Cuong, 2023

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 11

Marketing and Management of Innovations, 1, 2023

ISSN 2218-4511 (print) ISSN 2227-6718 (online)

IMPACT OF BRAND EQUITY ON INTENTION TO USE INSTANT COFFEE

Dam Tri Cuong, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5965-404X


Ph.D., Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
damtricuong@iuh.edu.vn
Type of manuscript: research paper

Abstract: Today, brand equity is acknowledged as a key component of a company's business strategy, a tactical issue
for achieving a competitive edge, a key component of brand building, and a tool for gauging the long-term effects of
actions in marketing. Research of brand equity on purchase intentions for goods like food, smartphones, and green
products is frequently available empirically, whereas instant coffee studies are less prevalent. Thus, to close this gap in
the literature, the aim's research is to empirically evaluate the impact of brand equity on consumers' intent to use instant
coffee. The conceptual model of brand equity components is built on Aaker's model. Using a Google form and a
convenience sampling technique, this study examined a sample of 296 consumers who bought instant coffee. A 5-point
Likert scale was used in the measurement. The research model was suggested based on earlier investigations. Data from
296 clients was obtained, and SmartPLS software was utilized to evaluate it. Analyze the scales' validity and reliability
concerning the measurement model. The reliability of the scales was assessed using composite reliability and Cronbach's
alpha. Discriminant validity was also assessed using the Fornell-Larcker index. Structural equation modeling was used
to analyze the effects of the research's hypotheses. The results demonstrated that brand equity dimensions favorably
influence consumers' purchasing intentions for instant coffee. Specifically, brand awareness has a favorable correlation
with consumers' purchasing intent. Perceived quality and purchase intention are related positively. Additionally, brand
associations and buyers' purchase intentions have been positively impacted. Brand loyalty has also positively impacted
consumers' intentions to buy. Brand awareness is the most crucial factor that impacts the intention to buy instant coffee.
The empirical research on the impact of brand equity components on the intention to purchase instant coffee is a gap in
the literature that this study is aimed to fill. Moreover, the managers of instant coffee will also benefit from knowing how
brand equity dimensions affect consumers' intentions to buy instant coffee as they develop marketing strategies to
increase those intentions.
Keywords: brand awareness, brand association, perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand equity, purchase intention,
instant coffee, Vietnam.
JEL Classification: M19, M30, M31

Received: 25 January 2023 Accepted: 18 March 2023 Published: 31 March 2023

Funding: This study is aided by the Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City

Publisher: Academic Research and Publishing UG

Cite as: Cuong, D. T. (2023). Impact of Brand Equity on Intention to Use Instant Coffee. Marketing and
Management of Innovations, 1, 111-121. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2023.1-10

Copyright: © 2023 by the author. Licensee Academic Research and Publishing UG (i. G.), Germany.
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).
111
Marketing and Management of Innovations, 1, 2023
ISSN 2218-4511 (print) ISSN 2227-6718 (online)

Introduction. Brand equity has been one of the research subjects that individuals have been most
concerned about in recent years (Husain et al., 2022; Rizwan et al., 2021; Sadyk and Islam, 2022). Marketers
need to create a strong brand to achieve sustainable competitive advantages and distinguish their products
from competitors, which is the main factor driving brand equity's dominance in marketing (Keller, 2003). In
the 1980s, advertisers used brand equity as a concept for the first time. Research at the time was primarily
concerned with applying financial methods to assess brand equity (Simon and Sullivan, 1993; Swait́ et al.,
1993). Brand equity's definition as it regards consumers has received recent research attention, and it has been
enlarged to include the impact of brand equity on the intention to buy (Keller, 1993; Ogunnaike et al., 2017;
Sadyk and Islam, 2022; van Osselaer and Alba, 2000). On the other side, brand equity is today recognized as
a major company's strategic asset, a tactical concern for gaining a competitive edge, a crucial element of brand
development, and a meter for gauging the long-term effects of marketing initiatives. (Chahal et al., 2022).
Moreover, Brand equity can be argued from the standpoint of the producer, the seller, the purchaser, or the
investor, according to Cobb-Walgren et al. (1995). Brand equity offers the producer a great benefit, allowing
the business to create more with higher margins. Brand equity provides a strong basis for launching new
products and safeguards the brand from threats from competitors. According to the business, brand equity
improves how people regard the retail space. It boosts client traffic, guarantees stable volume, and lessens the
risk of allocating shelf space. All of this won't matter, though, if the brand means nothing to the buyer. Brand
equity is a multi-dimensional construct that can be used to measure brands by considering factors related to
consumer behaviour, perceptions, and preferences (Jalilvand et al., 2011; Ogunnaike et al., 2017).
Furthermore, recent research findings suggested a link between brand equity and purchase intention (Chahal
et al., 2022; Hansopaheluwakan et al., 2020; Kyguoliene and Zikiene, 2021; Rungsrisawat and Sirinapatpokin,
2019; Shah et al., 2016; Tharmi and Senthilnathan, 2012).
On the other hand, during the pandemic era, when the world's economy was badly impacted, the coffee
demand did not decline but rather grew. Similar to other countries, Vietnam has seen a strong rise in local
coffee using up. In particular, the Ministry of Industry and Trade data shows that Vietnam exported 1.13
million tons of coffee, approximately 2.56 billion USD, in the first seven months of 2022, representing a
17.3% volume growth and a 43.6% value rise over the same time in 2021. Notably, the export of products
instant coffee reached over 345 million USD in the first seven months of 2022, according to the Vietnam
Coffee and Cocoa Association (Vicofa), accounting for 14-15% of total coffee export turnover (Phan Trang,
2022). Consumers prefer instant coffee because it is convenient and quick to prepare, saving time and suitable
especially for busy people in today's modern society. Currently, there are many instant coffee brands in
Vietnam, such as G7, Nescafe, Highlands Coffee, Starbucks, Vinacafe, K-Coffee, Tchibo, etc... This leads to
fierce competition among instant coffee brands above. Therefore, to attract customers who intend to choose
their instant coffee brand, businesses must build their core brand equity, creating differences from rivals so
that customers intend to choose their brand, not the competitors. Numerous research has looked at how brand
equity dimensions affect consumers' intentions to buy (e.g. Ahmed, 2020; Chahal et al., 2022; Gautam and
Shrestha, 2018; Kyguoliene and Zikiene, 2021). However, these studies just focused on purchasing food,
smartphones, green products, etc. There haven't been many studies on how brand equity affects consumers'
intentions to buy instant coffee. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the effect of brand equity on the
intention to use instant coffee in Vietnam. This study highlights for managers and academics the importance
of brand equity dimensions' impact on clients' intent to buy instant coffee.
The following is the study's structure. Next section, the review of the following literature includes the
creation of hypotheses along with definitions of brand equity and its various dimensions. After that, presenting
methodology and research methodologies. Finally, the conclusion is offered after the outcome section.
Literature Review. Brand equity (BREQ), according to Farquhar (1989), is the “additional value” that a
brand confers on a certain commodity or service. Similarly, Keller (1993) defined BREQ as the marketing
benefits or outcomes that a good/service receives due to its brand name, as opposed to the outcomes of a
good/service that didn't have the brand name. According to Aaker (1991), BREQ is a group of liabilities and
assets related to a brand, symbol, or its name that affects how much benefit a service or item can provide to a
business and its clients. For both the client and the business, BREQ adds value by informing people, boosting
their buying confidence, driving purchases, and enhancing their self-worth, such as when they feel at ease
with specific brands. It is founded on the notion that well-known companies can make more money by
producing things under their brand name. Customers constantly give well-known brands preferences because
of the quality and consistency that they provide. Also called brand equity or brand value (Rungsrisawat and
Sirinapatpokin, 2019).

