Construct · 6 names · 9 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · one name, two rival constructs Nearest construct by meaningresonancecompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to brand equity is resonance.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
A set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand's name and symbol that add to or subtract from the value a product provides to a firm and its customers. Aaker fixed the list in his 1991 book (brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality, brand loyalty, and other proprietary assets such as patents and channel relationships) and in 1996 proposed the Brand Equity Ten, a set of measures for tracking them across products and markets. The construct is a managerial inventory: equity is whatever the brand owns that helps it, and the four consumer-facing assets are listed side by side rather than derived from one mechanism. That is the difference from Keller, who starts from a single psychological effect.[1][2]
Aaker's assets turned into a ten-item Likert instrument, validated in 2001 on American, Korean, and Korean-American samples across athletic shoes, film, and television sets. Yoo and Donthu found that awareness and associations collapsed into one factor, giving three dimensions (brand loyalty, perceived quality, and awareness/associations) plus a separate four-item overall brand equity measure that asks whether the respondent would choose the brand over an identical unbranded alternative. The scale made brand equity a survey construct with a reliability coefficient, and the overall measure quietly adopts Keller's differential-response logic while the dimensions keep Aaker's. Most empirical papers that say they measured brand equity mean this.[4]
The differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand: a brand has positive equity when consumers react more favourably to an element of the marketing mix when the brand is identified than when it is not. Keller fixed the definition in 1993 and located the cause in brand knowledge, an associative network of brand awareness and brand image in memory. Equity here is an effect, not an inventory; awareness and associations are its antecedents rather than its components, and the criterion is a comparison between branded and unbranded response. The rivalry with Aaker is over whether equity is a list of assets or the consequence of one.[3]
The differential effect that brand knowledge has on an employee's response to internal brand management, Keller's definition with the customer replaced by the worker. King and Grace named it in 2009 as a third perspective after the financial and customer-based ones, and in 2010 built and tested a model in which information generation, knowledge dissemination, and openness produce role clarity and brand commitment, which produce brand-consistent behaviour and brand endorsement. The referent is the firm's own staff, the criterion is on-brand behaviour rather than purchase, and the concept borrows Keller's mechanism for a population whose relation to the brand is contractual. Employer-brand studies that cite consumer findings have crossed this line.[5][6]
The incremental cash flows that accrue to branded products over and above what the same products would earn unbranded. Simon and Sullivan fixed the definition in 1993 and extracted it from stock-market data: the firm's market value less the replacement cost of its tangible assets, with brand equity separated from other intangibles by a regression on advertising, order of entry, and industry structure. Practitioner valuation, which Salinas and Ambler taxonomised in 2009, takes the same object by a different route, the Interbrand method forecasts brand earnings, isolates the share attributable to the brand, and discounts it at a rate set by brand strength. The unit is money on a balance sheet, no consumer is surveyed, and nothing here is multidimensional.[7][8]
The protectable goodwill that attaches to a mark, and the injury a famous mark suffers when an unrelated use blurs its distinctiveness or tarnishes it. Dilution doctrine, codified in the United States in 1995 and revised in 2006, assumes that the mark holds something like a stock of associations that a second user can deplete without confusing anyone. Tushnet examined that assumption against the cognitive-science evidence and found that the harm the statute posits is not demonstrated: the experiments cited for it measure milliseconds of response-time interference, not lost sales or lost meaning. The legal meaning is a right against others rather than a quantity, and it borrows the marketing vocabulary of brand value to justify protection the marketing evidence does not supply.[9]
Next
Combine items across the brand equity scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct