Tài sản thương hiệu dựa trên góc độ khách hàng trong xây dựng thương hiệu khách sạn: Nghiên cứu thực tế đối với khách sạn 3 sao trên địa bàn thành phố Hà Nội
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
CONSUMER-BASED BRAND EQUITY IN HOTEL BRANDING:
AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON 3-STAR HOTELS LOCATED IN HANOI
TÀI SẢN THƯƠNG HIỆU DỰA TRÊN GÓC ĐỘ KHÁCH HÀNG
TRONG XÂY DỰNG THƯƠNG HIỆU KHÁCH SẠN:
NGHIÊN CỨU THỰC TẾ ĐỐI VỚI KHÁCH SẠN 3 SAO
TRÊN ĐỊA BÀN THÀNH PHỐ HÀ NỘI
MA. Nguyen Thu Huong; MA. Hoang Thi Thu Trang
Thuongmai University
Abstract
This paper analyses the impacts of consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) parts (i.e., brand
loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality) of hotel brands on purchase intention. Through a
study including 105 travellers in Hanoi, it reveals that two CBBE elements relate to directly in-
fluence purchase intention. Results suggest that hospitality service providers could generate pos-
itive customer responses by improving brand equity through different initiatives. Offering
consumers integrated information about a brand from different aspects could enhance their be-
havioral intentions. Managers should provide more accurate estimations of marketing efforts
and organize information input in a more integrated manner to facilitate message processing
and accessibility, which result in increased behavior intention.
Keywords: consumer- based brand equity; hotel branding
Tóm tắt
Nghiên cứu phân tích những tác động của các thành phần tài sản thương hiệu (Lòng trung
thành đối với thương hiệu, Nhận biết thương hiệu, Chất lượng cảm nhận) của thương hiệu các
khách sạn đối với ý định sử dụng dịch vụ. Thông qua việc phân tích 105 khách du lịch đang lưu
trú tại khách sạn 3 sao trên địa bàn thành phố Hà Nội, nghiên cứu đã chỉ ra rằng có hai thành
phần (Nhận biết thương hiệu và Chất lượng cảm nhận) có ảnh hưởng trực tiếp tới ý định sử dụng
dịch vụ của du khách. Bên cạnh đó, kết quả cũng cho thấy rằng các nhà quản trị của khách sạn
có thể tạo ra phản ứng tích cực của khách hàng bằng cách nâng cao tài sản thương hiệu thông
qua các cải tiến khác nhau như cung cấp thông tin đầy đủ và các tính toán chính xác hơn về các
nỗ lực marketing để tạo điều kiện thuận lợi cho việc xử lý thông điệp và khả năng tiếp cận.
Từ khóa: tài sản thương hiệu, xây dựng thương hiệu khách sạn
1. Introduction
The global integration has been attributed to the dramatical increase of tourism service
sector regrading the quantity and quality dimensions. This development has made a change in
hotel’s branding, which require managers to recognize the importance of brands [Yu Xie H. &
Boogs D.J. (2006)]
598
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
Many previous studies indicate that the profound of brands which can impact on
customer’s attachment through creating sensible and emotional feelings of the superior quality
services. This lead to the advantage of companies comparing with their rivals in attracting new
customers and maintaining repeat ones’s loyalty. Moreover, a branded hotel will have the power
to negotiate with partners and suppliers, contributing to the ability of applying more incentives
to their customers [Motameni R. & Sharhrokhi M. (1998)]. On the other hand, a strong hotel
brand will create higher value for customers and larger profit for shareholders [Kotler & Keller.
(2006)].
In branding, hotel services’ brands have many differences from commodity’s brands due
to the distinct characteristics between service and good. Hotels often offer two kind of products
composed of goods sold such as food, beverages, souvenirs and other goods; and services pro-
vided as main services and additional services [Nguyễn Văn Mạnh & Hoàng Thị Lan Hương
(2008)]. In particular, main services including room and catering one satisfy the necessity of
customers; Additional services could consist of swimming pools, spa, events, travel, etc.
Quality of service is measured by customer satisfaction [Parasuraman et al., 1988] and
customers’ overall assessment of each service provided during their stays [Bùi Xuân Nhàn
(2009)]. Ccustomer satisfaction is based on the difference between their perception and expecta-
tions. The expectations of customers will vary depending on standard group of hotels. The mission
of the hotel is to design a level of service quality that is higher than the expectations of customers
and manage system to minimize errors to improve customer perception. In addition, service qual-
ity is positively related to consumers’emotions, service quality is positively related to behavioral
intentions and consumers’emotions are positively related to behavioral intentions. Moreover, the
model postulates that emotional mediated the effect of service quality on behavioral intentions
[Ladhari R. (2009)]. As a result, the hotel needs to create a positive feeling for the customer in
order to influence their buying behavior and loyalty so far.
The changes in the customer behavior in buying process requires a lot of hotel’s adapta-
tion in new competitive market. Building brands for hotel services is not only the implementation
of services activities to satisfy their customers, but more important their follow-through on all
aspects of their customer’s insight. So, through applying consumer-based brand equity model,
hotel managers can apprehend the reason why their target customer chose their hotels instead of
their rivals. As a result, each hotel has the basis of selecting their different points in order to en-
courage brand loyalty to their own services. From all of these above, there is necessary of the re-
search about the impact of consumer-based brand equity toward purchase intention.
2. Background
2.1. Consumer-based brand equity definitions
“Brand equity” is one of the term widely used by groups of academics and businesses over
the world. In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in brand equity studies because
of their effect on business valuation, especially when its results are useful for the purpose of
merge and acquisitions. A considerable amount of literature has been published on brand equity
since the 1980. These previous studies have reported that brand equity has formed in multi di-
mensions, for example financial - based, market - based, customer - based aspects. To date there
599
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
has been little agreement on what its definitions, effects, and measurement methods, but to the
end, most of researches consider that brand equity exists in customer’s mind-set and play a role
as the potential intangible asset to create business’s competitive advantage.
Currently, there is two sides of brand equity researches. The first group, who agree with
using this term, they have done many researches based on Aaker’s model [1996, 1991], and
Keller’s model [2003, 1993]. Aaker [1996, page.17] identifies consumer-based brand equity is
“a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol that adds to or sub-
tracts from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or to that firm’s consumers.”
While Keller [1993] determines “Customer-based brand equity is defined as the differential effect
of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand”, and consumer response
to marketing is defined in terms of consumer perceptions, preferences, and behaviour arising
from marketing mix activity (e.g., brand choice, comprehension of copy points from an ad, reac-
tions to a coupon promotion, or evaluations of a proposed brand extension). The common de-
nominator in all models is adoption of one or more dimensions from the Aaker model such as
Christodoulides and De Chernatony [2010], Liu et al., [2017], Yoo and Donthu [2001]. On that
basis, this research uses three common elements as perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand aware-
ness in CBBE model, and purchase intention as consumer’s response. Purchase intention (or will-
ingness to buy) is the likelihood that a buyer intends to purchase a product or service [Liu et al.,
(2017), Dodds et al., (1991)], brand have an impact on their purchase behaviour [Kotler & Keller
(2012)], brand purchasing intentions are the most important outcome expected from brand per-
ception [Foroudi P., Jin Z., Gupta S., et al. (2018)], and perception with higher level can influence
consumer’s purchase intention [Pappu & Cooksey (2005)], and brand equity increase purchase
intentions and consumer preferences as its consequences [Cobb-Walgren et al., (1995)].
Being on the opposite side of that which the first group agree with “brand equity” term,
several researchers prove both the theoretical and empirical evidence to point that “brand equity”
appearance is vague and it confuse a lot of practices in business management. On the top of this
group is Paul Feldwick who was a former CEO of IBM Group [Feldwick P. (2002)] consider
brand value is a set of brand associations and form a brand description in customer’s mind-set.
It has profound influence on consumer’s buying process, enhancing company’s market perform-
ance shown through their brand preferences and brand loyalty.
Despite of some limitations of the theoretical framework, several authors have done their
research about brand equity in the service sectors in order to test the hypothesis based on the dif-
ferent points of goods and service. In this field, hotel branding and applying consumer - based
brand equity have also been well-thought - of topic research, for example Liu et al., [2017], Cobb-
Walgren et al., [1995], Bill Xu & Chan, [2010], Kayaman & Arasli [2007]. These researches did
not mention about Brand Associations which is the last component of Aaker’s model due to a
duplication of several observed variables belongs to Perceived Quality. Therefore, this research
use (1) Perceived Quality, (2) Brand Loyalty, (3) Brand awareness as 3 components of CBBE
model to examine whether each dimension has direct impact on consumer’s purchase intention
in providing hotel services.