112
Marketing and Management of Innovations, 1, 2023
ISSN 2218-4511 (print) ISSN 2227-6718 (online)

BREQ has been conceptualized as a dimensional variable by Aaker (1991, 1996) and Keller (1993), who
have also proposed measurement models that use several factors associated with customer behaviour,
perceptions, and preferences. In the marketing-associated academic community, the model put forth by Aaker
(1991, 1996) and Keller (1993) stand out as key references because they offer a thorough and integrated
approach to the concept of BREQ (Calvo-Porral et al., 2015; Jung and Sung, 2008; Yoo and Donthu, 2002).
In light of this, the model proposed by Aaker (1991) is chosen for this study because it is the most commonly
cited and has been the topic of numerous empirical studies (Ahmed, 2020; Calvo-Porral et al., 2015; Chahal
et al., 2022; Sadyk and Islam, 2022). The four dimensions (brand awareness, perceived quality, brand
association, and brand loyalty) are considered in a model of BREQ based on Aaker's (1991) theoretical
framework.
Purchase intention (PIN) is viewed as an important aspect of brand marketing since it helps marketers
understand and forecast consumer behaviour. Additionally, it has been demonstrated by certain that
purchasing intention plays a significant role in determining the final purchase decision and may encourage
future repeat purchases (Cahyanaputra et al., 2022; Pavlou and Gefen, 2004; Pi et al., 2011). PIN, regarded as
a crucial predictor of actual purchases, is described as circumstances in which customers tend to acquire a
particular item under specific circumstances (Yang et al., 2022). According to Howard (1994), consumers'
PINs to make actual purchases within a certain time are closely related to their intentions to buy. The desire
or motivation people feel about buying a particular brand after learning more about it before making any
purchases is tailored to individual attitudes and brand perceptions. Customers' PINs are directly linked to their
ability to complete actual purchases within a predetermined time range (Madahi and Sukati, 2012). PIN is
also referred to as the urge or incentive that develops in customers' brains to purchase a specific brand once
they investigate it before actually opting to make certain purchases depending on their needs, beliefs, and
judgments of a brand (Madahi and Sukati, 2012). Hosein (2012) asserts that interest, attendance, and
information can be used to evaluate consumers' purchase intentions. Consumers' interest in a brand is what
motivates them to make a purchase. Participating in displays and other associated services that influence a
consumer's purchase choice is referred to as attending. Information is any new information and facts that
customers learn about a brand to decide whether to purchase it (Santoso and Cahyadi, 2014).
Brand awareness (BRAW) measures how easily and how likely it is for a consumer to think about a product
or service (Keller 1993). BRAW measures how well customers remember a brand (Aaker, 1991). According
to Kim and Kim (2004), brand awareness refers to a company's capacity to come to mind when consumers
consider a particular product category. Ukpebor and Ipogah (2008) defined BRAW as the degree of brand
familiarity demonstrated by brand recognition, brand recall, and top of mind. Brand recognition, also known
as helped recall, is the process by which consumers can recall a certain brand with the help of something or
someone, such as a symbol, logo, slogan, marketing, or packing. Brand awareness supports the brand and
makes it easier for others to recognize it. When customers can quickly and unaided recall a brand from a
category in their minds, that is what is meant by brand recall (unaided recall). To establish the brand in
consumers' minds, brand recall is used. Top of mind is the first brand that comes to consumers' minds when
they consider a particular product or service category since they are familiar with the brand. Top-of-mind
marketing aims to make a brand the top option for customers. Rossiter and Percy (1987) defined BRAW as
the consumer's ability to recognize and remember the brand within a certain goods class. How noticeable a
brand gets in the marketplace has an impact on the role BRAW plays in BREQ. The more dominant the brand
is, the more likely it is to be taken into account in numerous purchasing circumstances and the higher the level
of awareness. Therefore, increasing BRAW increases the likelihood of a brand being considered (Calvo-Porral
et al., 2015; Nedungadi, 1990). Prior studies disclosed that BRAW positively impacts PIN (Ahmed, 2020;
Chahal et al., 2022; Kyguoliene and Zikiene, 2021). Therefore, the following hypothesis is posed:
H1: There is a positively correlated between BRAW and PIN.
Perceived quality (PEQU), according to Aaker (1991), is an overall abstract impression of a brand typically
dependent on underlying characteristics. As a result, PEQU is associated with consumers' subjective opinions
of features of a good or a brand that are crucial for making decisions. According to Chieng and Lee (2011),
PEQU refers to consumer evaluation and perception of an item's general excellence or advantage over
competing goods or services. Chieng and Lee (2011) also thought that clients had trouble making the right
judgments about products; as a result, PEQU was developed to assess a product's overall quality. A brand can
provide consumers with reasons to buy its products or services by focusing on PEQU, which also helps to
distinguish and position the company's goods. The ability to command a higher price, draw in new customers
and permit brand extensions are all made possible by PEQU, which is advantageous for businesses (Aaker,

113
Marketing and Management of Innovations, 1, 2023
ISSN 2218-4511 (print) ISSN 2227-6718 (online)

1991). Some scholars demonstrated the impact of PEQU significantly on PIN (Calvo-Porral et al., 2015;
Chahal et al., 2022; Kyguoliene and Zikiene, 2021). In light of this, the following hypothesis is made:
H2: There is a positive relationship between PEQU and PIN.
Brand association (BRAS), according to Aaker (1991), is characteristic that people associate with a
product, such as benefits, uses, lifestyles, product classifications, rival brands, and places of origin. BRAS can
give reasons for customers to switch to other brands and offer them a reason to stay loyal to that brand by
offering them reasons to prefer one brand over another, buy motivations, positive views, and emotions that
may affect buying behavior and pleasure. The three components of BRAS are attributes, benefits, and attitudes
(Keller, 2013). Brand attributes are thought of as qualities of a product or service. The traits may comprise
both characteristics connected to the product and characteristics unrelated to it. Features that relate to a
product's or service's physical characteristics or needs are referred to as product-related features and differ
depending on the type of product or service. Non-product-related elements are the exterior aspects of the good
or service that are connected to its acquisition, including the cost, user, consumption, and packaging details.
Brand benefits denote the connections between a brand's associations and its advantages, which bind people
to a particular brand. Three sorts of benefits can be distinguished: functional, experiential, and symbolic
benefits. Functional benefits are connected to pretty fundamental drives like safety requirements or avoidance.
Consumers' feelings when using the goods or services are referred to as experiential benefits. Symbolic gains
are the extrinsic advantages of utilizing a good or service that is linked to the need for social approval or
personal expressions, such as status and exclusivity. A consumer's overall perceptions of a brand are summed
up as brand attitudes. Brand attitudes lay the groundwork for consumer behavior and brand-related behavior
based on the characteristics and advantages of the brand itself. According to earlier studies, BRAS and PIN
are positively correlated (Chahal et al., 2022; Santoso and Cahyadi, 2014). In light of this, the hypothesis is
made as follows:
H3: There is a positive relationship between BRAS and PIN.
One of the essential dimensions of BREQ is brand loyalty (BRLO). Aaker (1991) asserts that BRLO
measures how closely a brand is connected to its customers. Consumers' BRLO indicates if they will switch
to another brand if pricing or features change. BRLO refers to customers' persistent will to continue
subscribing to or purchasing the product in the future with the same brand. It influences how susceptible
customers are to shifting competition. Even if a brand is unavailable in the store, a customer is considered
brand loyal if they do not simply switch to another one (Jalilvand et al., 2011). BRLO is generally understood
to be a favorite for a brand higher than others currently available (Sharma et al., 2013). The behavioral,
attitudinal, and choice components represent the three parts of BRLO by Javalgi and Moberg (1997).
In contrast to the behavioral component of BRLO, which focuses on how frequently a particular brand is
purchased, the attitudinal component of BRLO combines the preferences and tendencies of customers toward
the brand. The choice component of BRLO addresses both the motivations behind brand purchases and the
variables influencing consumer choice. According to earlier research, BRLO can predict PIN and considerably
impacts PIN (Gabriella and Sonny, 2021; Jalilvand et al., 2011; Rungsrisawat and Sirinapatpokin, 2019). The
following hypothesis is put out in light of this:
H4: There is a positive relationship between BRLO and PIN.
Figure 1 depicts the suggested research model developed based on the premise above.

