER/NACHTIGALL (2009), pp. 13; BONGARD (2002), pp. 219-220; LAVIDGE/STEINER

(1961), p. 59. It should be noted that the authors originally suggested seven steps, including customers’ unawareness as an initial stage.

391

See LAVIDGE/STEINER (1961), p. 60.

392

See BONGARD (2002), p. 220.

393

tive factors, such as individuals’ involvement, interferences with positive attitudes toward other products of the same category, financial restrictions, or individual values and expec- tations of an individual’s peer group.394 _{In a brand context, W}

EILBACHER (2001) emphasiz- es that “For most brands, the consumer mind is not a blank sheet awaiting information and instruction from advertising.”395 _{Consequently, the author states that not only market-}

ers’ brand building efforts form the context of brand selections and purchase decisions but rather the collective residue of all prior experiences of an individual. In a response to Weilbacher’s criticism, BARRY (2002) generally acknowledges the main drawbacks of hi- erarchy-of-effects models but strongly emphasizes their overall value as an intuitive and accessible training, planning, and conceptual tool that helps to predict behavior and pro- vides information on where advertising and brand building strategies should focus.396 In fact, their accessibility might be one of the main reasons hierarchy-of-effects models have been repeatedly applied as a framework for studying the causal order among the dimensions of brand equity from a customer’s view. In a business-to-customer context, for instance, YOO/DONTHU (2001) directly referred to Lavidge/Steiner’s model in order to ex-

plain a potential causal relationship between the different components of the construct.397 Similarly, CHIOU/DROGE/HANVANICH (2002) relied on a cognitive-affective-conative frame-

work to investigate the sequence of steps to building brand loyalty.398 Building upon the work of Chiou/Droge/Hanvanich and Lavidge/Steiner’s model, GIL/ANDRÉS/SALINAS (2007) derived hypotheses on how brand equity components might interrelate in a convenience goods setting.399 Likewise, in their studies on antecedents and consequences of brand equity in sportswear, consumer electronics, and automotive markets, BUIL/DECHERNATONY/MARTÍNEZ (2013) and BUIL/MARTÍNEZ/DE CHERNATONY (2013) re- ferred to the traditional hierarchy-of-effects model in order to develop a framework regard- ing the relationships among brand equity dimensions.400 Finally, it should be noted that the basic sequence of cognitive, affective, and conative stages has also been incorporated in- to brand building theories such as the customer-based brand equity pyramid proposed by KELLER (2001b).401 In particular, Lavidge/Steiner’s model is reflected in the brand equity building steps (identity, meaning, response, relationship) and the corresponding six build- ing blocks (salience, performance, imagery, judgment, feelings, resonance).402

394

See REINECKE/JANZ (2007), pp. 227-229; KROEBER-RIEL/ESCH (2004), pp. 158-159; ZEIT-

HAML/BERRY/PARASURAMAN (1996), p. 33.

395 See WEILBACHER (2001), p. 22. 396 See BARRY (2002), p. 46. 397 See YOO/DONTHU (2001), p. 12. 398

See CHIOU/DROGE/HANVANICH (2002), p. 114.

399

See GIL/ANDRÉS/SALINAS (2007), pp. 190-191.

400

See BUIL/DECHERNATONY/MARTÍNEZ (2013), p. 118; BUIL/MARTÍNEZ/DE CHERNATONY (2013), p.

63.

401

See KELLER (2001b), p. 17.

402

For a business-to-business context, KUHN/ALPERT/POPE (2008) proposed a modified version of Keller’s brand equity pyramid in order to account for particularities of the industrial setting. The authors suggested replacing imagery with supplier reputation, since business customers’ asso- ciations focused mainly on product performance features. Moreover, they concluded that emo- tions are less important in a business-to-business context and proposed replacing the feelings building block with sales force relationship. Finally, salience should focus on the manufacturer brand, and resonance should refer to customers’ relationship with representatives of the com- pany behind the brand. However, other publications, such as LEEK/CHRISTODOULIDES (2012) and

Compared to brand equity research in a business-to-customer setting, few contributions have considered direct effects between brand equity dimensions in a business-to- business environment. In an early study, GORDON/CALANTONE/DI BENEDETTO (1993) sug- gested five evolutionary stages of brand equity, relying mainly on Aaker’s brand equity dimensions: (1) brand birth, (2) creation of brand awareness and associations, (3) estab- lishing quality and value perceptions, (4) emergence of brand loyalty, and (5) launching of brand extensions. Nonetheless, one must state that despite their valuable explanation of a hierarchy of effects among brand equity elements, the authors provide only exploratory evidence to support this model.403 KIM/HYUN (2011) consider several direct effects be- tween the brand equity dimensions in a model examining the impact of marketing-mix ef- forts and corporate image on brand equity in the IT software sector.404 It should be noted, however, that the model deviates from Aaker’s original suggestion as it does not distin- guish between awareness and associations but rather proposes a combined construct. In closer proximity to Aaker, BIEDENBACH (2012) and BIEDENBACH/MARRELL (2010) refer to GORDON/CALANTONE/DI BENEDETTO’S (1993) model and suggest a causal chain between the four brand equity dimensions. The authors point out that brand awareness is a neces- sary condition for establishing a brand node in memory. On this basis, brand-related expe- riences result in brand associations, which may lead to positive perceptions of a compa- ny’s performance and quality level. In the last step, those favorable judgments may trans- late into brand loyalty.405 In a professional services context, the authors found strong em- pirical support for their hypotheses, although BIEDENBACH/MARELL (2010) were not able to confirm a positive effect of brand awareness on brand associations. As a last case in point, it should be noted that the practice-based MARKET-Q model also assumes a basic hierarchy of effects between its brand equity dimensions but without directly referencing Aaker’s model. Nonetheless, considering the facets of the different constructs, the se- quence of influencing factors (product and process quality, relationship quality, and brand quality) and effects (price, volume, and support premium) corresponds to the basic cogni- tive-affective-conative framework.406

The above considerations provide a main point of reference for this work. Existing publica- tions in business-to-business and business-to-customer settings strongly suggest that brand equity dimensions are interrelated. More specifically, brand equity components may follow a causal order that represents an individual’s learning process in building brand- related knowledge structures. In this regard, hierarchy-of-effects models seem to be a promising basic framework for determining a general sequence of brand equity dimen- sions and deriving more specific hypotheses. In particular, Lavidge/Steiner’s model and the underlying cognitive-affective-conative framework have been repeatedly applied in earlier studies and might also prove valuable for examining how brand equity is built in an office property context. Incorporating hierarchy-of-effects models as a framework for con- ceptualizing brand equity is also explicitly supported by BIEDENBACH (2012a), who states

JENSEN/KLASTRUP (2008), clearly emphasize the relevance of emotions and imagery in a busi-

ness-to-business context, thus partially questioning the relevance of Kuhn/Alpert/Pope’s ad- justments.

403

See GORDON/CALANTONE/DI BENEDETTO (1993), p. 5.

404

See KIM/HYUN (2011), p. 429.

405

See BIEDENBACH (2012), pp. 28-29; BIEDENBACH/MARRELL (2010), p. 449.

406

that “(…) knowledge about the interrelationships present between the dimensions of brand equity can be of high value for companies aiming to build strong brands, because actions aimed to enhance one of the dimensions might have potential consequences for the other dimensions.”407