600
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
iBrand loyalty
According Aaker [1996], brand loyalty is the attachment to a brand/ brands consumers
have. Brand loyalty was and is still vital dimension in CBBE model even though some concep-
tualizations position brand loyalty as controversial elements and/or a consequence of brand equity,
which consists of brand awareness and brand associations. The inclusion of brand loyalty as a
part of brand equity allows marketers to justify giving it priority in the brand building budget
[Aaker (2013]. Several long - term benefits could be gained such as the lower elasticity in price
increase and higher one in price decrease, the greater support when brand extensions and co-
branding, brand cooperation exist, the stronger defense against competitors’marketing activities
[Keller (2003)]. Higher brand loyalty could create re-purchase decisions in the next times, and
make the brand as a primary choice when consumers buy related goods and services; Brand loy-
alty can facilitate favorable brand attitude and generate higher consumer’s purchase intention for
hotel brands [Liu et al., (2017)]. Hence,
H1: Brand loyalty has a positive effect on consumer’s purchase intention for hotel
services.
iPerceived Quality
This is one element of the consumer’s brand equity, which is determined as “the con-
sumer’s perception of overall quality or superiority of a product or service with respect to the
product or service’s intended purpose and overall feeling about the brand” (Aaker [1996], Keller
[2013]). Perceived quality is considered a “core/primary” facet across customer-based brand eq-
uity frameworks and customer is likely to perceive the brand as offering superior quality will be-
come more brand loyal [Kayaman R. & Arasli H. (2007)]. In his studies about service quality,
Zeithaml [1998] indicates that there is a wide-speared trend in studying the relationship between
service quality and purchase intentions but they are insufficient works linking purchase intentions
to purchase behaviours. Considering his findings, Liu et al., (2017)] conceptualizes perceived
quality as a brand’s value proposition that renders customers endogenous to value creation, and
embraces a process orientation in the service encounter that has superiority over other hotel
brands. Due to being associated with brand preferences protecting consumers from rivals’ en-
ticement, greater perceived quality is an important advantage of businesses in their competition
[Yoo B. & Donthu N. (2001)]. Hence,
H2: Perceived quality has a positive effect on customer’s purchase intention for hotel
services
iBrand awareness
The most popular element considered in consumer - based brand equity studies is brand
awareness. Brand awareness is the consumer’s ability to recognize and recall a brand [Keller
(1993)]. The creation of brand awareness is the first stage in building brand equity [Aaker (1991)].
Customers will trigger a positive response if they have familiarity of a brand due to having a little
information [Bill Xu J. & Chan A. (2010)]. Hence,
H3: Brand awareness has a positive effect on consumer’s purchase intention for hotel
services.
601
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
iPurchase intention
Purchase intention is a customer plan to buy a specific brand. According to Chang et al.,
[2008], in service branding, ‘purchase intention is the willingness to continue using the service
provided by specific suppliers’. The purchase intention represents the possibility that consumers
will plan to purchase a certain product or service in the future (Wu et al., 2011, cited in [Calvo-
Porral & Lévy-Mangin J.-P. (2017)]. Regarding the approach of Aaker [1996, 1991], brand equity
has a positive impact on the purchase intention of customers, and marketers are interested in un-
derstanding consumer’s purchase intention, so that they are able to properly segment the market
and as a source to their decision making [Ping (2014].
2.2. Hotel branding
Until now, there is few number of researches focusing on hotel branding, divided into
two parts: branding through employees’s attitude and branding through customers’s perceptions.
For the first part, the research showed that to deliver the brand promise, hotels need to emphasize
the unique features of their service offering as reflected in the brand and their employees [King
& Grace D. (2013)]; for the second part, when applying CBBE model, it is important to
understand that:
As Liu et al., [2017] wrote:
“The different effect of each CBBE element on different consumer responses indicates that
marketing efforts on each aspect of CBBE must vary. Managers should provide more accurate
estimations of marketing efforts and organize information input in a more integrated manner to
facilitate message processing and attitude accessibility, which result in increased behavior
intention”
As Kayaman and Arasli [2007] indicated:
“Customer based brand equity is not only valuable tool for hotel practitioners but also for
other service industry practitioners to evaluate their marketing efforts. Necessary feedback can
be obtained from consumers for this evaluation will aid in: identifying service product related
problems; identifying advertising/positioning problems; and also providing feedback to the
employees on where improvements need to be made”
As Bill Xu and Chan [2010] suggested:
“... The input of experiential marketing program with emphasis on the socio-psychological
needs into hotel brand equity management. In other words, hotel companies are able to positively
impact brand equity by ensuring the fulfillment of guests’socio-psychological needs during their
stays.”