Brand equity

Brand awareness
H1

H2
Perceived quality
H3 Purchase intention

Brand association H4

Brand loyalty

Figure 1. Research model


Sources: developed by the author.

114
Marketing and Management of Innovations, 1, 2023
ISSN 2218-4511 (print) ISSN 2227-6718 (online)

Methodology and research methods. Consumers who purchased instant coffee in Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam,
were investigated using a Google form and a convenience sampling methodology. To fit the research situation,
the measuring indicators of the constructs from earlier studies were updated and adjusted. The indicators were
scaled on a five-point Likert scale. Four BRAW indicators, four PEQU indicators, four BRAS indicators, four
BRLO indicators, and three PIN indicators (from scholars, i.e., Calvo-Porral et al., 2015; Jalilvand et al., 2011;
Lee and Leh, 2011; Santoso and Cahyadi, 2014) was amended for this study.
Furthermore, according to Fan et al. (2016), the sample size for this research should be at least 100
responses or five times the indicators in the construct under investigation. The lowest representative sample
with 19 items to analyse is 19 x 5 = 95. Aside from that, the suggested research model will be tested utilizing
the partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) through Smart PLS software. The
suggested research model and the hypotheses were verified using the two steps described by Hair et al. (2021):
1. Evaluating the measurement model
2. Evaluating the structural model.
The reasons for using the PLS-SEM method as it provides latent constructs that could be evaluated with
one or more indicators, the ability to estimate very complex models with numerous variable and latent
variables, prevents unnecessary small sample size issues, has less strict distributional assumptions for
constructs, and manage formative estimation techniques (Henseler et al., 2009).
Results. 296 responses were acquired for data analysis after responses that lacked sufficient detail or
answered the same questions were eliminated. The demographics of the population are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. The demographics of the population
Gender Frequency % Income/month Frequency %
Male 188 63.5 < 5 mil VND 86 29.0
Female 108 36.5 5-10 mil VND 123 41.6
Age 11-20 mil VND 65 22.0
18-25 150 50.7 > 20 mil VND 22 7.4
26-35 91 30.7
36-45 42 14.2
>45 13 4.4
Sources: compiled by the author.
As shown in Table 1, 188 male respondents (63.5%) and 108 female respondents (36.5%) are in the sample.
50.7% of the respondents are between the ages of 18 and 25 (150), 30.7% are between the ages of 26 and 35
(91), 14.2% are between the ages of 36 and 45 (42), and 4.4% are over 45 (13). 86 respondents, or 29.0%,
reported monthly incomes of less than 5 million VND/month, 123 respondents (41.6%) between 5 and 10
million VND/month, 65 respondents (22.0%) between 11 and 20 million VND/month, and 22 respondents
(7.4%) more than 20 million VND/month.
Table 2 displays the factors' reliability and validity. As can be shown in Table 2, all variables' Cronbach
alpha (α) values (from 0.819 to 0.881) and composite reliability (CR) indexes (from 0.822 to 0.886) above the
threshold values of 0.7. As a result, the measures in the suggested model sufficiently reflect the variables'
reliability (Henseler et al., 2016; Sarstedt et al., 2017). Additionally, the average variance extracted (AVE)
from all variables exceeded 0.5 (0.647-0.738), and the outer loading of the variables' measurement indicators
exceeded 0.7; as a result, the recommended model is sufficiently convergent validity.

Table 2. Factors' reliability and validity


Outer
Factors/indicators α CR AVE
loading
Brand awareness-BRAW 0.842 0.853 0.679
BRAW1. I have heard of instant coffee under the X brand 0.818
BRAW2. I'm aware of the X brand of instant coffee 0.797
BRAW3. Among various brands of instant coffee, I can tell and recognize 0.800
X-brand instant coffee
BRAW4. I am familiar with how X-brand instant coffee seems 0.877
Perceived quality-PEQU 0.869 0.880 0.717
PEQU1. X brand instant coffee is of good quality products 0.838
PEQU2. X brand instant coffee is very reliable 0.814
PEQU3. X brand instant coffee has great products 0.872
PEQU4. Overall, I am satisfied with X brand instant coffee 0.862

115
Marketing and Management of Innovations, 1, 2023
ISSN 2218-4511 (print) ISSN 2227-6718 (online)

Continued Table 2
Outer
Factors/indicators α CR AVE
loading
Brand association-BRAS 0.881 0.886 0.738
BRAS1. I can recall the X brand instant coffee's symbol or logo with ease 0.858
BRAS2. It's safe to use X-brand instant coffee 0.878
BRAS3. I like the company that produces X brand instant coffee 0.809
BRAS4. X brand instant coffee is produced by a reputable company 0.888
Brand loyalty-BRLO 0.819 0.824 0.647
BRLO1. My preferred instant coffee is the X brand 0.813
BRLO2. If the store has X brand instant coffee, I won't purchase other 0.789
brands of instant coffee
BRLO3. I plan to continue purchasing X-brand instant coffee. 0.800
BRLO4. One of the favored brands of instant coffee I want to purchase is 0.815
the X brand
Purchase intention-PIN 0.819 0.822 0.734
PIN1. I would buy instant coffee from the X brand 0.853
PIN2. I intend to get X-brand instant coffee 0.876
PIN3. I'm prepared to purchase X brand instant coffee in the future 0.841
Sources: developed by the author based on SmartPLS output.

The relevant data is displayed in Table 3. The discriminant validity of the variables is supported by the fact
that all square roots of AVEs (given in bold) are higher than the relationships between the variables (Fornell
and Larcker, 1981; Henseler et al., 2016).

Table 3. Discriminant validity-Fornell-Larcker criterion


BRAS BRAW BRLO PEQU PIN
BRAS 0.859
BRAW 0.301 0.824
BRLO 0.465 0.161 0.8304
PEQU 0.446 0.238 0.334 0.847
PIN 0.600 0.510 0.469 0.457 0.857
Sources: developed by the author based on SmartPLS output

Model of structural. Figure 2 shows these results. Table 4 indicated that the 552.694 Chi-square value was
meaningful at the 0.05 level (p=0.00). The proposed research model's SRMR (Standardized root mean square
residual) was used to determine how well it fit the data. When the SRMR was less than 0.08, a model has
deemed a good match (Henseler et al., 2016). According to the study results in Table 4, the model had SRMR
indices of 0.061 < 0.08.

Table 4. Results of model fit


Saturated model Estimated model
SRMR 0.061 0.061
d_ULS 0.706 0.706
d_G 0.305 0.305
Chi-square 552.694 552.694
NFI 0.820 0.820
Sources: developed by the author based on SmartPLS output.

The proposed research model thus provides a good fit for the study's data. Furthermore, multicollinearity
analysis showed that all VIF indexes were lower than the criterion of 5 (see Table 5).

Table 5. Results of multicollinearity testing


VIF VIF VIF VIF VIF
BRAW1 2.070 PEQU1 2.177 BRAS1 2.188 BRLO1 2.040 PIN1 1.942
BRAW2 1.890 PEQU2 2.048 BRAS2 2.490 BRLO2 1.938 PIN2 1.993
BRAW3 1.825 PEQU3 2.232 BRAS3 1.908 BRLO3 1.634 PIN3 1.650
BRAW4 2.289 PEQU4 2.446 BRAS4 2.667 BRLO4 1.666
Sources: developed by the author based on SmartPLS output.
116
Marketing and Management of Innovations, 1, 2023
ISSN 2218-4511 (print) ISSN 2227-6718 (online)

Figure 2. Model of structural


Sources: developed by the author based on SmartPLS output.

Table 6 disclosed the results of the bootstrapping (5000 resamples) used to test the hypotheses for the
suggested research model's association between the constructs revealed that the hypotheses H1 (β = 0.339, P
= 0.000) H2 (β = 0.159, P = 0.001), H3 (β = 0.330, P = 0.000), and H4 (β = 0.208, P = 0.000) are statistically
significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 6. Results of hypotheses testing


Hypotheses Original sample T statistics P values Remark
H1: BRAW → PIN 0.339 6.951 0.000 Supported
H2: PEQU → PIN 0.159 3.339 0.001 Supported
H3: BRAS → PIN 0.330 6.166 0.000 Supported
H4: BRLO → PIN 0.208 3.825 0.000 Supported
Sources: developed by the author based on SmartPLS output.