In conclusion, research on branding for hotels is still limited in quantity. This is an
opportunity for the authors to continue research and to find theoretical frameworks and practices
to help hotel managers improve overall service performance.
3. Purpose, Question, and Hypothese of Research
This research aims to understand and analyze the effect of each consumer - based brand
equity on purchase intention. Therefore, it is going to focus on two questions:
602
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
Q1. These elements of consumer - based brand equity (Brand awareness, Brand loyalty
and Perceived quality) have a negative or positive effect on consumer’s purchase intention?
Q2. How is the impact of these elements on consumer’s purchase intention?
And 3 hypotheses will be tested including:
H1: Brand awareness has a positive effect on consumer’s purchase intention for hotel
services
H2: Brand loyalty has a positive effect on consumer’s purchase intention for hotel
services
H3: Perceived quality has a positive effect on consumer’s purchase intention for hotel
services
4. Methodology
4.1. Kind of data
This research used the primary data which was collected through questionnaires. We un-
derstood clearly that questionnaires have its own advantages, for example the ease of distribution
within geographical area; and drawbacks, for instance the limit of honesty in correspondents’an-
swers. To keep under control, we designed our questionnaires with structured questions which
are considered and investigated by some specialists in tourism service.
4.2. Questionnaire design
The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect consumer’s assignment about hotel services,
which are to construct perceptual measurements of each dimension in consumer’s brand equity
model.
The questionnaire includes three parts. Part 1 consists of all observed variables of three di-
mensions in CBBE model. In more details, Brand awareness has 3 variables, Brand Loyalty has
4 variables, and Perceived Quality has 11 variables. Purchase intention as a dependent variable,
which is observed through 3 variables. Part 2 is composed of respondent’s demographic charac-
teristics. They are Age group, Gender, Occupation, Current living province. Part 3 is the part for
interviewers with hotel’s general information. A total of 27 questions including 21 ones in part 1
and 6 ones in part 2; on the other hand, 24 structured questions and 3 non - structured questions
(See Table 1)
Table 1. Core items of each dimension in designed questionnaire
CBBE
Items
Original source
elements
Brand
loyalty
I will not stay at other hotels if this hotel is available.
I will not stay at other hotels if this hotel is available.
This hotel is my first choice compared to other hotels
I would not switch to another hotel the next time.
I consider myself to be loyal to this hotel
Yoo et all
(2001)
603
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
Brand
I am aware of the hotel.
Yoo et all
awareness
I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of the hotel.
I can recognize the hotel among other competing brands.
(2001)
Perceived
quality
The staff treat you as a special and valued consumer.
The hotel has up-to-date equipment.
Kim and Kim
(2005)
The appearance of members (clean, neat, appropriately
dressed).
The hotel staff exhibits a good manner.
The hotel provides its services at promised times.
The hotel staff handles complaints of consumers effectively.
The hotel staff actively communicates with consumers.
Attractiveness of the hotel.
The knowledge and confidence of the staff.
The quality of food and beverages.
The hotel staff anticipates your specific needs and serves
you appropriately
Purchase
intention
I will consider staying at this hotel.
I am glad to stay at this hotel.
Moon et al.,
(2008)
I am glad to recommend this hotel to others.
Liu and Brock
(2011)
Source: Liu et al., 2017
4.3. Data collection
With the purpose of this study, the population is all tourists consuming hotel accommoda-
tion services in Hanoi. However, in this study limited resources, the research team focused on
three-star hotels in Hanoi. A list of three-star hotels was recorded on the Tourism Administration’s
database of 37 hotels.
The study uses a random combined with convenient sampling method. Accordingly, the
random sampling method was used to select the hotels participating in the survey. A convenient
method of selecting a respondent is a tourist who is using a hotel accommodation service. The
sample size is based on the standards of the analysis method, this study uses an Exploratory
Factor Analysis to test the validity of scale and a linear multiple regression with the least squares
coefficient model to determine the level of each CBBE element’s impact on consumers’purchase
intention. As a result, a sample size, which is calculated by 5 times the total of these observed
variables, is 105 questionnaires [Hair (2010)].
After calculating the sample size, the authors list all of three stars hotels in Hanoi and select
hotels taking part into. Collaborators moved to these places and discussed to receptionists and
reception managers about survey plans. The number of questionnaires distributed among all hotels
participating in the survey.