Additionally, Figure 2's coefficient of determination (R square) for the structural model was 0.541, less
than 0.67, which is considered to have a medium effect (Chin, 1998). It shows that BRAW, PEQU, BRAS,
and BRLO were the four dimensions of BREQ that explained the 54.1% difference in clients' PIN.
Conclusions. While BREQ studies empirically on buy intentions of products like food, smartphones, green
products, etc., are widely available, studies of BREQ on PIN to instant coffee are less common. To close this
gap in the literature, this study aims to examine the impact of BREQ on PIN instant coffee empirically.
Therefore, the theoretical implications of this study include the construction of a conceptual framework and
the confirmation of the dimensions of BREQ on PIN to the instant coffee field. The findings showed that
BREQ components were significantly positive on PIN. Specifically, BRAW and PIN have the most significant
positive relationship. The finding is in line with Calvo-Porral et al. (2015) and Kyguoliene and Zikiene (2021).
These authors confirmed that BRAW positively and directly influenced consumers’ PIN, being the most
117
Marketing and Management of Innovations, 1, 2023
ISSN 2218-4511 (print) ISSN 2227-6718 (online)

component in BREQ increasing consumers' PIN. The outcome also showed that PEQU has positively
impacted PIN. According to this finding, earlier research (e.g., Chahal et al., 2022; Jalilvand et al., 2011) also
established that PEQU is a crucial influencer of PIN. The results also showed that BRAS has a favorable
impact on PIN. According to earlier studies, BRAS is a significant element of PIN (e.g., Chahal et al., 2022;
Jalilvand et al., 2011) that supports this conclusion. Likewise, the outcomes also demonstrated that BRLO has
a favorable effect on PIN. Previous studies (e.g., Gabriella and Sonny, 2021; Jalilvand et al., 2011;
Rungsrisawat and Sirinapatpokin, 2019) verify this idea BRLO is a significant factor in the PIN.
These results led to the conclusion that BRAW is the component of BREQ that most influence customers'
PIN instant coffee. Therefore, managers of instant coffee must pay close attention to BRAW to increase
customers' PINs. Managers should develop marketing strategies so that consumers are heard of, aware of their
instant coffee brand, can tell it apart from its competitors, and can identify it from their instant coffee to
increase BRAW. The more clients have BRAW of their instant coffee brand, the higher clients' PIN. The
results also indicated that BRAS is the second strong factor influencing consumers' PIN instant coffee.
Managers should therefore offer communication strategies to help customers remember, like, and feel secure
consuming their brand of instant coffee. Customers who associate positively with the instant coffee brand are
more likely to enhance PIN. The third significant element that significantly impacts PIN instant coffee is
BRLO. Therefore, management should offer promotion plans to ensure that customers believe their brand of
instant coffee is their first option, that they won't purchase another brand if their brand is offered at the store,
and that they intend to keep doing so. Finally, a significant element that affects PIN instant coffee is PEQU.
Therefore, managers need to develop marketing plans to help consumers understand that their brand of instant
coffee is a dependable source of high-quality items.
Despite the significant findings, this study has some limitations. First, this study was limited to an empirical
investigation of Ho Chi Minh City. Future research should expand this model to include other Vietnamese
cities. Second, four components of BREQ were used in this model to explain the 54.1% variation in the instant
coffee PIN. Therefore, future research should include other factors to explain the variation in the instant coffee
PIN.
Conflicts of Interest: Authors declare no conflict of interest.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

References

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. The Free Press. [Google Scholar]
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets. California Management
Review, 38(3), 102–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ahmed, S. (2020). Effect of Components of Brand Equity on Purchase Intention of Smartphones. Journal
of Marketing Strategies, 2(2), 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cahyanaputra, M., Jimmy, Y., & Annas, M. (2022). Factors Affecting Purchase Intention and Purchase
Behaviour Electronic Products (Home Appliance) in Online Transaction. Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference of Economics, Business, and Entrepreneurship. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Calvo-Porral, C., Martínez-Fernández, V. A., Juanatey-Boga, O., & Lévy-Mangín, J. P. (2015). Measuring
the influence of customer-based store brand equity in the purchase intention. Cuadernos de Gestion, 15(1),
93–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Chahal, B. P. S., Prakash, V., Vijayalaxmi, G. N., Mehra, K. G., Jalem, K., & Radhakrishnan, S. (2022).
Effect Of E-Word of Mouth on Brand Equity and Intention to Purchase : A Study on Green Products in The
Retail Sector. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(4), 9917–9924. [Google Scholar]
Chieng, F. Y. L., & Lee, G. C. (2011). Customer-Based Brand Equity: A Literature Review. Journal of
Arts Science & Commerce, 2(2011), 33–42. [Google Scholar]
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods
for business research, 295(2), 295-336. [Google Scholar]
Cobb-Walgren, C. J., Ruble, C. A., & Donthu, N. (1995). Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase
intent. Journal of Advertising, 24(3), 25–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fan, Y., Chen, J., Shirkey, G., John, R., Wu, S. R., Park, H., & Shao, C. (2016). Applications of structural
equation modeling (SEM) in ecological studies: an updated review. Ecological Processes, 5(1), 5–19. [Google
Scholar] [CrossRef]
118
Marketing and Management of Innovations, 1, 2023
ISSN 2218-4511 (print) ISSN 2227-6718 (online)

Farquhar, P. (1989). Managing Brand Equity. Marketing Research, 1(3), 24–33. [Google Scholar]
[CrossRef]
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables
and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gabriella, G., & Sonny, S. (2021). The Impact of Brand Equity To Purchase Intention (Case Study From
Iphone Users in Makassar). Jurnal Muara Ilmu Ekonomi Dan Bisnis, 5(1), 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gautam, D. K., & Shrestha, S. K. (2018). Impact of Brand Equity on Purchase Intention of Smart Phones.
The Institute of Management and Economy Research, 9(1), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hair, J., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
Hansopaheluwakan, S., Oey, E., & Setiawan, Y. (2020). The Impact of Brand Equity and Brand Trust
Towards Purchase Intention Through Brand Preference. Journal Of Archaeology Of Egypt/Egyptology, 18(1),
505–517. [Google Scholar]
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research:
Updated guidelines. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in
international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20(2009), 277–319. [Google Scholar]
[CrossRef]
Hosein, N. Z. (2012). Measuring the purchase intention of visitors to the auto show. Journal of
Management and Marketing Research, 9, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
Howard, J. A. (1994). Buyer behavior in marketing strategy. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
Husain, R., Ahmad, A., & Khan, B. M. (2022). The impact of brand equity, status consumption, and brand
trust on purchase intention of luxury brands. Cogent Business and Management, 9(1), 1–19. [Google Scholar]
[CrossRef]
Jalilvand, M. R., Samiei, N., & Mahdavinia, S. H. (2011). The Effect of Brand Equity Components on
Purchase Intention: An Application of Aaker’s Model in the Automobile Industry Mohammad. International
Business and Management, 2(2), 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Javalgi, R., & Moberg, C. R. (1997). Service loyalty: implications for service providers. Journal of Services
Marketing, 11(3), 165–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jung, J., & Sung, E. Y. (2008). Consumer-based brand equity: Comparisons among Americans and South
Koreans in the USA and South Koreans in Korea. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 12(1), 24–
35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal
of Marketing, 57, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge. Journal of
Consumer Research, 29(4), 595–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Keller, K. L. (2013). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity (4
(ed.)). Pearson Education, Ltd. [Google Scholar]
Kim, W. G., & Kim, H. B. (2004). Measuring customer-based restaurant brand equity: Investigating the
relationship between brand equity and firms’ performance. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 45(2), 115–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kyguoliene, A., & Zikiene, K. (2021). Impact of brand equity on purchase intentions buying food products
in Lithuania. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, 43(3),
373-382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lee, G., & Leh, F. (2011). Dimensions of Customer-Based Brand Equity: A Study on Malaysian Brands.
Journal of Marketing Research and Case Studies, 2011, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Madahi, A., & Sukati, I. (2012). The Effect of External Factors on Purchase Intention amongst Young
Generation in Malaysia. International Business Research, 5(8), 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nedungadi, P. (1990). Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice without Altering
Brand Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 263–276. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Ogunnaike, O. O., Kehinde, O. J., Omoyayi, O. O., Popoola, O. O., & Amoruwa, A. (2017).
Conceptualization of the Relationship between Brand Equity and Purchase Behavior. International Review of
Management and Marketing, 7(2), 403–408. [Google Scholar]
Pavlou, P. A., & Gefen, D. (2004). Building Effective Online Marketplaces With Institution-Based Trust.
Information Systems Research, 15(1), 37–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