4.4. Data analysis
The study used Cronbach’s Alpha to test the reliability of the scale, and the Explore factor
604
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
analysis to determine the validity of the scale. The validity of the scale consists of two parts: con-
vergence and discriminant validity. Convergent validity explores whether or not observed vari-
ables represent the variables to be studied. Discriminant validity indicates that the observation
variable is sufficiently specific to represent the variable being studied.
4.4.1. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient ranges from 0.7 to 0.8, which is very good with a range of
0.8 - 0.95, acceptable between 0.6 and 0.7. And if less than 0.6 are required to exclude from the
study [Hoàng Trọng & Chu Nguyễn Mộng Ngọc (2011)]. If the value of Alpha> 0.95, then the
difference in content on the scale for the observation variable, which means that the same measure
of phenomena [Đinh Bá Hùng Anh & Tô Ngọc Hoàng Kim (2010), page.142]
In order to be able to hold the observation variable, the result of the Cronbach’s Alpha
coefficient of the component scale should satisfy both conditions: (1) the total variance greater
than 0.3; (2) Cronbach’s Alpha if the variable is smaller than the current Cronbach’s Alpha.
Based on the results of the analysis, the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient table is
expressed as:
Table 2. Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Squared Mul- Cronbach’s
Item Deleted
if Item
Deleted
Item-Total tiple Correla- Alpha if Item
Correlation
tion
Deleted
Brand Awareness
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.87
BA.Q1
BA.Q2
BA.Q3
5.94
5.98
5.88
3.785
3.346
3.700
.708
.835
.714
.549
.698
.560
.855
.737
.850
Perceived Quality
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.933
PQ.Q8
34.51
34.43
34.41
34.28
34.50
34.60
34.60
34.63
34.56
34.48
34.66
54.923
56.368
57.188
58.216
56.156
55.447
55.859
56.284
56.340
55.631
57.532
.764
.699
.682
.708
.733
.725
.736
.677
.705
.772
.733
.654
.623
.646
.652
.696
.700
.656
.564
.618
.699
.645
.925
.928
.928
.928
.926
.926
.926
.929
.927
.924
.926
PQ.Q9
PQ.Q10
PQ.Q11
PQ.Q12
PQ.Q13
PQ.Q14
PQ.Q15
PQ.Q16
PQ.Q17
PQ.Q18
605
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
Brand Loyalty
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.86
BL.Q4
BL.Q5
BL.Q6
BL.Q7
10.00
6.984
6.255
6.059
7.435
.705
.753
.744
.635
.549
.599
.561
.436
.823
.801
.807
.849
9.92
9.92
10.03
Purchase Intention
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.882
PI.Q19
PI.Q20
PI.Q21
6.78
3.277
2.929
2.945
.726
.782
.808
.530
.629
.658
.872
.823
.800
6.88
6.74
These tables figure out the high level of reliability. However, the high Cronbach’s Alpha
coefficient is a signal for the duplication of the scale, or it may be assumed that the respondent
thinks that many of the questions are of the same nature.
4.4.2. Validity results
The study used the extraction method Principal Components Analysis with the Varimax
rotation technique. And these conditions to satisfy in factor analysis include: (1) factor loading
values >0.5; (2) 0.5 <= KMO coefficient <= 1; (3) Bartlett’s Test <0.5; (4) Eigenvalues> = 1; (5)
Percentage of variance> at least 50 percentages [Hair (2010)].
Based on the results of the analysis, the results of the first EFA analysis of 3 independent
variables with 21 observed variables and 1 dependent variable with 3 observed variables showed
a violation of factor loading values. The elimination of variables conducted and applies the EFA
analysis successively until the desired result is obtained. Accordingly, the final result shows that
two factors were extracted, and each scale reach the coverngence and discriminant value.
Table 3. Correlation Matrix
BA.Q1 BA.Q2 PQ.Q8 PQ.Q9 PQ.Q10 PQ.Q11
BA.Q1
BA.Q2
BA.Q3
PQ.Q8
PQ.Q9
PQ.Q10
PQ.Q11
1.000
.739
.583
.403
.426
.431
.458
.739
1.000
.747
.484
.384
.402
.492
.583
.747
1.000
.550
.435
.444
.569
.403
.484
.550
1.000
.629
.493
.501
.426
.384
.435
.629
1.000
.662
.507
.431
.402
.444
.493
.662
1.000
.681
.458
.492
.569
.501
.507
.681
1.000
Correlation
Table 4. KMO and Bartlett’s Test
606
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure
of Sampling Adequacy.
.819
Approx. Chi-Square
df
407.082
21
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
Sig.
.000
Table 5. Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative
%
Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative %
Component
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4.152
1.016
.597
.496
.305
.243
.190
59.312
14.520
8.534
7.080
4.362
3.476
2.716
59.312
73.832
82.366
89.446
93.808
97.284
100.000
4.152
1.016
59.312
14.520
59.312
73.832
Table 6. Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1
2
BA.Q1
BA.Q2
BA.Q3
PQ.Q8
PQ.Q9
.823
.911
.792
.690
.849
.852
.705
PQ.Q10
PQ.Q11
5. Findings
In order to conduct hypotheses test, the multiple regression model is used to test and
explain the causal - effect theory. In this study, linear multiple regression is the appropriate method
for validating hypotheses. To test for three hypotheses, the multiple regression model was
developed as follows:
Y = β + β1 X + β X
i 1i 2i 2i
i
0
+ e
i
607
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
With: Y is consumer’s purchase intention; b , b are the normalization coefficient of
i
1i 2i
the regression equation and e is the random error with the normal distribution - the mean is zero
i
- the independent and constant variance; b is the intercept.
0
Correlation: Using Pearson correlation to examine the linear correlation between
dependent and independent variables. This is one of the conditions required by the linear
regression model. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) values range from -1 to 1, and the
significance of this correlation coefficient is statistically significant equal to P (P- <0.005, it can
be concluded that there is a relationship between the dependent variable and the inverse / positive
relationship depending on the direction - or + of r, the degree of correlation depends on the
absolute value of r.
The results shown in the below tables did not show the phenomenon of multi-collinearity
as the results of the test Durbin - Watson du (1.72) <1,757 <2. Thus, it can be concluded that
there is no multi-collinearity in the model. The following table shows the predicted results of the
linear regression model with two independent variables as Brand awareness and Perceived
Quality_2, and one dependent variable as the customer’s purchase intention
Table 7. Model Summaryb
Change Statistics
Model
Durbin-Watson
df2
102a
Sig. F Change
.000
1
1.757
Model Summaryb
Change Statistics
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error
Model
1
R
R Square
.659
R Square F Change
Change
df1
2
of the Estimate
.812a
.652
.58987121
.659
98.448
Table 8. ANOVAa
df
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Square
Model
F
Sig.
.000b
1
Regression
68.509
35.491
2
34.255
.348
98.448
Residual
Total
102
104
104.000
608
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
Table 9. Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Coeffi- Standardized
t
Sig.
Model
cients
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
.058
Beta
.000
9.965
9.879
1.000
.000
.000
1
(Constant)
Perceived Quality_2
1.604E-016
.576
Brand
Awareness
.571
.576
.571
.058
From the above results, some of the statements are given as follows:
Firstly, this model was statistically significant at p <0.001 with a value of F = 98.448
with a statistically significant level of p <0.001 indicating that the multiple regression model was
constructed as consistent with the data be collected.
Secondly, the Adjusted R Square coefficient indicates that the model’s accuracy is 65.2%.
In other words, about 65.2% of the variance of the intention to buy is explained by two
independent variables including Brand Awareness and Perceived Quality_2.
Thirdly, Standardized Coefficients betas were 0.571 and 0.576, with p <0.05 indicating
that this was a good predictor of consumer’s purchase intention. It also shows that Brand
awareness and perceived quality play a similar role in the purchase intention of the travelers.
Foully, based on the above analysis results show that the acceptance of H1 and H3
hypothesis while, for H2 hypothesis, there is insufficient data to confirm whether or not there is
an influence of brand loyalty on the hotel brand of tourists.
Finally, Resutls of data collection for tourists show that brand awareness is very important
to hotel’s customers. Because this is the only element of CBBE that all observed variables are
retained in the data analysis model. In addition, for perceived quality, the comments about staff
and equipment of the hotel are much more than others. In particular, there are three of which
referring to the hotel staff in the total of four observed variables retained.
Consumer’s Purchase Intention = 0.576 * Brand Awareness + 0.571 Perceived Quality 2
6. Conclusions
Based on the CBBE model developed by Aaker [1991], this study shows the relationship
between CBBE and consumer’s purchase intention. The results contribute to the development of
a brand equity theory and an understanding of the theory’s underlying mechanism but also provide
valuable managerial and practical implications for local branding strategies and marketing com-
munication and practices.