119
Marketing and Management of Innovations, 1, 2023
ISSN 2218-4511 (print) ISSN 2227-6718 (online)

Phan Trang. (2022). Expanding the market, coffee exports are forecast to reach the target of 4 billion USD.
Retrieved from [Link]
Pi, S., Liao, H., Liu, S., & Lee, I. (2011). Factors Influencing the Behavior of Online Group-buying in
Taiwan. African Journal of Business Management, 5(16), 7120–7129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Rizwan, S., Al-Malkawi, H. A., Gadar, K., Sentosa, I., & Abdullah, N. (2021). Impact of brand equity on
purchase intentions: empirical evidence from the health takāful industry of the United Arab Emirates. ISRA
International Journal of Islamic Finance, 13(3), 349–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Rossiter, J., & Percy, L. (1987). Advertising and Promotion Management. Mc- Graw-Hill. [Google
Scholar]
Rungsrisawat, S., & Sirinapatpokin, S. (2019). Impact of brand equity on consumer purchase intent. Utopia
y Praxis Latinoamericana, 24(6), 360–369. [Google Scholar]
Sadyk, D., & Islam, D. M. Z. (2022). Brand Equity and Usage Intention Powered by Value Co-Creation:
A Case of Instagram in Kazakhstan. Sustainability, 14, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Santoso, C. R., & Cahyadi, T. E. (2014). Analyzing the Impact of Brand Equity towards Purchase Intention
in Automotive Industry: A Case Study of ABC in Surabaya. IBuss Management, 2(2), 29–39. [Google
Scholar]
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Joseph F. Hair. (2017). Partial least squares structural equation modeling
(PLS-SEM). In Handbook of Market Research. Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar]
[CrossRef]
Shah, S. M., Adeel, M., Hanif, F., & Khan, M. (2016). The Impact of Brand Equity on Purchase Intensions
with Modertaing Role of Subjective Norms. Universal Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 4(1),
18–24. [CrossRef]
Sharma, A., Bhola, S., Malyan, S., & Patni, N. (2013). Impact of Brand Loyalty on Buying Behavior of
Women Consumers for Beauty Care Products-Delhi Region. Global Journal of Management and Business
Studies, 3(7), 817–824. [Google Scholar]
Simon, C. J., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The Measurement and Determinants of Brand Equity: A Financial
Approach. Marketing Science, 12(1), 28–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Swait́, J., Erdem, T., Louviere, J., & Dubelaar, C. (1993). The equalization price: A measure of consumer-
perceived brand equity. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10(1), 23–45. [Google Scholar]
[CrossRef]
Tharmi, T., & Senthilnathan, S. (2012). The Relationship of Brand Equity to Purchase Intention. IUP
Journal of Marketing Management, 11(2), 7–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ukpebor, P., & Ipogah, B. (2008). A Study To Indicate the Importance of Consumer Based-Brand Equity
on Consumer Perception of Brand (A Case Study of Fast Food Restaurants) (pp. 1–85). RONNEBY. [Google
Scholar]
van Osselaer, S. M. J., & Alba, J. W. (2000). Consumer Learning and Brand Equity. Journal of Consumer
Research, 24(1), 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Yang, S., Isa, S. M., Wu, H., Thurasamy, R., Fang, X., Fan, Y., & Liu, D. (2022). Effects of stores’
environmental components on Chinese consumers’ emotions and intentions to purchase luxury brands:
Integrating partial least squares-structural equation modeling and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis
approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2002). Testing cross-cultural invariance of the brand equity creation process.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 11(6), 380–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Дам Трі Куонг, Ph.D., Індустріальний університет Хо Ші Мін, В'єтнам


Вплив вартості бренду на наміри споживання розчинної кави
Капітал бренду визнаний ключовим компонентом бізнес-стратегії компанії, тактичним питанням для
досягнення конкурентної переваги, ключовим компонентом побудови бренду та інструментом для вимірювання
довгострокових наслідків маркетингових дій. Аналіз наукових напрацювань свідчить про значну кількість
емпіричних робіт присвячених дослідженню харчових продуктів, смартфонів та екологічних товарів, тоді як
дослідження щодо розчинної кави менш поширені. З метою заповнення наявної прогалини в наукових
напрацюваннях, метою даного дослідження є емпірична оцінка впливу вартості бренду на наміри споживачів
споживати розчинну каву. Концептуальна модель компонентів капіталу бренду побудована на основі моделі
ідентичності бренда Аакера. Підґрунтям дослідження стали результати Google-анкетування 296 споживачів
розчинної кави. Відповіді до питань Google-форми було побудовано за 5-бальною шкалою Лайкерта. Для оцінки
отриманих відповідей використано програмне забезпечення SmartPLS. Автором розроблено модель дослідження
120
Marketing and Management of Innovations, 1, 2023
ISSN 2218-4511 (print) ISSN 2227-6718 (online)

з урахуванням результатів попередніх наукових напрацювань. У ході дослідження надійність шкал моделі
вимірювання оцінено за допомогою композитної надійності та коефіцієнта альфа Кронбаха, тоді як
дискримінантну валідність оцінено за допомогою індексу Форнелла-Ларкера. Для перевірки сформованих
гіпотез дослідження застосовано методологію моделювання структурних рівнянь. Отримані результати
дослідження свідчать про те, що виміри капіталу бренду позитивно впливають на наміри споживачів купувати
розчинну каву. Зокрема, позитивний вплив на наміри споживачів здійснити покупку мають поінформованість
про бренд, сприйнята якість, лояльність до бренду та асоціації з брендом. Встановлено, що впізнаваність бренду
є найбільш важливим фактором впливу на наміри купувати розчинну каву. Автором зазначено, що результати
проведеного дослідження щодо впливу компонентів капіталу бренду на намір купувати розчинну каву мають
теоретичну цінність та заповнюють прогалину в наукових напрацюваннях. До того, результати дослідження
мають практичне значення та можуть бути прийняті до впровадження менеджерами виробників розчинної кави
при розробці маркетингових стратегії, спрямованих на заохочення споживачів купувати розчинну каву.
Ключові слова: впізнаваність бренду, асоціація з брендом, сприйняття якості, лояльність до бренду, капітал
бренду, наміри щодо купівлі, розчинна кава, В'єтнам.

121

You might also like