This study analyzes direct effects of CBBE elements on purchase intention for hotel
brands. Therefore, it provides evidence of CBBE’s importance in influencing customer responses
for hotel brands. Moreover, results suggest that hospitality service providers can generate positive
customer responses by improving brand equity through different initiatives. Offering consumers
integrated information about a brand from different aspects can enhance their behavioral intentions.
609
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
This study considers an emerging market in a local hotel setting, especially with 3 - stars
hotels. Results provide practical guidelines for managers and marketers in the local hotel industry
to balance their resources and efforts in marketing activities to improve marketing effectiveness.
The role of brand equity could help managers understand brand equity’s role in consumers’eval-
uation and decision-making processes. The different effect of each CBBE element on different
consumer responses indicates that marketing efforts on each aspect of CBBE must vary. Managers
should provide more accurate estimations of marketing efforts and organize information input in
a more integrated manner to facilitate message processing and attitude accessibility, which result
in increased behavior intention.
7. Limitation
This study has several limitations. First of all, some previous researches indicated that
there has had a relationship between brand equity elements, which we did not test within our
model research. Secondly, the random and convenience sampling method suffers from common
methods bias (CMB) and nonresponse bias. Thirdly, this study is restricted to the 3 - stars hotels
of one geographic area. Future studies can replicate this study in a different area with various
service brands to determine generalizability. Finally, the sample of respondents is composed of
tourists and business travelers, but this research did not examine whether a significant difference
exists in CBBE among demographic variables, among repeat and first-time guests... Future studies
can investigate the relationship between CBBE model and various consumer groups.
REFERENCE
Book:
1. Aaker D.A. (1996), Building strong brands, Free Press, New York.
2. Aaker D.A. (1991), Managing brand equity: capitalizing on the value of a brand name,
Free Pressꢀ; Maxwell Macmillan Canadaꢀ; Maxwell Macmillan International, New Yorkꢀ:
Torontoꢀ: New York.
3. Keller K.L. (2003), Strategic brand management: building, measuring, and managing
brand equity, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
4. Kotler P. and Keller K.L. (2012), Marketing management, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, N.J.
5. Feldwick P. (2002), What is brand equity, anyway? selected papers on brands and ad-
vertising, World Advertising Research Center, Oxfordshire.
6. Hair J.F., ed. (2010), Multivariate data analysis, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
7. Trọng H. and Ngọc C.N.M. (2011), Thống kê ứng dụng trong kinh tế - xã hội, Nhà xuất
bản Lao động - Xã hội.
8. Anh Đ.B.H. and Kim T.N.H (2010). Nghiên cứu khoa học trong kinh tế - xã hội, Nhà
xuất bản Kinh tế Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh.
610
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
Journals:
1. Yu Xie H. and Boogs D.J. (2006). Corporate branding versus product branding in emerg-
ing markets: A conceptual framework. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(4), 347–364.
2. Motameni R. and Sharhrokhi M. (1998). Brand equity valuation: a global perspective.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 7(4), 275–290.
3. Kotler P. and Keller K.L. (2006), Holistic Marketing: A Broad, Intergrated Perspective
to Maketing Management, M.E Sharpe.
4. Bùi Xuân Nhàn. (2009), Tourism Marketing, Statistics Publishing House.
5. Ladhari R. (2009). Service quality, emotional satisfaction, and behavioural intentions:
A study in the hotel industry. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 19(3),
308–331.
6. Keller K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand
Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1.
7. Christodoulides G. and De Chernatony L. (2010). Consumer-based brand equity con-
ceptualization and measurement: A literature review. International Journal of Market Research,
52(1), 43–66.
8. Liu M.T., Wong I.A., Tseng T.-H., et al. (2017). Applying consumer-based brand equity
in luxury hotel branding. Journal of Business Research, 81, 192–202.
9. Yoo B. and Donthu N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-
based brand equity scale. Journal of business research, 52(1), 1–14.
10. Dodds W.B., Monroe K.B., and Grewal D. (1991). Effects of Price, Brand, and Store
Information on Buyers’ Product Evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307–319.
11. Foroudi P., Jin Z., Gupta S., et al. (2018). Perceptional components of brand equity:
Configuring the Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Paths to brand loyalty and brand purchase in-
tention. Journal of Business Research.
12. Pappu R., Quester P.G., and Cooksey R.W. (2005). Consumer‐based brand equity: im-
proving the measurement – empirical evidence. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(3),
143–154.
13. Cobb-Walgren C., Cynthia R., and Naveen D. (1995). Brand equity, Brand preference,
and Purchase Intention. Journal of Advertising, 24(3).
14. Bill Xu J. and Chan A. (2010). A conceptual framework of hotel experience and cus-
tomer‐based brand equity: Some research questions and implications. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(2), 174–193.
15. Kayaman R. and Arasli H. (2007). Customer based brand equity: evidence from the
hotel industry. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 17(1), 92–109.
16. Aaker D.A. (2013). What Is Brand Equity and Why is it Valuable?.
<https://www.prophet.com/2013/09/156-what-is-brand-equity-and-why-is-it-valuable/>.
611
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
17. Zeithaml V.A. (2000). Service Quality, Profitability, and the Economic Worth of Cus-
tomers: What We Know and What We Need to Learn. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-
ence, 28(1), 67–85.
18. Chang H.H., Hsu C.-H., and Chung S.H. (2008). The Antecedents and Consequences
of Brand Equity in Service Markets. Asia Pacific Management Review, 25.
19. Calvo-Porral C. and Lévy-Mangin J.-P. (2017). Store brands’ purchase intention: Ex-
amining the role of perceived quality. European Research on Management and Business Eco-
nomics, 23(2), 90–95.
20. Ping L. (2014). Factors affecting purchase intention towards smartphone brand: A study
of young female adult consumers. 105.
21. King C., So K.K.F., and Grace D. (2013). The influence of service brand orientation
on hotel employees’ attitude and behaviors in China. International Journal of Hospitality Man-
agement, 34, 172–180.
22. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple item
scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing,Vol. 64, pp.
12 - 40.
Appendix
Appendix A - List of 3 - stars hotels in Hanoi
Hotels
Lake side Hotel
Paradise
District (in Hanoi)
Ba Dinh
Number of Rooms Year of certification
78
62
61
55
50
115
51
58
56
50
60
66
54
125
60
50
50
52
64
1997
2010
2011
2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
Ba Dinh
Thang Long Opera
Golden Silk Boutique
Khan quang do
Lan Vien
Hoan Kiem
Hoan Kiem
Ba Dinh
Hoan Kiem
Ba Dinh
Danly
Royal Gate
Ba Dinh
Cau Giay
Cau Giay
Sen
Cau Giay
Sen 2
Cau Giay
Hanoi La Rosa
A 25 ASEAN
Cong doan Viet Nam
Hanoi Pearl
Golden Cyclo
Sen Vang
Dong Da
Dong Da
Hai Ba Trung
Hoan Kiem
Hoan Kiem
Hoan Kiem
Hoan Kiem
Hoan Kiem
Authentic Hanoi
Medallion Hanoi
612
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
Cong doan Quang Ba
Hoa Nam
Tay Ho
Ung Hoa
2014
2014
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2016
2016
2016
2016
2017
2017
2017
55
73
50
57
56
52
50
100
50
88
60
35
53
50
85
62
50
Riverside Hanoi
Minh Cuong
Eastin Easy GTC
Eden
Cau Giay
Dong Anh
Dong Da
Hai Ba Trung
Hoan Kiem
Hoan Kiem
Hoan Kiem
Hoan Kiem
Hoan Kiem
Ba Vi
Ladolce Vita
Super Hanoi Old Quarter
Mecure Hanoi La Gare
Boss Legend
Hoa Binh
Tan Da
Hancio
Asia
La Siesta
Dong Da
Hai Ba Trung
Hoan Kiem
Ba Dinh
Cau Giay
Dong Da
Kuratake Inn
My Way
Sao Mai
Source: Vietnam Tourism ( http://vietnamtourism.gov.vn/index.php/cat/97)
Appendix C - Descriptive statistics
BA. BA. BA. BL. BL. BL. BL. PQ. PQ. PQ. PQ. PQ. PQ. PQ. PQ. PQ. PQ. PQ. PI. PI. PI.
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21
mode
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
median
mean
3.0 2.9 3.0 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.5
1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9
Standard
deviation
min
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
2
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
max
613
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
Appendix B - Characteristics of the Respondents
614
17 trang
15880
Free
Bạn đang xem tài liệu "Tài sản thương hiệu dựa trên góc độ khách hàng trong xây dựng thương hiệu khách sạn: Nghiên cứu thực tế đối với khách sạn 3 sao trên địa bàn thành phố Hà Nội", để tải tài liệu gốc về máy hãy click vào nút Download ở trên
File đính kèm:
- tai_san_thuong_hieu_dua_tren_goc_do_khach_hang_trong_xay_dun.pdf
